Musonza-PG.Pdf (1.076Mb)

BINDURA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE EDUCATION FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES DEPARTMENT OF PEACE AND GOVERNANCE

CHALLENGES FACED BY A1 FARMERS OF FAST TRACK LAND REFORM PROGRAMME: CASE STUDY OF DUNKERRY FARM, MATEPATEPA AREA IN BINDURA DISTRICT (2000-2014)

MUSONZA EFFORT B1233404

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PEACE AND GOVERNANCE, FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE BACHELOR OF SCIENCE HONORS DEGREE IN PEACE AND GOVERNCE

DECEMBER 2015

1 i

DECLARATION AND RELEASE FORM

NAME OF AUTHOR: MUSONZA EFFORT

STUDENT NUMBER: (B1233404)

DISSERTATION TITLE: CHALLENGES FACED BY A1 FARMERS OF FAST TRACK LAND REFORM PROGRAMME, CASE STUDY OF DUNKERRY FARM, MATEPATEPA AREA IN BINDURA DISTRICT (2000- 2014).

Degree Title : HBSC PEACE AND GOVERNANCE Year : 2015

I Musonza Effort studying HBSC Peace and Governance, cognizant of the facts that plagiarism is a serious academic offence and that falsifying information is a breach of ethics of the programme being undertaken by the student. I granted permission to the university to use this report for educational purposes.

Permanent Home Address: Dombawera Primary School, P. Bag 800, Matepatepa Bindura Student Name ……………………………………………….. Signature ……………………………………………………… Date …………………………………………………………….

APPROVAL FORM

The undersigned certify that they read and recommend to the Bindura University of

Science Education for acceptance. A dissertation entitled: Challenges faced by A1 farmers of Fast Track Land Reform Programme, case study of Dunkerry farm,

Matepatepa area in Bindura District (2000-2014). Submitted by Musonza

Effort in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Bachelor of Science Honors

Degree in Peace and Governance.

Student Name …………………………….…… Date ………………………

Signature……..…………………………………

Supervisor Name…………………………….… Date ………………………

Signature..……………………………….……..

Department Chairman Name…………………… Date…………………………

Signature……...………………………………....

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Several individuals contributed to the completion of this work. Their valuable contributions are sincerely acknowledged.

First and foremost, my thanks go to Mr. Katsinde my lecturer and supervisor for the guidance he gave me during the research and writing of this study.

I would also like to acknowledge the support of my fellow Peace and Governance students and my friends thank you for your help, ideas and encouraging words for the success of this research study. I would like to thank all those who in various capacities and at various times of my study helped me.

iii

DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to my beloved parent Mrs Musonza, may Lord richly bless you for the love and support, to press on even it was a hard fought war is deeply appreciated. To her I say thank you Mom. My brothers; Emmerson, Brian and Batsi you are very special to me and is thanked for being members of the family.

I am forever indebted to you Mr & Mrs (Rev) Kaniwa (Sekuru and Gogo) and family for the love and support. May God bless you.

Above all, I praise God the Almighty for granting me the opportunity to study Peace and

Governance. I would like to thank His love and guidance as I wandered in the academic wilderness, arriving finally at this study.

ACRONYMS

AASR African Agricultural Status Report

AGRIBANK Agricultural Development Bank of Zimbabwe

BSAC British South Africa Company

CHS Commission on Human Security

FTLRP Fast Track Land Reform Programme

GMB Grain Marketing Board

GoZ Government of Zimbabwe

NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations

Zanu-PF Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front

ZimVAC Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee

ABSTRACT

The study aimed at disclosing the challenges faced by the beneficiaries of the Fast Track

Land Reform Programme of 2000 specifically at Dunkerry farm in Matepatepa area. The study was to make an improved understanding on the causes of low agricultural production and the effects on the livelihoods of the society in Zimbabwe. Informing this research study was the Human Security Theory which linked previous research and present understanding of the study. The study was undertaken using the case study approach. The target population was 30 A1 farmers at Dunkerry Farm, an extension worker and AGRI bank officer. The study employed simple random sampling and purposive sampling technique. The data collection instruments were questionnaires and interviews. Data collected was presented and analyzed through tables and thematic analysis respectively. Results obtained showed that the A1 farmers at Dunkerry farm are facing a number of challenges which are lack of financial capital, lack access to inputs, less improved farming equipment and agricultural education.

The fore named challenges, some are being influenced by unfairness distribution of government resources that is corruption and national economic crisis. The study findings showed that A1 farming industry is not being viable due to encountered challenges. This resulted on little contribution of A1 farming at national level on agricultural production, particularly food shortages at family level. Therefore, government and non-governmental effort is needed to address the challenges in order to totally transform the A1 farmer performance since they can make an impact at national agricultural level.

Contents DECLARATION AND RELEASE FORM ...... i APPROVAL FORM ...... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii DEDICATION ...... iv ACRONYMS ...... v ABSTRACT ...... vi CHAPTER 1 ...... 1 1.1 Background to the Study ...... 1 1.2 Statement of the problem ...... 2 1.3 Aim of the study ...... 3 1.4 Research objectives ...... 3 1.5 Research questions ...... 3 1.6 Justification ...... 3 1.7 Significance of the study ...... 4 1.8 Assumptions ...... 4 1.9 Delimitation of the study ...... 4 1.10 Limitations of the study ...... 5 1.11 Key definition ...... 5 1.12 Ethical consideration ...... 6 1.13 Chapter summary ...... 6 CHAPTER 2 ...... 8 2.0 Introduction ...... 8 2.1 Theoretical Framework ...... 8 2.1.1 Human Security ...... 9 2.2 Financial assistance ...... 10 2.3 Farming equipment ...... 12 2.4 Agricultural education...... 14 2.5 Government efforts to address challenges being faced by A1 farmers ...... 16 2.6 Summary ...... 17 CHAPTER 3 ...... 18 3.0 Introduction ...... 18

vii

3.1 Research Design: Case study ...... 18 3.2 Study Area ...... 19 3.3 Target Population ...... 19 3.4 Sample...... 19 3.5 Sample Techniques ...... 20 3.5.1 Purposive Sampling ...... 20 3.5.2 Simple random sampling ...... 21 3.6 Ethical consideration ...... 21 3.7 Preparation for Field Work and Pilot Survey ...... 22 3.8 Data Collection Procedure ...... 22 3.9 Research Instruments ...... 23 3.9.1 Questionnaires ...... 23 3.9.2 Interviews ...... 23 3.10 Data Presentation and Analysis Procedure ...... 25 3.11 Summary ...... 25 CHAPTER 4 ...... 25 4.0 Introduction ...... 26 4.1 Demographic Characteristics ...... 26 Table 4.1 Biographical data of Respondents (30) ...... 26 4.2 Challenges being faced by A1 Farmers ...... 28 4.2.1 Finance access ...... 28 Table 4.2 Financial access...... 29 4.2.2 Agricultural equipment ...... 32 Table 4.3 Agricultural equipment ...... 33 4.2.3 Agricultural education...... 36 Table 4.4 Farmer education...... 36 4.3 Summary ...... 40 CHAPTER 5 ...... 41 5.0 Introduction ...... 41 5.1 Summary of the whole project ...... 41 5.2 Research constraints ...... 42 5.1.2 Summary of findings ...... 42

viii

5.3 Conclusion ...... 43 Recommendations ...... 43 REFERENCE ...... 45 Journal Articles ...... 48 APPENDICES ...... 49 Appendix 1: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR A1 FARMERS ...... 49 Appendix 2: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR KEY INFORMANT ...... 53 Appendix 3: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR KEY INFORMANT ...... 55 Appendix 4: APPROVAL LETTERS...... 56

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study The challenges being faced by A1 farmers cannot be underestimated, as it has turn into a critical issue in the whole humanity. Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) has not been just reached rapidly it was a process which took some many years for its birth. Cecil John Rhodes detained Zimbabwe’s best agricultural land in 1888 through the support of British South Africa Company (BSAC) (Skalnes, 1995). Marongwe (2000) posits that the advent of European colonist occupation of Zimbabwe in September 1890 was the beginning of the dispossession of blacks of their land. The 1893 invasion of the Ndebele Kingdom leading to the creation of the Gwaai and Shangani reserves, which have poor fertile soils, low rainfall range and poor living conditions. The Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) has been seen as appropriately to address imbalances in land access while alleviating population pressure in the communal areas, extend and improve the base for productive agriculture in the smallholder farming sector, and to bring idle or underutilized land into full production (Chinake, 1997), despite the challenges being faced by A1 farmers. The imbalance in land access shows how majority blacks were marginalized for their own land by the white colonialist.

According to Matondi (2009), the contentious Lancaster House Constitutional negotiations and the Agreement in 1979 and, as already stated the current internal political developments, all bear testimony to the centrality of the land issue in the country’s history. Hall (2009) argued that, regardless of the failure by both Zanu PF and PF Zapu at the Lancaster House Conference in 1979 to triumph in making wholesale land redistribution a priority, the land issue nonetheless threatened to cause the breakdown of the negotiations. Rukuni (1994) concurs that the gridlock was also broken after American and British interlocutors offered aid to pay for extensive resettlement on a ‘willing buyer willing seller’ basis. The entrenchment of and protection of private property rights, which only permitted land acquisition in the first

decade through a ‘willing buyer – willing seller approach,’ included the provision that payments for such land were to be made in the currency of the seller’s choice.

This marked the origins of colonial rule which prompted the liberation struggle. Zimbabwe eventually attained self-government in 1980. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Report (2002) argued that Zimbabwe inherited a racially unbalanced system of land ownership.

The land issue reached its peak on July 2000 when then majority blacks took a step further and embarked on taking their land back from the colonisers to fulfil the economic independence. Sachikonye (2003) records that the FTLRP began in 2000 with the intent to redress land inequity. According to Sachikonye (2003), 300,000 black farmers were issued with 5 to 10 hectares of land and in the region of 51,000 black commercial farmers were also issued with land under the FTLRP. At the end of 2002, 11.5 million hectares were reassigned from white commercial farmers to black Zimbabweans to address land inequalities.

In developing countries, including Zimbabwe, studies have not been properly and exhaustively carried out to the knowledge of the current researcher, in the field of issues hampering A1 farmers in Zimbabwe. It is against this background that the researcher has deemed it necessary to embark on a study; Challenges faced by A1 farmers of Fast Track Land Reform Programme: The Case Study of Dunkery farm in Matepatepa Area. Hence, this study is an attempt to fill that gap. According to Director Da Silva of Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) 26 January 2015 there is no peace without food security and in fact there is no security if there is no food security. In this study, the researcher paid special attention on viability of A1 farming, what challenges are being faced basing on position of Food security to farmers. The issues will be discussed in detail in Chapter two.

1.2 Statement of the problem The Fast Track Land Reform Programme in Zimbabwe started in 2000, this study is conducted after 15 years of its implementation. Despite for the whole decade and five years,

food shortages, famine as well as poverty is still order of the day to the empowered beneficiaries due to low agricultural production nationwide as the nation is still importing maize from countries like Zambia. Yet FTLRP has been executed as food security and poverty alleviating tool while empowering the majority blacks at the same time. Thus, this study is an attempt to fill that gap and persuade government and other nongovernmental organizations to cooperate in addressing challenges faced by the A1 farmers in Matepatepa area who benefitted from the Government of Zimbabwe FTLRP to enhance high agricultural production to enable food security.

1.3 Aim of the study The research seeks to evaluate how the A1 farmers can be assisted to maximize in the agricultural production after identifying the root cause for farmers to produce low yields.

1.4 Research objectives 1. To examine if A1 farmers are accessing financial assistance. 2. To examine whether A1 farmers have equipment for production. 3. To assess if the extension workers are disseminating agricultural information to A1 farmers.

1.5 Research questions 1. What financial assistance are A1 farmers accessing? 2. What farming equipment do A1 farmers have for their production? 3. What agricultural education are A1 farmers receiving from the extension workers?

1.6 Justification

The study findings would assist the government to design an evaluation on how A1 farmers would be assisted in maximizing agricultural production. The research results are expected to inform the government and other Civil Society Organisations in general and relevant policy makers in particular about the extent on the land allocation process relating to challenges

being faced by A1 farmers. In addition, the study findings could feed into government policy review and formulation process in order to enhance food availability and poverty alleviation in the country. It is my concern that if nothing is done in this field, A1 farmers present and future in Zimbabwe will lie in a precarious position.

1.7 Significance of the study

A study which explores the challenges being faced by A1 farmers has significant contribution to make to the socio-economic body of knowledge to Zimbabwe and in a way, to the whole world. The study provides improved understanding of a long-term development disaster of Agricultural Production with regard to A1 farmers in Zimbabwe. Such improved understanding contributes some needs of future humanitarian workers, especially governmental and non-governmental Agricultural related organizations in preparing to support the A1 farmers. It also informs welfare policy makers on the challenges for policy analysis and alterations with regard to low productive A1 farmers. The findings of this study will help the policy makers in responding intelligently to the low productive A1 farmers.

1.8 Assumptions This research is based on the following assumptions: 1. Researcher assumes that the A1 farmers are facing a number of challenges in the exercise of their industry at Dunkerry farm in Matepatepa area. 2. The researcher has an assumption that only few A1 farmers are able to manage farming industry progressively.

1.9 Delimitation of the study Given the background of the Zimbabwean land issue, the research is to review the period from 2000 to 2014 basing on the challenges being faced by the beneficiaries of FTLRP. A survey is to be conducted in Matepatepa area in Bindura District, Bindura North in Mashonaland Central Province. In this region is where most of its population relies on agriculture for their sustenance especially that quota of those who have benefited from the

FTLRP. Matepatepa farming area is in Bindura district located 88 kilometres north-east of Harare. The area is in the agro-ecological region 2``, which is specialised and diversified farming region. The policy process have two main models, one focused on smallholder production so called A1 model and another on commercial production at larg scale so called A2 model. The researcher is going to focus on smallholder farmers. Matepatepa is one of the areas which the majority citizens of Zimbabwe benefited from the FTLRP of 2000.

1.10 Limitations of the study

The study is only limited to Bindura District and the research study results will not be similar in other parts of the country. Therefore A1 farmers will not be generalised as the situation of A1 farmers in Bindura District are not the same as other parts of Zimbabwe.

Language is also going to limit the result of the study because the questionnaires are going to be printed in English and some old people in the farm don’t understand the language. Therefore the researcher is going to use both English and Shona to get relevant and accurate information relevant to the study. Time constrains, is also going to delay the results of the study because a larger sample will not be reached on the expected time.

1.11 Key definition This section looks into the working definitions of the terms that will be used in the context of this study. The terms include the following: Land reform is the redistribution of agricultural land by breaking up large landholdings and apportioning shares to small farmers, peasants, (Mahenehene 2010). Land reform can, therefore, refer to transfer of ownership from the more powerful to the less powerful, such as from a relatively small number of wealthy owners with extensive land holdings to individual ownership by those who work the land. Human security is the provision of lasting peace through a broader vision encompassing people-centred components such as education, and health, democracy and human rights, basic human needs, protection against environmental degradation, alleviation of poverty and building freedom on just foundations.

Food security was defined as a situation in which all households have both physical and economic access to adequate food for all members, and where households are not at a risk of losing such access (World Food Summit in 1996) Peace means more than the absence of violence, threats and discrimination. It means freedom from fear and want. This understanding of peace is informed by the view point that peace affects human life because it is based on universal values and everyday practice at all levels – the family, the school, the community, as well as the nation. Thus, peace can also be understood as human security. Policy is a blue print which guides the Government for the achievement of desired goals. It may be defined as a public need assuming importance and as far as possible, appropriately assessed for its actual fulfilment. It is there to address a public problem as was the case of land in Zimbabwe (Marongwe 2010).

1.12 Ethical consideration Before carrying out the study, there will be ethical considerations that will be done. These considerations may include community protocol, confidentiality, anonymity, informed consent as well as voluntary participation. Traditional hierarchy structures had to be observed before collecting data from the farming community. Through the Area Field Officer, protocol is to be observed to seek authority from the local traditional leaders to collect data in the farming community. Since the study is to be deemed politically sensitive and hence the researcher has to assure respondents that the data collected would be treated confidentially and would be used for purely academic purposes. Again, Anonymity is also emphasised in order to allow respondents to be free in expressing views concerning the challenges they are facing in the farming industry. Lastly, consent will be sought at household level to speak to minors where the need arises for further probing.

1.13 Chapter summary This chapter covers the background which is the source of the A1 farmers’ challenges, statement of the problem which is the challenges being faced by A1 farmers. The aims, objectives and justification of the study are also clearly outlined in this chapter. What the

researcher assumes about the study, its limitations and delimitations is also clearly elaborated in this chapter. The next chapter will be on review of related literature.

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction This chapter reviews the literature related to the fast track land reform in Dunkerry farm, Matepatepa area, Bindura District. Focus is mainly on challenges faced by the small scale newly resettled farmers. Literature review is significant to this study because it disclosures the researcher to some researchers who have done work in the same area of study. According to Anderson and Arsenaut (1999:65) “… a successful research approach is simplified if structured into some type of context which relates previous research and current understandings to first-hand questions which can then be tolerably explored. The aim of this review is to find, justify and validate the research gaps that exist in the subject area, critically analyze the conceptual and empirical background of the subject matter and identify important developments in the area. Thus, this section intends to set the theoretical background, which channelled the examination and analysis of thematic problems under review, showing government responses to the challenges faced by farmers, identify different viewpoints, and highlight on areas of controversy and critically evaluate the strengths and weakness of previous studies. The chapter also discusses the theoretical framework informing this study.

2.1 Theoretical Framework This study employs the “Human Security Theory” as the theoretical framework. A theoretical framework is a collection of interrelated concepts. It guides the research, defining what issues to measure and what relationships to look for (Borggati, 1996). A theoretical framework is important in any research study because it “helps to clarify the problem and help to control the best approach to its resolution” (Anderson and Arsenaut, 1999:57). The task at this point is to discuss this theory in detail in order to have a knowledgeable understanding of the subject under study.

2.1.1 Human Security

The concept of human security has its origin in the Cold War. Consequently, it was considered and understood in warmongering terms. However, since the end of the Cold War, the concept of security has changed to encompass quite a number of relevant elements in today’s world as there have been marked paradigm shifts from the customarily understood state-centric realist paradigm of security to a human-centred one. The 1994 UNDP report departed from the traditional meaning of security and has its opinion of reference on individuals rather than the state and military. In 1945 the United States Secretary of state argued that the world would never have security from war, “if men and women do not have security in their homes and in their jobs” (UNDP, 1994:24). In line of this view, the UNDP came up with seven fundamentals that are enshrined in human security as follows: Food Security (physical and economic access to food), Economic Security (having an assured basic income), Health Security (access to basic healthcare), Environmental Security (access to clean water, clean air, ecological integrity), Personal Security (freedom from physical violence and threats, right to human dignity and freedom of person), Community Security (cultural integrity) and Political Security (protection of civil rights, freedoms and responsibilities). Elaborating on the above definition of human security, the Commission on Human Security (CHS) resonances that, “the objective of human security is to protect the vital core of all human survival from… pervasive threats in a technique that is consistent with long-term accomplishment” (CHS, 2001). helps to clarify the problem and help to control the best approach to its resolution

Investigation shows that the shared ground for these schools of thought on human security emphasises on the individual as opposed to the state. One can also say that human security incorporates both human rights and human needs, hence the need to use it in approaching crucial issues such as food shortages as well as poverty.

Reardon (2001:128) also concurs with the idea that security should be perceived in human terms. She asserts that the meeting of basic human needs for physical security and human growth as well as universal respect for and fulfilment of all human rights for all people brings about the security of all humanity. Eade (1998) also experiential that the traditional meaning

of security ignored to a very large extent, the well-being of the individual as the main thrust was put on state security.

The human security theory is applicable to this study because the expansive nature of this theory provides a broader framework for analysing the topic under study. The theory encompasses issues of human needs and human rights. Health is an “instrumental” to human security because good health through easy access to food enables the full range of human functioning. Health permits human choice, freedom, and development (Chen, 2004) Hence, the thrust of this study is on the challenges faced by A1 farmers which contribute low agricultural production in Zimbabwe. In essence, the human security theory is relevant to this study because it attempts to overcome both direct and indirect violence for it is designed to improve conditions in health and poverty eradication.

2.2 Financial assistance Farmers’ access to credit has always been a difficult matter. According to United Nations (UN) (2004) access to finance is one of the major constraints facing millions of resource- constrained African smallholder farmers according to previous conducted research. Hence, lack of access to financial support schemes prevents the farmers from investing in agricultural technologies that can help them achieve higher agricultural productivity and limit their participation in market. Therefore, the position of small scale farming is affected due to funding strains in Africa as claimed by UN, and the researcher still need to investigate if the case is similar to Dunkerry farm.

The state agricultural production has failed to an extent that it produces insufficient only for consumption. According to a Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC) Report (2009), the number of households consuming three meals a day declined from 54 % in 2006 to 23 % in 2009, and many households had to sell their assets, including livestock, to purchase food. One may argued that if some assets were being sold for sourcing of food for consumption, what will be the means for sourcing agricultural inputs for the whole season. Financial assistance will be necessary to A1 farmers as to ensure efficiency in agricultural production. Before the land reform, the Grain Marketing Board (GMB) silos were full while

currently the silos remain empty, this has pursued the researcher to carry out the study, on challenges faced by A1 farmers on agricultural production. This study therefore seeks to guide policy-makers since it is essential to identify factors that influence production efficiency.

In 2005, Operation Maguta was launched in Zimbabwe, as an input scheme run by the Zimbabwe National Army aiming to boost agricultural production and food security (Mupetesi, 2012). Basically the programme was meant for only communal farmers. According to Mutami’s, (2015) study, the programme was expanded in 2007 to bring up to 800 000ha of land under cultivation, though the Operation Maguta managed to deliver input packs to deserving communal farmers, it neglected A1 and A2 farmers who were also facing challenges to source inputs due to the economic recession. Hence, the researcher will carry out the study in revealing the barriers of the small scale farmer concerning access to financial support. Despite neglecting of A1 farmers, challenges of Operation Maguta have to do with partisan selection of beneficiaries as it was documented by other sources in the Ministry of Agriculture (Mutami, 2015). Therefore, A1 farmers suffer discrimination on some loan schemes which will hinder agricultural production. This has enables the researcher to find it necessary to carry out the study on challenges faced by A1 farmers, to see if the case is similar to Dunkerry farm, at Matepatepa area.

Access to credit has always been difficult for famers. The famers in South Africa, have acquired land through land reform programs and were reputedly more efficient in paying loans, it is ironic that they have the hardest time securing loans without collateral (Chen, 2004). The researcher has noted that the access to financial assistance from several companies or banks remains a challenge despite repaying back of the capital by the farmers, therefore, farmers will have a problem for the inputs needed in the farming each and every season. Despite the fact that, the case may only prove the cross sectional view on South African small scale farmers, it is essential for the study to be undertaken and know if farmers at Dunkerry farm in Matepatepa area are in a position to pay back the loans or else they are not accessing loaning opportunity.

Again the turnaround time for the disbursement of the credit and or the inputs should take into account the seasonality of the farming activity. For example, wheat farmers were likely to get funding after utilizing the full land. This may hinder the full potential of farmers in their production. The farmers in South Africa receive the loans at the middle of the farming season and this contradicts with their farming schedule (Rukuni, 1994).

Another challenge in finance access was to finance different segments of smallholder farmers. Small scale farmers were distinguished by what they grow, how they engage with markets as buyers and sellers, and how those markets are organized, for example Namibian Land Reform (African Agriculture Status Report (AASR), 2013). The researcher noted that the model of small scale farming in Namibia and Zimbabwe is totally different since in Zimbabwe the farmers are categorized on size of the land only, that is A1 (small scale) and A2 (Large scale) hence it is necessary to carry out the study in Matepatepa, Bindura District to see if there are related challenges or some other barriers to A1 farmers in Matepatepa area at Dunkerry farm.

The effectiveness of these financing options to A1 farmers is one of the subjects of this analysis. Through the interviewing of the AGRI Bank officer, this research will give light on how frequently they offered the loans to the A1 farmers.

2.3 Farming equipment The farming barriers can be classified into different categories, these barriers include technological constraints. According to Boarggati (2010) argued that farmers at Middle Belt of Nigeria continued to use some traditional tools like cutlasses, hoes, axes, and sickles which can make a farmer a permanent small holder farmer, without any development taking place. One may argue that small scale farmer is an important client for new technology developed for the purpose of increasing basic food crops. Thus, this study is necessary to be under taken to see if equipment constraints contribute to low agricultural production on small scale farming in Zimbabwe.

The use of poor quality equipment and machinery by farmers reflects that farming equipment is still a barrier in farming industry. The "cut and weld" level of manufacturing technology still exists while affecting the farmers particularly in developing countries as according to the World Bank (1999) stated that the dominant agricultural machinery manufacturers have not devoted much of their efforts to the needs of the developing countries. Fernando (2005) noted that in Taiwan low or substandard machines continue to be peddled in the market, while some machines are not suitable to the current farming conditions. Farm machines are likewise beyond the reach of most farmers owing to high acquisition and maintenance costs. However, this may not be the case in Zimbabwe currently due to globalisation and the massive use of technology in the farming sector, for example the use of tractors and chemicals has improved farming industry in Zimbabwe, despite the number of the farmers who owns certain machinery. Hence, the researcher has made an interest to undertake the study to investigate if there are equipment challenges hindering small scale farming.

Technological innovations have long been a major contributor to progress in farming and will continue to influence the smooth running of the agricultural production. For example, Brazil and Turkey are well known for good agricultural production through the implementation of technology in their production. The lack of access to information technology bears a negative effect on the small scale farming (Baloyi, 2010).

In contrast to developed countries status, smallholder farmers in developing countries are poor and have no access to information technology, with the majority being poorly linked to international trade due to technological barriers (Marongwe, 2000). Smallholder farmers’ lack of access to technology has a negative effect on their ability to access markets locally, nationally, and globally. According to Mushunje, (2012) it is imperative to highlight that it may prove complicated to take the technological innovations that are applied in developed countries and match them to smallholder farmers in developing countries due to the prevailing financial constraints, as well as lack of human capital and technological know- how. Thus, it is necessary for the research to be carried out in one of the developing countries, Zimbabwe, at Matepatepa area in Bindura District.

2.4 Agricultural education. Agricultural education cannot be isolated in this research as another challenge being faced by A1 farmers. According to Nilsson (2007) noted that a range of educational activities in farming communities aim to achieve human resource development throughout the rural economies of almost all nations. Knowledge enables the farmers to transmit specific information as well as the formation of general skills and proficiencies. Education also assists in the changes of attitudes, beliefs and habits. Increasing literacy and numeracy may help farmers to acquire and understand information and to calculate appropriate input quantities in a modernizing or rapidly changing environment (Cotlear 1990). Improved attitudes, beliefs and habits may lead to greater willingness to accept risk, adopt innovations, save for investment and generally to embrace productive practices (Appleton and Balihuta 1996; Cotlear, 2010). Above all, education may either increase prior access to external sources of information or enhance the ability to acquire information through experience with new technology. That is, it may be a substitute for or a complement to farm experience in agricultural production. Schooling enables farmers to learn on the job more efficiently (Rosenzweig, 1995).

Agricultural knowledge remains an important factor in the farming industry. Illiteracy leads to inability in understanding and adopting new technologies, and limited access to credit. The Chinese maxim says: “Plans are man’s, but the odds are God’s”, since human beings live in the world of uncertainty, they always try to make their plans with great consideration and anticipation of all likely events (Russell, 2005). However, every decision-maker still faces risks regularly in their decision-making (Nguyen 2002). No matter what, information is necessary in farming industry. Mchombu (2006) asserts that every person needs information for decision making. According to Manda (2002), information is an important resource for farmers which could bring productivity and impact on the effectiveness of an organization including farming community. Farmers need information which can underwrite to improvement in the right decision making, preparation, and sustained growth in farming productivity and market economy, hence food security. Through the interviewing of the extension worker, this research will give light on who is responsible for the dissemination of information to the farmers.

Some of the farmers have an opportunity to get the land since it was an open willing policy yet without the knowledge of farming. Fernando (2005) noted that information systems in Kenya were developed without consultation of rural people and these highly affected farmers. United Nations (2005) noted that most information services in Africa including Kenya are focused on urban areas, neglecting the rural areas where the majority live .This limits the opportunities for rural people such as farmers to participate in socio – economic development will negatively contribute to the small sale farming.

The study conducted by Saito (1994) in Kenya on small scale farmers, further shows that farmers were not given an opportunity to air out their concerns to the local authorities to improve the farming industry. The study has not also highlighted the importance of extension workers on disseminating agricultural information to the farmers and this create a gap which this study may fill on. Therefore, the success of small scale farming will largely depend on the training that the farmer receives from the extension workers. Are they educated at Dunkerry farm? This will be shown through study findings of this study.

Agricultural education may directly influence agricultural productivity via many ways. Phillips and Marble (1986) noted that educated farmers may interact more effectively with credit agencies, because they can understand financial transactions and keep records, increasing the likelihood of obtaining credit. The researcher may argue that access to and use of information is fundamental to all aspects of agricultural development, thus, the study on challenges faced by A1 farmers is of more important to be undertaken.

From the above evidence, the loop holes on the carried studies enable the researcher to embark on carrying-out the study to see if there are similar or different challenges are similar from the observed preseffnt specific problems that have been highlighted in the paper. Lack of production knowledge leads to lower quality and quantity in production. As the FTLRP of Zimbabwe was done in an open access to everyone, whether you have agricultural know how or not, land access was randomly accessed hence knowledge is crucial in the farming industry.

2.5 Government efforts to address challenges being faced by A1 farmers The Government of Zimbabwe’s policy on Fast Track Land Reform Programme is not expressed in a single document but it can be captured in two dimensions. According to Liptop, (2009) noted that, it must be pointed out that the Zimbabwean government despite numerous challenges that it is encountering, has made commendable strides in assisting the newly resettled farmers under the programme of fast track land reform. Also, Zimbabwe has struck a deal with the Chinese and Iranian governments who have supplied tractors and other equipment to assist the newly resettled farmers. As was noted in the World Bank Report (2009), the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe governor, Gideon Gono availed funds that were used to make Scorch carts, harrows for the purchase of fertilizer. However, the contestation that has occurred is on the distribution of these resources.

The Ministry of Agricultural, Mechanization and Irrigation Development (2000) posits that FTLRP beneficiaries were provided with startup tillage services and inputs such as fuel, fertilizers and seeds were availed to the farmers by the government. This meant that the newly resettled farmers were either expected to provide their own inputs to cover the remainder of the cultivated portion of the given hectare plot or make alternative arrangements to secure inputs through financial institutions or public and private inputs suppliers. The government of Zimbabwe relaxed on restrictions against off farm employment to enable new resettled farmers who had fallen out of the institutional credit net to meet their own funding needs. FAO’s (2005) report asserted in the two year action plan for new resettled farmers, inception phase framework plan, the GoZ proposed that the Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC) world provide credit development and working capital under its Farm scheme. Further, the resettlement credit scheme would be improved to enable the provision of loans in the first year of settlement and start up grants and part of the initial production needs would be provided. The funds trickled down to the new farmer through the Grain Marketing Board (GMB) and through Agribank Development (AGRIBANK). According to Kinsey and Binswanger (1993), the early resettlement stage extension coverage was virtually universal and resettled farmers made a commendable shift in grain output.

Earlier resettlement was also plagued by inexperienced and untrained extension workers who brought nothing new to newly resettled farmers under the programme of fast track land reform. Through the Inception Phase Framework Plan of 1999- 2000, the government of Zimbabwe pledged to support and implement the agricultural training exercise to meet the specific needs of beneficiaries. Training institutions were expected to range from government, private sector, non-governmental organizations, farmer organizations, local development associations and parastatals (Kinsey and Binswanger, 1993). On the other hand, Chiremba (2010) observed that the capacity of the existing extension staff was too limited to providing newly resettled farmers with the intensive agricultural advice needed.

However, the A1 farmers’ issues still need immediate attention to enhance human security in the society. Hall (2005) stated that the present land reform programme had, in several cases, negative effects on poverty alleviation. This, therefore, implies that the Zimbabwean land reform programme has not lived up to some its objectives which include combating poverty and revitalizing the rural economy. If land reform is to meet its wider objectives, agricultural trend has to increase at a national level and better living standards amongst the beneficiaries of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme. The main objective of this study is to enhance the efficiency of the resettled farmers through government and private partners on agricultural sector by addressing the challenges faced in the farming industry.

2.6 Summary The chapter focused on developing a deeper insight into challenges being faced by small scale farmers who benefited on Land Reform Programm. Inevitably, also the socio-economic effects on society as a result to the constraints which are hindering the agricultural production. These constrains threaten the well-being of a society. Thus human security protect the vital core of all human survival from pervasive threats such as food shortage and helps to clarify the challenge and help to control the best approach to its resolution, basically through government efforts. The researcher has identified the gaps which makes necessary for the study to be undertaken, from the related research previously done. The next chapter looks into the procedures that will be followed in collecting data for the research study.

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODS

3.0 Introduction This chapter explains the methodology and research methods that will guide this study, the data collection methods and analysis framework. This chapter occupies a significant place in the whole research because of the role the methodology adopted provided the data needed. Some subheadings chosen for the guidelines include: research design, target population, sample, sample techniques, research instruments, data presentation and analysis plans.

3.1 Research Design: Case study In this study, case study has been employed as a research design. According to Dawson (2002) refers to research design as the conceptual structure within which a study is conducted. According to Kumar (2005) research methodology is a process of inquiry or path by which a researcher seeks to find out answers to the research questions posed. For Kumar (2005) this process of inquiry involves the structured approach. Kinnear (1998) simply defines a research design as a basic strategy that guides how research data will be collected and the stages of analysis of the research. Dawson (2002) argued that, the main purpose of the research design is to enable collection of relevant information with minimal spending of time, exertion and money. According to Kumar (2005) concurs with Kothari (1985) that a research design involves consideration of research aims. The research design seeks to specify the type of data to be collected, the sources of data and data collection procedure (Kinnear, 1998). Research takes the form of a survey, as defined by Haralambos (1995) as research projects which collect standardized data about large numbers of people.

According to Gilbert (2008), a case study is a research strategy that involves the empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context, using multiple sources of evidence. Case studies are used two ways either to generate a theory and ideas about a topic, or to test out a theory to see if it occurs or applies to a real life situation. In this research the case is challenges faced by A1 farmers at Dunkerry farm, the

beneficiaries of the FTLRP (2000- 2014). In this case it is being used to test out a theory to see if it applies to a real life situation.

According to Rubin and Babbie (2005) qualitative research emphasizes the need to elicit a deeper understanding of the phenomenon and its subjective meanings as it occurs in the natural environment. The questionnaires directed to solicit demographic data, data on the access to financial assistance and loans, farming equipment used in the production and dissemination of the agricultural information, is there agricultural knowledge received from the extension workers and this assisted in getting views, attitudes and perceptions of small scale farmers regarding the Fast Track Land Reform Programm.

3.2 Study Area The study was taken at Dunkerry farm in Matepatepa area, the area is under Bindura district, Mashonaland Central Province in Zimbabwe. The town is located approximately 88 km north of Harare. Dunkerry farm was selected to be the study area on the premise that it is located in the best agro region of Zimbabwe, the region which is determined as the bread basket of the nation. Additionally, the area is also one of the areas where FTLRP was undertaken to empower the majority, hence the focus of this study was on challenges faced by A1 farmers in the farming industry.

3.3 Target Population This refers to a group of individuals that have one or more characteristics in common that are of interest to the researcher (Best and Kahn 1995:13).The population for this study was the A1 farmers at Dunkerry farm, extension worker and a personal-bank (AGRI Bank). Dunkerry farm has 48 farmers.

3.4 Sample In this study the population comprises Zimbabwean A1 farmers. The total official registered farmers are 48 farmers at Dunkerry Farm. The Target Group is A1 farmers. A total of 30

questionnaires are to be administered to A1 farmers. Simple random sampling has been used to select the farmers for purposes of administrating questionnaires. On the key informants, these are extension worker and AGRI Bank officer, purposive sampling has been used and interviews used as data collecting technique.

3.5 Sample Techniques Sampling is the life blood of research (Greener, 2008). Saunders, Thornhill and Lewis (2007) uphold that sampling saves time spent on the research by allowing the researcher to look at a subgroup rather than all elements of the population. Every research study therefore requires the selection of some kind of sample.

3.5.1 Purposive Sampling

The purposive sampling technique is a type of non-probability sampling that is most effective when one needs to study a certain social domain with knowledgeable experts within. This is when informant selection is constantly looked upon for knowledge and information (Dawson, 2002). Purposive sampling may also be used with both qualitative and quantitative research techniques. The inherent bias of the method contributes to its efficiency, and the method stays robust even when tested against random probability sampling (Tongco, 2008). Choosing the purposive sample was fundamental to the quality of data gathered; thus, reliability and competence of the informant must be ensured (Goebel, 2005).

Purposive sampling has some advantages, according to Srivastava (1994) it is more convenient and economical than other sampling methods. However this sampling method does not contribute to generalisation. Although the extent of the sampling error could not be estimated and bias might be present, the researcher tried always, according to Dawson (2002), to work out a plan to circumvent or minimise them. In this research some measures were taken to ensure reliability and validity which were discussed in this chapter to minimise bias (Polit et al 2001:240). The suitable participants were identified by the researcher through considering the services delivery agency to A1 farmers.

3.5.2 Simple random sampling

Simple random sampling is one of the 'gold standards' of sampling techniques (Patton, 1990). This type of probability sampling allows each element in the population to have a known and equal probability of selection (Greener, 2008). Every element is selected independently of every other element. The method resembles the lottery method where names are placed in a box, the box is shuffled, and the names of the winners are then drawn out in an impartial method. This method of sampling has been employed in this investigation. The advantages and disadvantages of simple random sampling are outlined as below.

The aim of the simple random sample is to reduce the potential for human bias in the selection of cases to be included in the sample (Lewis, 2007). The simple random sample provides a sample that is highly representative of the population being studied, since assuming there will be limited missing data as compared to the collected one. According to Goebel, (2005) simple random sampling also allows making generalisations that is statistical inferences from the sample to the population. This is a major advantage because such generalisations are more likely to be considered to have external validity.

A simple random sample can only be carried out if the list of the population which is available and complete. Greener, (2008) put forward that the list may be protected by privacy policies or require a lengthy process to attain permissions. At times it may be available while there may be no single list detailing the population researcher interested in. As a result, it may be difficult and time consuming to bring together numerous sub-lists to create a final list from which the researcher wants to select a sample. However, the simple random sample reduces the potential for human bias in the selection of the participants.

3.6 Ethical consideration Most researches involve human beings as subjects and it is the researcher’s responsibility to protect the people participating in a study (Crowl, 1993). The very personal, conversational nature of interview situations highlights many of the basic ethical issues of any research or evaluation method (Patton, 1990). Before carrying out the study, the ethical considerations

were to be done and these considerations include confidentiality, anonymity, informed consent as well as voluntary participation. Traditional hierarchy structures had to be observed before collecting data from the farming community. Since the study is to be deemed politically sensitive and hence the researcher has to assure respondents that the data collected would be treated confidentially and would be used for purely academic purposes. Again, Anonymity is also emphasised in order to allow respondents to be free in expressing views concerning the challenges they are facing in the farming industry. Consent will be sought at household level to speak to minors where the need arises for further probing. The researcher announced it clear at first about promises and reciprocity that respondents will not get reward in return for sharing their time and insights with the researcher, except their community may benefit in some way from the results of the study in terms of the addressing of the challenges or development. The researcher proceeded to collect data after getting permission from the farmers and the two key informants.

3.7 Preparation for Field Work and Pilot Survey A pilot survey was conducted with an extension worker and two A1 farmers to assess the feasibility of the questionnaire. The researcher amended some sections of the questionnaire which has complication. Fields with neutral have been removed since respondents were hiding behind neutral to give uncertain answers.

3.8 Data Collection Procedure Before entering the field, the researcher was given a letter of approval for collecting data by Bindura University. Then proceed to sought permission from the farm authority, from Councilor and the Chairperson of Dunkerry farm to conduct the research. After seeking permission, questionnaires distributed by hand to the farmers. Data was collected from 30 A1 farmers. For the two key informants, extension worker at the farm and an Agri bank officer an interview guide was given after their consent to participate in the study.

3.9 Research Instruments The data for this research was collected from respondents using questionnaires and interviews. The section below describes how each of these two methods has been employed to collect data for this study.

3.9.1 Questionnaires

A total of 30 questionnaires have been administered to A1farmers. The questionnaire survey has solicited information on the financial assistance accessibility, production equipment and what agricultural education are they given by extension service workers. The advantages and disadvantages of questionnaires are explained as below.

The responses are gathered in a standardised way, so questionnaires are more objective (Argyle, 1981). Generally it is relatively quick to collect information using a questionnaire. However in some situations they can take a long time not only to design but also to apply and analyse. Potentially information can be collected from a large portion of a group by using questionnaires.

Contrary, questionnaires, are standardised so it is not possible to explain any points in the questions that participants might misinterpret. This could be partially solved by piloting the questions on a small group of students or at least friends and colleagues. Participants may forget important issues for example the frequency they were visited by extension worker.

3.9.2 Interviews

Argyle (1981:28) defines an interview as: ‘…a two person conversation initiated by the interviewer for the specific purpose of obtaining research relevant information and focused by him or her on the content specified by the objectives.’ It is important to note that while interview is a two-way conversation between an interviewer and informant, gestures, glances, facial expressions, pauses often reveals subtle feelings (Young, 1996). The researcher did not

simply choose the interview tool for interest’s sake, but that interview is also a conversation of gestures.

There are two types of interviews categorized according to purpose, namely normative or structured and key informant or in-depth (Crowl, 1993). Normative interviews are used to collect data, which is classified and analysed statistically for example, those used in mass surveys with the intention of finding the views of large numbers of people to fairly straightforward questions. For this type of interview, questions are always worked out carefully in advance in which the interviewer is free to modify during the conversation, also known as semi-structured interview. Key informant interview involved the service provider, AGRI Bank officer and AGRITEX officer (an extension Officer). In this, the interviewer wanted to probe the views of each of the above organisations, who had experience or knowledge about the services they provide to agricultural industry on A1 farmers. Interviews have the following strengths and limitations.

The strengths of semi-structured individual interview are that it is relatively more flexible a tool than any written inquiry form (Walker, 2008). It also permits explanation, adjustment and variation according to the situation, that is to say semi-structured individual interview provides a forum for further questioning and clarification between the researcher and the interviewee, which does not happen in any written inquiry. Questions not readily grasped by interviewees can be rephrased, or repeated with proper emphasis and explanations when necessary. In the presence of competent interviewers, interviewees often feel freer to express their fears, complexities, and emotionally laden situations, than when filling out a questionnaire.

However, the limitations of this type of interview are that it can consume a lot of time because the interviewee has to understand the questions well, interviewer who will be writing may have to call for a repeat from time to time. Again, interviewees may suffer from faulty memory, lack of insight, and inability to articulate. To overcome this setback, the researcher designed simple questions which understood easily. Shona language was also used to enhance the interviewees’ participation.

3.10 Data Presentation and Analysis Procedure Data collected was interpreted in different appropriately method. Descriptive statistics with supporting tables and thematic analysis was used to show the distribution of responses from different respondents. Thematic analysis will be also used to present the data accordingly into its sub structures, that is financially, technologically and the knowledge. These mentioned techniques are easy to read, understand and interpret to all levels that will have access to the research project. The techniques also clearly show the variations in the results of the findings.

3.11 Summary This chapter has focused on the research design, population and sample. It has also dealt with the data collection tools, their merits and demerits as well as the designing of these tools. The employment of these tools in gathering the needed data was meant to yield quality and desirable results. The chapter also showed some ethical considerations that were observed during the data collection. It also pointed out how the collected data were to be presented, analysed and discussed in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 4 DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSION

4.0 Introduction This chapter dealt with the collected data to enlighten the reader on the challenges faced by A1 farmers, beneficiaries of FTLRP. The researcher examined the results that sought to fulfil the objectives and research questions of the research study. The chapter combines the results collected from the questionnaires from 30 A1 farmers and interviews from two key informants (extension worker and Agri bank officer). The data presentation and analysis was linked to the thematic issues raised in the literature review. The findings are presented and analysed in a logical manner in the form of tables and descriptive summary.

4.1 Demographic Characteristics The respondents were asked to show their age, family size, level of education, marital status and gender. The collected data has been presented below on Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Biographical data of Respondents (30)

Characteristics No % 1.Gender Female 12 40 Male 18 60 2. Age <25Years 2 7 26-30 Years 2 7 31-35 Years 5 16 36-40 Years 6 20 41+ Years 15 50 f. Marital Status Married 20 68 Single 5 16 Divorced and Widowed 5 16 g. Level of Education Never attended school 5 16 Primary 17 58 Secondary (ordinary and advanced level) 5 16 Tertiary 3 10 e. Size of your household 5 16 1-3 17 58 4-6 5 16 7-9 3 10 Above 9

Table 4.1 above shows that both males and females have been involved to participate in the study. Half of the beneficiaries 15 (50%) of FTLRP were above the age of 41 years at Dunkerry farm while others around 30 and 35 years. Most of the respondents 20 (68%) were

married. The majority of respondents 17 (58%) ended at primary level and only very few respondents 3 (10%) attended tertiary education level. The majority of respondents 17 (58%) have household size of 4-6 family members.

4.2 Challenges being faced by A1 Farmers

4.2.1 Finance access

Farmers were asked on the access to financial schemes and the following were results found, as presented below in the Table 4.1.

Table 4.2 Financial access

Statement Yes No

No. % No. %

1. Do you have a bank account? 23 77 7 23

2. Have you accessed micro-loan schemes from Grain 3 10 27 90 Marketing Board (GMB)? 3. Do you access financial capital from banks? 0 0 30 100

4. Are you contracted by government or any company to 7 23 23 77

any crop?

5. Is government granting some capital for the 8 27 22 73 production? 6. Are non-governmental organisations (NGOs) 0 0 30 100 supporting the industry financially? 7. Do you cooperate in some projects to raise funds for 20 66 10 34 buying agricultural inputs? 8. Are you satisfied with the level of the input support 0 0 30 100 you are getting from government or any companies? 9. Are you pleased with the prices you are getting from 0 0 30 100 your buyers in all crops? 10. Can financial support make agricultural production 30 100 0 0 viable?

In regards to financial access the results above have shown that lack of access to financial schemes has proved to be one of the challenges to A1 farmers. Through the findings, the researcher noted that 7 (25%) A1 farmers lacked access to capital because they do not have bank accounts. Only 3 (10%) respondents accessed GMB loans at Dunkerry Farm. Access on

bank loans shows that none of the A1 farmers has benefited. The majority of respondents 23 (76%) have not accessed the contracts from both government and private companies only very few respondents 7 (24%) accessed contracts. The majority of respondents 22 (73%) did not access the fund for production from government. None of the respondents 30 (100%) accessed non-governmental organisations (NGOs) financial support. The majority of respondents 20 (66%) were cooperating in some projects to raise funds for buying agricultural input to sustain the industry. All respondents were not satisfied with the level of the input support from both government and private companies. Again, all the respondents were not pleased with the prices from the buyers in all crops. All the respondents strongly agreed that financial support can make agricultural production viable.

A male A1 farmer of 41 years commented:

“Hurumende dai yakwanisa kutibatsirawo nemari yekurimisa nekuti mushure mekukohwa tinokwanisa kudzosera chikwereti. Zvekare hurumende inofanira kutipa zvikwereti nguva iripo mwaka usati watanga nekuti pamwe pacho mbeu inouya mumwedzi waKurume apo mwaka unenge watova pakati.” (The government should kindly assist the farmers with credit since the money will be refunded once after the harvest and also the credit should be offered some months earlier before the season start.)

In an interview an Agri bank officer said:

“Most of the A1 farmers are not accessing loans as compared to A2 farmers, since the introduction of dollarization because the farmers do not have title deeds over the land and few of the farmers own valuable assets which can be grabbed by the bank after failing to repay the loan.”

A female A1 farmer commented:

“Mari dzekubatsirikana pakurima padzinombouya pacho hadziwanike zvine jekerere mukati zvine chizivano kune vanopa varimi mari dzacho zvichienderana nebato raunofungirwa kuti ndiro raunotsigira.” (There is no transparency on the funds to support the farmers since it has to do with political issues and nepotism from those disbursing the funds.)

The comments above indicated that the respondents lacked financial support from both Agricultural bank and government. There is also an element of unfairness from distribution of government resources due to political issues.

From the above presented table and comments from the respondents, it shows that farmers were affected from the planning stage for the season. According to the study by Marongwe, (2010) the majority of farmers still faces some challenges in accessing some opportunities like capital being provided by government due to lack of proper particulars. Nations (UN), (2004) argued that, access to finance is one of the major constraints facing millions of resource-constrained African smallholder farmers according to previous conducted research. Similarly as shown in Table 4.2, the data shows that financial access and loans is a problematic issue to the majority of the respondents.

Sachikonye (2003) argued that the media portrayed the A1 farmers as highly unproductive people: “Billions of dollars have been pumped into input support schemes to farmers in which seed, fertilisers, fuel and other vital components for improved productivity have been provided. Yet, despite all these support schemes, there is only grass, grass everywhere, all over the fields.” Differently to the above study findings, the previous study has clearly referring to the commercial farmers (A2 farmers) who owns tractors and other mechanical power units which consume fuels.

The earlier study findings have shown another angle for the challenge being encountered by the small scale farmers to limit access on financial support, differing from those faced at Dunkerry farm. According to the study by Cocciarelli, (2010) argued that farmers have poor personal credit histories and it will be difficult for them to access capital without any previous financial accessing documents. Hence, this study found two notable reasons for the farmers why they are failing to access credits is that, they do not have bank accounts and lacked valuable assets for them to be considered at bank.

According to the study by Mutami, (2015) challenges of the Operation Maguta of 2005 have some challenges to do with partisan selection of beneficiaries as it was documented by other sources in the Ministry of Agriculture. The injustice element in the society would lead to the survival of the fittest aspect in the community as according to naturalist perspective. Kahiya,

(2000) argued that farmers only demand more money, fertilisers, seeds and fuel, government was prepared to offer them on political matters since were political gurus to maintain the status qou of the party, the theory of hegemony according to Gramsci. Comparing from what above scholars mentioned, it shows government is making some efforts to assist farmers but not to all classes of the farmers enjoying government resources, since A1 farmers indicated that they are suffering to access those opportunities.

The researcher noticed from the study that the NGOs deliberately neglect to support the beneficiaries of FTLRP on political matters since most of these humanitarian organisations are aligned to the Western countries which are against to the land reform policy. Marongwe, (2008) argued that Non-Governmental Organisation are against the 2000 land invasion by the black majority thereby sabotaging the government of Zimbabwe to make the policy be of less impact on the livelihood of the beneficiaries. The studies undertaken before this research have shown similar line of findings with the one this study has, since International NGOs negated to provide any services to resettled farmers, and focused their efforts elsewhere thereby compromising A1 farmer production.

From the above presentation, analysis and discussion on financial capital, A1 farmers are encountering financial constraint in the industry. Therefore, the number one objective of the study has shown that farmers are facing financial challenge to buy inputs on their own and this eventually impact to low yields and hence, food insecurity in the community.

4.2.2 Agricultural equipment

Table 4.3 below shows equipment owned by A1 farmers at Dunkerry farmers. Questions were asked on what equipment the respondents own.

Table 4.3 Agricultural equipment

EQUIPMENT Yes No

No. % No. %

1. Tractors 0 0 30 100

2. Harrows 22 73 8 27

3. Reapers 0 0 30 100

4. Plough 30 100 0 0

5. Cultivator 9 30 21 70

6. Planter 0 0 30 100

7. Knapsack ( Sprayer ) 25 83 5 17

8. Scotch carts 23 77 7 23

9. Water Pumps 7 23 23 77

10. Irrigation Pipes 4 13 26 87

As shown on the above Table 4.3, there is evidence that the farmers have equipment constrain in their production. The study findings revealed that among the farmers none of them own a tractor and a reaper. The majority of respondents 22 (73%) have harrows. All the respondents 30 (100%) owned ploughs. Again, majority of respondents 21 (70%) do not have cultivators. None of the respondents owned a planter, while the majority 25 (83%) have sprayers. The study has shown that the majority of respondents 23 (77%) owned scotch carts.

Very few of respondents 7 (23%) has water pumps. Again, very few of respondents 4 (13%) have irrigation pipes.

A female respondent said:

“Minda yedu yakakurisa kuti tikwanise kuirima nenguva zvinotoda matarakita anorima nekuchimbidza. Dai hurumende yaigona kungotipa tarakita imwe chute paparazzi roga roga zvaitirerukira pamwe nekusimudzira goho redu. Dambudziko rinowanzo itika vakuru vanoita nezvematongerwo enyika ndivo vanowanzo tora zvinhu zvacho zvichinge zvouya ”(Our fields have large hectares, it only needs tractors to plough within a short period of time. We kindly request to government if it is able to just have a tractor per each farm this will become easier to us and it will contribute to greater harvest. There is only a problem of injustices when government give the equipment, the political official seize much of these equipment)

An extension worker in an interview said:

“Lack of draught power is one of the causes of food shortage. He added that, to resolve the challenge of lack of draught power government should provide at least one tractor at each farm depending on hectares of a farm because some farmers depend on donkeys and ox draught power.”

A male respondent of above 41 years said:

“Kana arimagejo, hara nengoro izvi tinazvo asi kana mbeu nefotoreza pasina iyi midziyo haina nebasa ratinoishandisa.” (Some the equipment we do have but without fertilisers and seeds we will do not use it)

The above comments clearly shows that the farmers lack improved agricultural equipment and technology, majority owned labour-intensive equipment such as ploughs and sprayers.

The study findings have shown that farmers do not have enough and effective equipment for production. According to the study by Mada and Mahai (2013) argued that insufficient tractors and other power unit for farm operation in newly resettled farms is the greatest factor contributing to low production. Therefore without food, human security will be threatened. According to the Commission on Human Security (CHS), (2001) resonances that, “the

objective of human security is to protect the vital core of all human survival from… pervasive threats such as hunger in a technique that is consistent with long-term accomplishment.” Machinery like tractors enhances the boosting of greater harvest and enables a farmer to work on large hectares within a short period of time as compared to the use of ox draught power. Apart from lack of tractors, an extension worker indicated that some farmers have cattle and while others have donkeys varying from different households. Similarly from the previous study the study results have shown that current appropriate equipment is a challenge to A1 farmers. Hence the A1 farmers are facing a challenge on draught power.

United Nations (2004) argued that globalisation must enable farmers in developing countries to adopt new ways of farming in an aim to maximise production and ensure total food security. Human labour is still the main source of power used in agricultural work in developing countries. According to Ramansamy, (1994) human labour is responsible for approximately half of the cultivated area in the world, although in developed countries, which in small-scale farms agricultural machinery with low cost and technological adequacy make rural farmers easy to operate and efficiently. Therefore, current equipment is very crucial and essential on farming industry and human labour will be a less source of power and at the same time maximising production as highlighted on previous texts. The above previous studies have shown similar results with those presented above on the Table 4.3 that improved equipment is still a challenge to small scale farmers.

The study results have shown that A1 farmers have challenge on adequate equipment for production. The research has shown that A1 farmers at Dunkerry farm majority of them only own labour-intensive tools. Some tool models are time consuming and laborious, the work will be done manually at a slower pace. According to Yohanna’s (2010) study, farmers at Middle Belt of Nigeria continued to use some traditional tools like cutlasses, hoes, axes, and sickles which can make a farmer a permanent small holder farmer, without any development taking place. The earlier researchers have identified similar results to the one on this research.

4.2.3 Agricultural education

Agricultural education directly influences agricultural productivity via many ways. Farmers were asked questions on agricultural education, the following were results found, as presented below in the Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Farmer education

Statement Yes No

No. % No. %

1. Do you receive any agricultural advice on your farm? 15 50 15 50

2. Have you ever been visited by an extension worker? 15 50 15 50

3. Is the advice adequate to make you successful in your 0 0 30 100 farming?

4. Do extension worker visit regularly? 3 10 27 90

5. Is the extension worker having passion in assisting you 3 10 27 90 in production?

6. Do you hold some workshops to have knowledge on 5 17 25 83 current farming methods?

7. Do you hold some platforms to have knowledge 6 20 24 80 besides workshops?

8. Did you face some difficulties in selling of your 27 90 3 10 produce?

The study findings have shown that 15 (50%) respondents have been visited by an extension worker and receive agricultural advice. Very few respondents 3 (10%) indicated that the extension worker has passion with his work. The majority of respondents 27 (90%) have shown that the extension worker visits are inconsistent on advising A1 farmer. All the respondents 30 (100%) informed that the advice from an extension worker is inadequate to

make farmers successful in farming. The majority of respondents 25 (83%) have indicated that no workshops have been done. Very few respondents 6 (20%) agreed that they hold some platforms to have knowledge besides workshops. The majority of respondents 27 (90%) have shown that they are facing some difficulties in selling of their produce.

In an interview with an extension worker this has been found:

“Farmers are educated through workshops to have adequate knowledge in farming. Besides workshops, we also educate them through field demonstrations, field days, agricultural shows and exchange visits. Again, the media plays a pivotal role in educating farmers through newspapers, pamphlets, television and radio.”

An extension worker said:

“We are making an effort to make sure that all farmers are being educated on Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) through master farmer program, two years course and one year advance master famer program certificate.”

An extension worker said:

“Provision of transport should be considered for easy access from one farmer to another to enable effective delivery of our services as we cover an area of an average of five farms.”

An extension worker informed:

“Private buyers should not be chased away on political grounds like the case at Dimitra farm, a farm close to Dunkerry farm, private buyers suffer persecution.”

The above comments highlights that the extension workers are making efforts to ensure that farmers are being educated despite the challenges of transport to enable effective service delivery to the farmers.

According to the study by Mutangi, (2010) argued that productive farming only depends on effective extension services, most of extension services in Africa are not yet carried successfully due to inadequate resources to extension workers. Therefore the extension worker is working according to the best of his ability with available resources. The previous

studies indicated that supporting resources for extension workers is still a challenge in developing countries thereby affecting small scale farming. Thus, the study findings are similar to the one of this study.

According to Benor and Harrison, (1977) argued that training and visit system by extension workers is essential and contributes to higher agricultural production if it is done effectively, that is regularly interaction between the farmer and the extension worker. Therefore, in Matepatepa at Dunkerry farm the extension services are being less effective due to lack of transport to ferry the extension worker from one farmer to another, from one farm to another. According to Scoones, (2011), the Zimbabwe’s land reform has been unimportant in the new resettlements because the land lays idle, farmers lack adequate agricultural education on farming. Thus, ineffective extension services and agricultural education cannot be isolated as the challenges being faced by A1 farmer, and has negatively contributed to low agricultural production of A1 farmer. Thus human security has not been yet implemented since farmers are experiencing food shortages.

Contrary to the study findings, the researcher views the extension worker as passionately with their job only the challenges of transport provision affect their services, of which its beyond their control, only government should be accountable. According to Mudiwa, (1997) training and visit approach by Agritex was the idea to increase the effectiveness of agricultural extension services through comprehensively structured training, delivery and administrative systems hence, government should work on providing transport to the officers.

According to Leach, (2013) workshops enable the farmers and the extension worker to share some experiences and aspirations of promoting farmer innovation and this assists in combating some issues affecting the capacity to increase agricultural production and poverty alleviation. From the above findings, the researcher draws the conclusion that since the extension worker acknowledged that it’s their mandate to educate and train the farmers but only the encountering of some challenges to deliver their services effectively affect their services and finally compromising A1 farming industry. Thus, the view is similar to the one of this study, without extension services farmers cannot make it.

The Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Agricultural, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development Report, (2015) argued that government should take corrective measures to ensure the payments of the farmers who have their own grains delivered to GMB depots. The extension worker informed that private buyers should not be chased away on political grounds for example at Dimitra farm, a farm close to Dunkerry farm, private buyers suffer persecution. Hence, marketing is another challenge hindering A1 farming industry besides finance, agricultural education and agricultural equipment.

Finally, the agricultural education assist A1 farmers in coming up with informed decision at the right time and it enables the farmers to transmit specific information as well as the formation of general skills and proficiencies. In developing countries extension workers are the ones who bridge the gap of illiteracy of small scale farmers in agricultural industry (Food and Agricultural Organisation, FAO, 2004). Thus government efforts are a solution towards agricultural education and market of A1 farmers.

4.3 Summary The chapter presented, analyzed and discussed the data collected. The data discussed the findings in relation with the research objectives. Results obtained showed that the A1 farmers at Dunkerry farm are facing a number of challenges which are financial capital, access to inputs, proper farming equipment, market and agricultural education. The fore named challenges, some are being influenced by unfairness distribution of government resources that is corruption and national economic crisis. Particularly including; political influence on market, government failure to pay farmers and lack of provision of transport to extension workers to deliver their services to the A1 farmers. The next chapter gives a summary of the major findings, conclusion and recommendations.

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Introduction This chapter presented the summary of the whole study. The chapter is going to provide a brief summary of the whole project, research constrains and summary of the findings. Finally the recommendations which emanate from the findings of the research will also be outlined in this chapter.

5.1 Summary of the whole project The first chapter discussed the background of the study focusing on the research problem. The opening chapter also presented the statement of the problem, justification of the study, the significance of the study, study aim, objectives of the study, research questions and study assumption. The first chapter also highlighted the ethical issues that were taken into consideration in the study that included informed consent, confidentiality and no harm to participants.

The second chapter reviewed literature which was related to the study on challenges being faced on small scale farming. The chapter also noted various literatures and identified knowledge gaps on the challenges of small scale farming. The theoretical framework has also been discussed in this chapter, the human security concept. Government efforts towards farming were highlighted in the same chapter.

The chapter three looked at the research methodology notably the research design , research instruments, population sample, sampling procedure, data collection procedures, data analysis, interpretation and presentation method.

The fourth chapter looked at data presentation and discussion findings of the challenges of small scale farming. The data presented in tables and discussion findings through explanation. Thematic analysis was also used to present data accordingly in its respective sub topics.

5.2 Research constraints The researcher faced some challenges during the study, some of them were lack cooperation from the respondents they feared victimization if they disclose what they felt to be confidential information since they viewed the study to be a bit political in nature. Another constrain was of accessing the key informants, it was difficult to see the key informants and it required to go through a long process, however the researcher managed to meet the key informants and collected relevant data.

5.1.2 Summary of findings

The study found out that for the past decade the government has made some effort on A1 farming, however challenges are still a barrier to A1 farmers. These include lack of financial capital, lack of equipment and agricultural education are obstacles to production of A1 farming.

The study indicates that majority of A1 farmers are not accessing any financial support. Farmers commented that they are not getting loans since the banks are not accepting loan applications due to lack of collateral. Many people indicated that they are surviving from the assistance they receive from their relatives who live in town rather than the government. The fact that majority of A1 farmers cooperate in some non-agricultural projects to raise funds for buying agricultural inputs shows how the financial challenge is affecting productivity.

The study identifies that an extension worker is not effectively delivering enough services to enhance A1 farming. Majority of the farmers indicated that the services are inadequate since limited visits for the extension worker to the farmers lead to less monitoring of the implementation of the advice given. Despite challenges being hindering the extension workers, extension services need to be delivered effectively to enhance sustainable A1 farming.

Improved agricultural equipment is also a challenge to the A1 farmers since majority relies on manual or labour-intensive tools instead of electric machinery tools. Again, unfavorable market to the farmers cannot also be isolated since it is another barrier to A1 farming. Farmers end up selling their crops due to desperation not willingly.

5.3 Conclusion On the study, challenges faced by A1 farmers of fast track land reform programme it has shown that the A1 farming production has all the potential for ensuring food security as well as poverty eradication at Dunkerry farm. The industry is encountering a number of challenges to raise the level of production. The study shows that the challenges are lack of financial support, lack of improved agricultural equipment and technology and inadequate agricultural education.

The importance of the study to the society is that, it can enhance human security and development through a number of ways. It enables the changing and crafting of policies which contribute to high agricultural production in A1 farming thereby ensuring food security in the society. This research will be also a platform of new ideas and dissemination of information for modern-knowledge based economy, agricultural sector in particular. A well stable suite of well-funded sustainable A1 farming can be established through this study. Hence, promoting human security through flourishing agriculture since food will be available.

For all government efforts through different policies and schemes, cooperation between government and International NGOs is needed to ensure viable production and productivity improvement of A1 farming in the country to alleviate poverty as well as ensuring food security.

Recommendations In view of the information obtained through literature review and findings of this research, the following recommendations are proposed in order to improve the production of A1

farming. A road map to poverty alleviation and food security it’s only by addressing the challenges being faced the beneficiaries of FTLRP. These include; i) The study findings have shown that farmers are not accessing loans from Agricultural bank, hence the government should support the implementation of national agriculture development with adequate financing, especially through collaboration with international funding agencies.

ii) The results from the study have shown that there is lack of improved agricultural equipment and technologies. The researcher recommends that government should provide at least one tractor at each farm depending on hectares of a farm because some farmers depend on donkeys and ox draught power. Again, government resources should be distributed on non-partisan line, there by working against corruption in the community. iii) The study findings have shown that farmers are not accessing adequate and effective agricultural education due to constrains being faced by extension workers. The researcher recommends that government and private agricultural partners should increase the number of extension workers and provide resources such as transport to enable effective extension service delivery to the A1 farmers by extension worker.

REFERENCE

Adams, M. (2004). Land Reform, Agriculture and Poverty Reduction. Glasgow: Oxfam.

Anderson, G. and Arsenaut, N. (1999). Fundamentals of Educational Research: Second Edition. London: Falmer Press.

Archard, D.W. (2003). Children, Family and the State. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing limited.

Argyle, M. (1981). Social Skills and Work. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd.

Badsha, O. (2002). Amulates and Dreams: War, Youth and Change in Africa. Pretoria: Southern History Online Publishing.

Benor, D. and Harrison, J.Q. (1977). Agricultural extension: The training and visit system. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Best, J.W. and Kahn, J. V. (1959). Research in Education: 3rd Edition. New Delhi: Prentice- Hall.

Chinake, H. (1997). Strategies for Poverty Alleviation in Zimbabwe. Harare: Weaver Press.

Chitsike, F. 2003. A Critical Analysis of the Land Reform Programme in Zimbabwe. Morrocco: FIG Publishers.

Cocciarelli, S. (2009) Financing Sustainable Agriculture in Michigan. Michigan: Michigan State University.

Cotlear, D. (1990). The Effects of Education on Farm productivity. London: MacMillan.

Crowl, T.K. (1993). Fundamentals of Educational Research. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown Communications.

Dawson, C. (2002). Practical Research Methods. New Delhi: UBS Publishers.

Eade, D. (1998). From Conflict to Peace in a Changing World. Oxford: Oxfarm G.B.

FAO, AHP (2005). Anti-Hunger Programme: Reducing hunger through agriculture and rural development and wider access to food, FAO, Rome.

Fernando, S. (2015). Ethulkottai: Organisation for land and agricultural reform. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall.

Goebel, A. 2005.Gender and Land Reform: The Zimbabwe Experience. Canada: McGill- Queen’s University Press.

Greener, S. 2008. Business Research Methods. London: Bookboon Publishers.

Hall, R. (2009). Another Countryside? : Policy Options for Land and Agrarian Reform in South Africa, PLAAS: Cape Town.

Kothari, C.R. (1985). Research Methodology-Methods and Techniques, New Delhi: Wiley Eastern Limited.

Kumar, R. 2005. Research Methodology - A Step-by-Step, Guide for Beginners (2nd.ed.). Singapore: Pearson Education.

Leach, F.E. (2013). Education, Cultures and Economics: Dilemmas for Development. London: Routledge.

Mahenehene, J. and Sukume, C. (2012). Zimbabwe's Land Reform: Myths and Realities. Harare: Weaver Press.

Marongwe, N. (2003). Farm Occupations and Occupiers in the New Politics of Land in Zimbabwe. Harare: Weaver Press.

Matondi, P. (2012). Zimbabwe’s Fast Track Land Reform. New York: Zed books.

Moyo, S (1995) "The Land Question in Zimbabwe. Harare: SAPES Books.

Mudiwa, M.B. (1997). A Comparative Evaluation of Selected Agricultural Extension Approaches tried by AGRITEX in Zimbabwe. Harare: University of Zimbabwe.

Mupetesi, T. (2012). Gendered Patterns of Social Capital among Farmers in Guruve District of Zimbabwe. Harare, Weaver Press.

Musemwa, L. and Mushunje, A. (2011). Agrarian and life style change in Zimbabwe: From colonization to the formation of government of national unity. Republic of South Africa: University of Fort Hare press.

Mutami, C. (2015). Smallholder Agriculture Production in Zimbabwe: A Survey. Columbia: University Academic Commons.

Mutangi, T, G. (2010). The Changing Patterns of Farm Labour after the Fast Track Land Reform Programme: Harare, Weaver Press.

Mutema, E, P. (2012) that fast track land reforms programme: Reflecting on the challenges and opportunities for resettled former farm workers. Harare, Weaver Press

Parliament of Zimbabwe, (2015). Second Report of the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development. Harare: Government Printers.

Patton, Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Los Angeles Sage: Publications.

Reardon, B.A. (2001). Education for a Culture of Peace in a Gender Perspective. Paris: UNESCO Publishing

Rukuni, M. And Eicher, C. (2009). Zimbabwe’s Agricultural Revolution. Harare: University of Zimbabwe Publications.

Sachikonye, Lloyd. (2003). Land Reform for Poverty Reduction? Manchester: IDMP.

Skalnes, Tor. 1995. The Politics of Economic Reform in Zimbabwe. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Srivastava, G.N.P. (1994). Advanced Research Methodology. New Delhi: Radha Publications.

UNDP, (1994). Human Development Report 1994. Oxford: University of Oxford Press.

UNDP. (2002). Interim Mission Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

World Bank. (2009). Poverty and Hunger: Issues and Options for Food Security in Developing Countries. Washington DC.

Young, E. M. (1997). World Hunger. London, Routledge.

Journal Articles

Borggati, S.P. (1996). Elements of Research. (Retrieved from http://www.analytictech.com/mb313/elements.htm on 13 March 2009) 90

Chen, C.L. (2004). Health as a Human Security Priority for the 21st Century. Paper for Human Security Track III (Retrievedfromhttp://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:EK79mW7d0AAJ:www.helsinkiproc ss.fi/netcomm/ImgLib/24/89/LCHelsinkiPaper12%255B1%255D.6.04.pdf+Human+Security +Commision+2003&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=zw on 16 March 2015)

Commission on Human Security (CHS) (2001). Report on the Second Meeting of the Commission on Human Security. (Retrieved http:// www.humansecuritychs. org/activities/meetings/second/index.html on 13 March 2015)

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR A1 FARMERS

Dear A1 Farmer,

My name is Effort Musonza. I am a student at Bindura University, studying Peace and

Governance. In partial fulfilment of the degree program, I am carrying out a study on the challenges being faced by A1 farmers who benefited on Fast Track Land Reform Programme

(FTLRP). I am kindly seeking your assistance by completing the following questions. The purpose of the study is purely academic, therefore the information you provide will be treated with confidentiality and anonymity.

SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

1. Sex

Male Female

2. Age

<25Years 26-30 Years 31-35 Years 36-40 Years 41+ Years

3. Marital status

Single Married Divorced Widowed Other

4. Indicate the highest level of education you attained

Never attended Form 2 Ordinary Advanced Primary Tertiary school Level Level

5. Size of your household

1-3 4-6 7-9 Above 9

SECTION B.

Questionnaire on access to financial support Yes No

6. Do you have a bank account?

7. Have you accessed micro-loan schemes from Grain Marketing Board?

8. Do you access financial capital from banks?

9. Are you contracted by government or any company to any crop?

10. Is government granting some capital for the production?

11. Are non-governmental organisations supporting the industry financially? 12. Do you cooperate in some projects to raise funds for buying agricultural inputs?

Questionnaire on access to financial Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Not support agree disagree sure

13. Are you satisfied with the level of the input support you are getting from government or any companies? 14. Are you pleased with the prices you are getting from your buyers in all crops? 15. Can financial support make agricultural production viable?

SECTION C.

What equipment do you own?

EQUIPMENT Yes No 16. Tractors 17. Harrows 18. Reapers 19. Plough 20. Cultivator 21. Planter 22. Knapsack ( Sprayer ) 23. Scotch carts

24. Water Pumps

25. Irrigation Pipes

SECTION D.

Questionnaire on agricultural education Yes No

26. Do you receive any agricultural advice on your farm?

27. Have you ever been visited by an extension worker?

28. Is the advice adequate to make you successful in your farming?

29. Do extension worker visit regularly?

30. Is the extension worker having passion in assisting you in production? 31. Do you hold some workshops to have knowledge on current farming methods? 32. Do you hold some platforms to have knowledge besides workshops? 33. Did you face some difficulties in selling of your produce?

END OF QUESTIONNAIRE THANK YOU FOR YOUR VALUABLE TIME AND CONTRIBUTION

Appendix 2: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR KEY INFORMANT

My name is Effort Musonza. I am a student at Bindura University, studying Peace and

Governance. In partial fulfilment of the degree program, I am carrying out a study on the challenges being faced by A1 farmers who benefited on Fast Track Land Reform Programme

Interview Guide for Extension Officer

1. Who is responsible for the training of farmers?

2. Do you hold some workshops for the farmers to have adequate knowledge in farming?

3. What are other platforms you use to teach and train the farmers?

4. Are small scale farmers using Good Agricultural Practices (GAP)?

5. Are small scale farmers succeeding in implementing GAP? If NO what are the

challenges?

6. What control measures are there to ensure farmers’ are being educated on GAP?

7. How do you view the A1 farming production trend in relation to challenges being faced?

8. Do you experience food shortages in this community, if so which months do you experience food shortages?

9. What are the causes of food shortages in this community?

10. What are the food security coping strategies do you adopt when cultivated crops is not enough?

11. Do you think the government is giving you enough support that can improve A1 farming production at Dunkerry farm?

12. What is your suggestion to enhance A1 farming and more viable?

Appendix 3: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR KEY INFORMANT

My name is Effort Musonza. I am a student at Bindura University, studying Peace and

Governance. In partial fulfilment of the degree program, I am carrying out a study on the challenges being faced by A1 farmers who benefited on Fast Track Land Reform Programme

Interview Guide for AGRI Bank Officer

1. Do farmers apply for loans?

2. What do you consider most important when deciding to grant loan-applications?

3. How many loan applications of A1 farmers do you on average attend to per year?

4. What was last season’s allocation of fund?

5. Are farmers able to pay back in time the loans? If NO what are the challenges?

6. Through your service to A1 farmers can you make a difference in farmers’ lives?

7. Do farmers showing that they can be self-sustain in the production without

financially depending syndrome?

8. What is your suggestion to enhance A1 farming and more viable on capital issue?

Appendix 4: APPROVAL LETTERS