Evaluation of Land-Bank Beneficiaries’ Extension Services and Household Food Security in North-West Province

Abstract

Farmers' effectiveness and efficiency in agricultural practices hinges on timely and adequate information that are relevant to farmer's needs. Also, land bank support to its beneficiaries serves as "endowment" and "entitlement" which provides beneficiaries with access to credits and other means of production. Thus, the focus of this study was on "Evaluation of Land-Bank beneficiaries' extension services and household food security in Northwest Province". For this study 169 beneficiaries were selected and only 115 were willing to participate. Data collection was done with the aid of a structured questionnaire. Results from the field survey revealed that beneficiaries are aware of extension services and the relevance of information dissemination to farmer's needs and its potential to facilitate their productivity. However, factors such as information relevance and frequency of extension visits to farms are main determinant factors of beneficiaries' access to extension services. Also, most beneficiaries are food secure however, their food availability does not automatically results in food nutrition as most respondents attested to not regularly feeding on balance diet and reliance on less preferred and expensive food is a major indicator that though they might be food secure the presence of balanced diet in their meals lacks consistency. Furthermore, results indicates that that gender was coefficient at (0.8246) and significant at (5%), this implies that male headed households are more likely to access extension services either by initiating extension visits or visiting extension offices as compared to female headed households. This is because women are more tasked with home chores such as cooking, cleaning and catering for the children. Also, marital status was coefficient at (0.9723) and significant at (5%) this implies that beneficiaries that are married have more likelihood to access extension services as there is division of role amongst partners i.e. the man or woman can serve as a representative for the entire household during extension trainings while the other partner takes care of other activities that might not be farm related as compared to a single individual that has to attend training while been tasked with other off farm responsibilities. Educational level was coefficient at (0.5620) and significant at (5%) this implies that respondents with high level of education are more likely to comprehend and grasp extension training, adopt latest technologies for farming and also use multiple platforms for accessing extension services. Also, farm size was coefficient at (.0209752) with a significant value of (P≤0.10), this indicates that an increase in farm size has the probability to increase the household food security of respondents, this implies that farm size is likely to impact food security as those with smaller farm sizes are likely to have lower production output

which has the probability to result in reduction in income which limits ability to purchase food in situation where their farm products are not ready for harvest. Labour source was coefficient at (.6037481) with a significant value of (P≤0.5) this implies that sources of labour has the probability to impact food security as farmers with more labour sources such as self, family members and hired labour combined are more likely to yield higher production output as compared to farmers who rely on either self, family members or hired labour only. In addition, income of respondents was coefficient at (.0001141) with a significant value of (P≤0.5) this implies the income generated by respondents has the probability to increase or decrease household food security as those respondents with higher income have the purchasing power to buy food when needed as compared to those with lower income. This means the more income respondents have the more likely they are to be food secure and the lesser the income the more likely they are to be food insecure. Lastly, involvement in off farm activities was coefficient at (1.274086) with a significant value of (P≤0.10) this shows that respondents that are involved in off farm activities other than farming are probably more food secure than those that are not. This is because the off farm activities serve as a means of additional income to respondents which in turn increases their income generation and a better livelihood thereby giving them more purchasing power as an effective alternative to source for food rather than reliance solely on production output or income generated from sales of their agricultural products.