16 pages, Agricultural extension is one of the essential services that are offered by the South African Department of Agriculture, Land Reform, and Rural Development (DALRRD), to facilitate agricultural development in rural communities. The significance of agricultural extension is that it offers new knowledge to farmers and allows space for growth through various interventions such as agrarian transformation and improving livelihoods through the promotion of agriculture as a vehicle for ‘pro-poor’ economic growth. However, there is a concern that extension services are invisible in resource-restricted and previously marginalised rural communities. The study presented in this paper examined farmer’s experiences with extension practitioners and the impact of a lack of extension services on the development of impoverished rural communities. The researchers adopted a qualitative design wherein six focus group discussions were held to gather data from the farmers. Data were analyzed using ATLAS.ti22, a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS). Four themes of extension services that have a direct linkage to livelihood development, namely, the impact on rural livelihoods, production challenges, marketability, and economic impact, and the invisibility of extension services, were the central point of discussion.
19 pages, Extension support is viewed as an enabler of food security. However, the literature reveals that extension within the public sector in South Africa is not yet geared to satisfy the needs of resource-poor smallholder producers to break away from poverty and food insecurity. This paper is aimed at reviewing budget allocation and public expenditure on agricultural extension support services to provide evidence-based recommendations to inform the implementation of the national policy on extension and advisory services. The study was conducted using budget allocation and expenditure data collected through a survey questionnaire directed at nine provincial departments of agriculture. The problem investigated was to establish whether the budget allocated to provincial extension services would be sufficient to implement the extension policy. Data analysis employed descriptive statistics including t-tests of differences in means. The study has delivered several findings: a). The budget execution rates were high for both the extension practitioners and the farmer programmes, with budget execution for farmer programmes being better than that for extension practitioners. b). The budget trends indicate an efficient system of budget execution for the benefit of the farmers. c). There were statistically significant differences between mean budget allocation for extension practitioners and farmer programmes. d). It was further found that the differences between the mean expenditure on extension practitioners and mean expenditure on farmer programmes were statistically significant. e). Consistent with budget allocation, mean expenditure on farmer programmes was higher than mean expenditure on extension practitioners leading to the conclusion that farmer programmes spent significantly higher than extension practitioners in the five financial years. f). On the other hand, it was found that the cost of implementing the newly developed national policy on extension and advisory services was found to be greater than the current budget allocation. The paper concluded that the budget allocation was insufficient, yet farmers received value for money.
