Agricultural Extension in Africa

There is no widely accepted definition of agricultural extension. The ten examples given below are taken from a number of books on extension published over a period of more than 50 years:
1949: The central task of extension is to help rural families help themselves by applying science, whether physical or social, to the daily routines of farming, homemaking, and family and community living.[1]
1965: Agricultural extension has been described as a system of out-of-school education for rural people.[2]
1966: Extension personnel have the task of bringing scientific knowledge to farm families in the farms and homes. The object of the task is to improve the efficiency of agriculture.[3]
1973: Extension is a service or system which assists farm people, through educational procedures, in improving farming methods and techniques, increasing production efficiency and income, bettering their levels of living and lifting social and educational standards.[4]
1974: Extension involves the conscious use of communication of information to help people form sound opinions and make good decisions.[5]
1982: Agricultural Extension: Assistance to farmers to help them identify and analyse their production problems and become aware of the opportunities for improvement.[6]
1988: Extension is a professional communication intervention deployed by an institution to induce change in voluntary behaviours with a presumed public or collective utility.[7]
1997: Extension [is] the organized exchange of information and the purposive transfer of skills.[8]
1999: The essence of agricultural extension is to facilitate interplay and nurture synergies within a total information system involving agricultural research, agricultural education and a vast complex of information-providing businesses.[9]
2004: Extension [is] a series of embedded communicative interventions that are meant, among others, to develop and/or induce innovations which supposedly help to resolve (usually multi-actor) problematic situations.[10]
[edit]History

[edit]Origins of agricultural extension
Men and women have been growing crops and raising livestock for approximately 10,000 years. Throughout this period, farmers have continually adapted their technologies, assessed the results, and shared what they have learned with other members of the community. Most of this communication has taken the form of verbal explanations and practical demonstrations, but some information took a more durable form as soon as systems of writing were developed. Details of agricultural practices have been found in records from ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia and China going back more than 3,000 years.
It is not known where or when the first extension activities took place. It is known, however, that Chinese officials were creating agricultural policies, documenting practical knowledge, and disseminating advice to farmers at least 2,000 years ago. For example, in approximately 800 BC, the minister responsible for agriculture under one of the Zhou dynasty emperors organized the teaching of crop rotation and drainage to farmers. The minister also leased equipment to farmers, built grain stores and supplied free food during times of famine.[11]
The birth of the modern extension service has been attributed to events that took place in Ireland in the middle of the 19th century.[12] Between 1845–51 the Irish potato crop was destroyed by fungal diseases and a severe famine occurred (see Great Irish Famine). The British Government arranged for "practical instructors" to travel to rural areas and teach small farmer how to cultivate alternative crops. This scheme attracted the attention of government officials in Germany, who organized their own system of traveling instructors. By the end of the 19th century, the idea had spread to Denmark, Netherlands, Italy, and France.
The term "university extension" was first used by the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford in 1867 to describe teaching activities that extended the work of the institution beyond the campus. Most of these early activities were not, however, related to agriculture. It was not until the beginning of the 20th century, when colleges in the United States started conducting demonstrations at agricultural shows and giving lectures to farmer’s clubs, that the term "extension service" was applied to the type of work that we now recognize by that name.
In the United States, the Hatch Act of 1887 established a system of agricultural experiment stations in conjunction with each state's land-grant university, and the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 created a system of cooperative extension to be operated by those universities in order to inform people about current developments in agriculture, home economics, and related subjects.
[edit]Four generations of extension in Asia
The development of extension services in modern Asia has differed from country to country. Despite the variations, it is possible to identify a general sequence of four periods or "generations":[13]
Colonial agriculture: Experimental stations were established in many Asian countries by the colonial powers. The focus of attention was usually on export crops such as rubber, tea, cotton and sugar. Technical advice was provided to plantation managers and large landowners. Assistance to small farmers who grew subsistence crops was rare, except in times of crisis.
Diverse top-down extension: After independence, commodity-based extension services emerged from the remnants of the colonial system, with production targets established as part of five-year development plans. In addition, various schemes were initiated to meet the needs of small farmers, with support from foreign donors.
Unified top-down extension: During the 1970s and ‘80s, the Training and Visit system (T&V) was introduced by the World Bank. Existing organizations were merged into a single national service. Regular messages were delivered to groups of farmers, promoting the adoption of "Green Revolution" technologies.
Diverse bottom-up extension: When World Bank funding came to an end, the T&V system collapsed in many countries, leaving behind a patchwork of programmes and projects funded from various other sources. The decline of central planning, combined with a growing concern for sustainability and equity, has resulted in participatory methods gradually replacing top-down approaches.
The fourth generation is well established in some countries, while it has only just begun in other places. While it seems likely that participatory approaches will continue to spread in the next few years, it is impossible to predict the long-term future of extension. Compared to 20 years ago, agricultural extension now receives considerably less support from donor agencies. Among academics working in this field, some have recently argued that agricultural extension needs to be reinvented as a professional practice.[10] Other authors have abandoned the idea of extension as a distinct concept, and prefer to think in terms of "knowledge systems" in which farmers are seen as experts rather than adopters.[14]
[edit]Communication processes within extension systems

The term "extension" has been used to cover widely differing communication systems. Two particular issues help to define the type of extension: how does communication take place, and why does it take place.[13]


Agricultural Extension Meeting in Nepal, 2002
[edit]How communication takes place in an extension system: paternalism versus participation
Early books on extension often describe a model of communication that involved the transmission of messages from "senders" to "receivers". As part of this model, senders are usually people in authority, such as government planners, researchers, and extension staff, while receivers are usually farmers who are relatively poor and uneducated. Although this model might include something called "feedback", it is clear that the senders are in control of the communication process.
The transmission model of communication is closely related to the idea that extension workers are the link (i.e. message carriers) between researchers (senders) and farmers (receivers). Extension programmes based on this model has been described as "paternalistic"; in other words, the actors in the communication process have a parent/child or teacher/student relationship. Other authors have used the term "top-down" to describe these programmes.
In many countries, paternalistic extension is gradually being replaced by more participatory approaches, in which the knowledge and opinions of farmers is considered to be just as important as that of researchers or government officials. Participatory approaches involve information-sharing and joint decision-making. The terms "interactive" and "bottom-up" have been used to describe these approaches.
The development of participatory extension requires a re-examination of the communication process. At the present time, no single description has replaced the transmission model that is referred to above, but two ideas are becoming widely accepted:
Communication in the context of participatory extension cannot usefully be described in a linear manner with distinct groups of senders and receivers. Instead, extension activities take place within a knowledge system consisting of many actors who play different roles at different times.
Although some actors in the knowledge system have more authority than others, communication usually involves a negotiation rather than a transmission. What takes place is a dialogue, with actors collaborating in the construction of shared meanings rather than simply exchanging information.
The related, but separate field of agricultural communication has emerged to contribute to in-depth examinations of the communication processes among various actors within and external to the agricultural system. This field would refer to the participatory extension model as a form of public relations rooted two-way symmetrical communication based on mutual respect, understanding, and influence between an organization and its stakeholders (publics).[15]
[edit]Why communication takes place: persuasion versus education
Although extension programmes have many different goals, most programmes fall into one of two basic categories:
systems of communication that aim to change the behaviour of rural people
systems of communication that aim to change the knowledge of rural people
There is, of course, a close relationship between knowledge and behaviour; changes in the former often lead to a change in the latter.
If government policy-makers, project managers or researchers direct the topics addressed and projects undertaken, then the purpose of extension is to change behaviour. This approach to extension has been variously described as directive extension, social marketing and propaganda.
If farmers and other rural people direct the extension towards their own needs, then the purpose of extension is changing knowledge. This knowledge helps rural people make their own decisions regarding farming practices. This approach to extension is closely related to non-formal education and conscientization.
[edit]Four paradigms of agricultural extension

Any particular extension system can be described both in terms of both how communication takes place and why it takes place. It is not the case that paternalistic systems are always persuasive, nor is it the case that participatory projects are necessarily educational. Instead there are four possible combinations, each of which represents a different extension paradigm, as follows:[13]
Technology Transfer (persuasive+paternalistic). This paradigm was prevalent in colonial times, and reappeared in the 1970s and 1980s when the Training and Visit system was established across Asia. Technology transfer involves a top-down approach that delivers specific recommendations to farmers about the practices they should adopt.
Advisory work (persuasive+participatory). This paradigm can be seen today where government organisations or private consulting companies respond to farmers enquiries with technical prescriptions. It also takes the form of projects managed by donor agencies and NGOs that use participatory approaches to promote pre-determined packages of technology.
Human Resource Development (educational+paternalistic). This paradigm dominated the earliest days of extension in Europe and North America, when universities gave training to rural people who were too poor to attend full-time courses. It continues today in the outreach activities of colleges around the world. Top-down teaching methods are employed, but students are expected to make their own decisions about how to use the knowledge they acquire.
Facilitation for empowerment (educational+participatory). This paradigm involves methods such as experiential learning and farmer-to-farmer exchanges. Knowledge is gained through interactive processes and the participants are encouraged to make their own decisions. The best known examples in Asia are projects that use Farmer Field Schools (FFS) or participatory technology development (PTD).
It must be noted that there is some disagreement about whether or not the concept and name of extension really encompasses all four paradigms. Some experts believe that the term should be restricted to persuasive approaches, while others believe it should only be used for educational activities. Paulo Freire has argued that the terms ‘extension’ and ‘participation’ are contradictory.[16] There are philosophical reasons behind these disagreements. From a practical point of view, however, communication processes that conform to each of these four paradigms are currently being organized under the name of extension in one part of the world or another. Pragmatically, if not ideologically, all of these activities are agricultural extension.

Re:

Growing Potatoes

Plant your seed potatoes in a good rich soil about (7cm) deep and with plants about a (25cm) apart and in rows about a metre apart.

 

These are the fertilzers used

Fertilizers- MPK  (Basal) , Ammonium Nitrate (Top fertilizing) - and  Microp Lex Super D

Will send  send you exact application dates.

Disease and Chemical Application

Chemical	Application Rate	Disease
Bellis	60gr/100 liters of Water	Vroeg + Botiritis
Penfluid	150 ml/ 100 liters of Water	Vroeg + Laat Roes
Acrobat	200gr/ 100 liters of Water	Vroeg + Laat Roes
Sumisclex	200ml /100 liters of Water	Vroeg + Botiritis
No Blite/ fungicide/Metazeb	100gr/ 100 liters of water	Vroeg + Laat Roes
Tatoo	500ml/ 100 liters of water	Laat Roes
Benomyl -Fungicide	50gr/ 100 liters of water	Botiritis + Laat Roes

 

Pesticides

Chemical	Application Rate	Pest
Aphox	100gr/100 liters of Water	Luis
Mospilan	50gr/ 100 liters of Water	Mot
Dimilin	30ml/ 100 liters of Water	Mot
Methomex	50gr/100 liters of Water	MOT and Luis
Metamidisfos	80ml/ 100 liters of water	MOT,Luis

 

N.B : this a break down of the chemicals and fertilizers required

Production systems of traditional leafy vegetables: Challenges for research and extension

HJ Vorster, JB Stevens, GJ Steyn
Abstract
Traditional leafy vegetables (TLVs) have formed part of rural household food security strategies for generations. The role and production of TLVs (morogo/miroho/imifino)
were determined in three culturally and agro-ecologically diverse rural communities
in South Africa. A questionnaire survey was combined with qualitative methodologies
to access the indigenous or local knowledge associated with the production of these
crops. This paper focuses on factors that are unique to TLV production systems. TLV
production is dominated by women farmers in an attempt to sustain immediate
household food security. The cultural environment within which the women find
themselves, their ability to access needed resources and the use of technical knowledge
(predominantly local knowledge) are interlinked. Research and extension need to
recognize the potential role of TLVs in food security strategies of households and the
influence of the cultural environment on this female dominated production system.
These factors play a significant role in the women\'s ability to produce and maintain
household food security.

Keywords: women, indigenous knowledge, culture, extension, research, TLVs, food security.

Towards an improved agricultural extension service as a key role player in the settlement of new farmers in South Africa

SE Terblanché
Abstract

South Africa (SA) finds itself in a region where the rich countries perceive it as a
sustainable and viable proposition for investment. The prospects for the future are
bright but a warning light is burning: high food prices; shortage of essential food and
the import of it; 50% of land reform projects have failed. Can the SA Agricultural
Extension service play a role to address these issues?
Research in SA clearly indicates a new concept of Extension and identifies 13
essential principles underlying any Extension approach, ranging from an educational
and pro-active approach to an advisory and reactive approach. By means of
consultation, discussion and dialogue extension practitioners and trainers developed
an Agricultural Landscape for Extension, identifying specific concepts, study fields
and essential knowledge/skills areas that form the “playing field” for the extension
agent. An effective extension service is based on certain fixed principles namely:
· The interrelationship between agricultural development and human development;
· Development being needs based;
· Participation being essential for all role players; and
· Any intervention program being focused on behaviour change.The Landscape highlights the following concepts as being necessary to improve
Agricultural Extension:
- Technical competency (the extension agent must be an expert in at least one field
of agriculture);
- Communication skills (verbal; non verbal; written and mass communication);
- Group facilitation skills (group dynamics and leadership); and
- Extension management (program planning, management functions, ethics.
monitoring and evaluation and leadership development).
Land reform in SA is a priority program with efficient productivity as its ultimate
outcome. The settlement of new farmers and specifically post settlement support
become decisive. Guidelines to support the extension agent are:
· The selection of new farmers by means of an effective screening instrument;
· The farmer, or group of beneficiaries, need to work cohesively. The new farmer
must have a clear understanding of the farm as a business;
· Where possible the new farmer should be linked to a mentor;
· The farm needs a viable and sustainable business plan;
· The farm and farmer need financial support as prescribed in the business plan;
and
· The production of produce needs to be market driven.
To-day's clients demand a professional service. The professional registration of
extension agents should in own interest and in the interest of the industry be
implemented as a matter of urgency. Extension in SA needs a vision that is focused
on the future.

Keywords: Extension landscape, principles, farmer settlement, technical competency

CULTURAL VARIATIONS REGARDING THE NATURE AND DETERMINANTS OF OPINION LEADERSHIP

G.H. Düvel

Keywords: Opinion leaders, cultural influence, diffusion and determinants of
opinion leadership.

ABSTRACT

This paper compares the findings from di erent countries regarding the nature and
determinants of opinion leadership. The di erences between white and black farmers
in one country far exceed the di erences between black cultures in di erent countries.
White communities tend to have a bigger percentage of opinion leaders and socioeconomic status is an important barrier to accessibility. Socio-psychological
accessibility is a major constraint amongst white farmers, but not a factor whatsoever
in black communities. In black communities, on the other hand, distance or physical
accessibility is a serious constraint with the result that about 80 percent of the
opinion leaders consulted live within a 2 km radius. This and the fact that most of the
determinants normally associated with opinion leadership show a negative
relationships (as opposed to the positive correlations in white communities), creates
the suspicion that opinion leaders in black rural communities are neighbours or, more
likely, members of the extended family.

1. INTRODUCTION
Focusing communication messages on certain “influentials”, in the
assumption that their influence will come to bear in the further
diffusion to and influence on the other members of the target audience,
makes sense, especially if personal influence is called for but large
numbers or a wide change agent/client ratio make it difficult. This is
typically the case in many developing countries where there is usually a
shortage of extension workers to facilitate a quick dissemination of
agricultural messages. In this context it is fair to assume that the use of
influential farmers or opinion leaders can significantly contribute
towards an increased diffusion effect.
However, there is, according to Chege et al (1976) also evidence
suggesting that the “trickle-down” of information and influence does
not always occur to a significant degree. Lipton and Longhurst (1985)
and Parent and Lovejoy (1987) also come to the conclusion that the
influence of opinion leaders is grossly over-estimated.
This could be attributed to the wrong identification of opinion leaders,
but at least suggests that their influence is not really known and that
little is known about the factors contributing to their influence and
whether and to what degree these factors vary significantly between
different communities or cultures. This paper draws from a few studies
conducted in different countries, namely Uganda (Adupa & Düvel,
1999), Lesotho (Williams, 2005), and South Africa (Düvel, 2005), in
trying to find some answers to the above.

2. METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS
The research approach used in the different surveys and on which this
publication is based, varied but had certain commonalities. In all cases
use was made of semi-structured interview schedules and the
identification of opinion leaders done by the socio-metric method. In
response to questions aimed at identifying opinion leadership,
respondents had to name the individuals that they would consult if
they wanted information or advice on a specific topic as well as those
actually consulted and those they regarded as knowledgeable. In most
projects preference was given to smaller populations rather than
samples of bigger populations, but invariably the nominated
individuals outside the group of respondents were also incorporated in
the analyses as far as certain data was concerned.S. Afr. Tydskr. Landbouvoorl./S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext., Düvel

3.1 The scope of opinion leadership

Earlier research among white commercial farmers in South Africa
(Pienaar, 1983) left the impression of a relative small number of opinion
leaders having an influence on a large number of followers. This was
later found to be very unlikely (Düvel, 1996) and attributable to an
incorrect identification of opinion leaders. In response to a question
who respondents would consult if they were seeking information or
advice on a specific issue, there was a very clear reluctance, perhaps for
reasons of prestige or image projection, to nominate individuals as
opinion leaders that were not generally regarded to be very
knowledgeable. The fact that this led to an incorrect identification of
opinion leaders became evident when respondents were requested to
distinguish between individuals known as knowledgeable and those
really consulted.

This phenomenon, however, does not occur among black small-scale
farmers in the sense that they are more candid and open when
reporting about their consultation behaviour and they make little or no
difference between individuals that they would consult and those that
really are consulted. In these communities there is little danger of the
wrong individuals being identified.

As far as the number or percentages of opinion leaders in a farming
community are concerned, the findings of Williams & Düvel (2005)
from Swaziland appear to be pretty representative of the black farming
communities.
Accepting nominations of two or more to qualify as opinion leaders,
about 23 percent of the farming population can be termed opinion
leaders (Figure 1). In white commercial farming communities this
percentage is usually higher, varying from about 30 percent (Van der
Wateren, 1986) to as high as 40 percent (Bembridge & Burger, 1976), and
there are also clear indications of these opinion leaders to be more
monomorphic as opposed to the more polymorphic opinion leaders in
black farming communities.S. Afr. Tydskr. Landbouvoorl./S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext., Düvel

3.2 Determinants of opinion leadership
Socio-economic status is generally accepted as being an important factor
in influencing opinion leadership or the pattern of consultations, in the
sense that followers usually seek advice from opinion leaders with a
higher socio-economic status (Rogers 1983), but if the difference in
status is too big the decreasing accessibility can be expected to prevent
the flow of information. This appears to be the case among the white
farmers (Düvel and Van der Wateren, 1988; van der Wateren 1986) but
it does not seem to apply to the black farmers. When black farmers were
asked to assess the accessibility of opinion leaders they previously had
categorized as having a lower, the same, or a higher socio-economic
status than themselves, there was no significant difference regarding
accessibility (Table 1).
Even the generalization made by Rogers (1983), namely that opinion
leaders have a higher socio-economic status than the followers, does not
seem to apply in many black cultures
Other factors investigated that have opposite influences or relationships
in the black and white cultures are age, education, production efficiency
and farm size. The normal expectancy would be that opinion leaders do
not necessarily differ from their followers in age, but that they are better
educated (higher qualifications), have more contact with extension,
have bigger farms and are more productive or efficient farmers. In the
culture of the small scale black farmers almost the exact opposite
appears to be the case. The findings from Lesotho (Williams and Düvel,
2005) indicate that in black farming communities the opinion leaders,
particularly the strong opinion leaders, tend to be older, but have lower
levels of education (r = -0.257; p = 0.01) and are, based on production
efficiency, not better farmers at all. The opposite rather seems to be the
case.

The absence of a significant correlation between farming efficiency and
opinion leadership and the fact that only 34.5 percent of the
respondents seek advice from individuals that they regard to be more
efficient than themselves, seems to indicate that farming efficiency or
competence is not such an important issue in a farming environment
that is primarily subsistent in nature.
In Lesotho the strength of opinion leadership is negatively related to
contact with extension, which could be an indication that extensionists
are not aware of or not using the prominent opinion leaders yet and/

that there is a negative relationship between opinion leadership and
perceived credibility of the extension service.

3.3 Accessibility of opinion leaders

Accessibility is probably, next to competence, the most important
dimension of opinion leadership. To function as an opinion leader, an
individual must not only be seen to have superior or a higher level of
knowledge, but there must also be the willingness on the side of
potential followers to seek his/her advice, and for that he/she needs to
be perceived as accessible. This accessibility has a physical and a sociopsychological dimension:

(1) Physical accessibility.
If individuals form network links that require the least effort (Rogers
and Kincaid, 1981), people in the immediate environment are likely to
have more influence than those who are far, because they are physically
more accessible when their advice is needed. In the case of the white
commercial farmers, the distance or consultation proximity (distance
between follower and opinion leader) does not seem to influence the
consultations within the bigger community. However, in the small and
resource-poor farming situations (Figure 2), the physical distance can be
a serious limiting factor as is shown by the following findings from
Swaziland (Williams & Düvel, 2005).

About 50 percent of the opinion leaders consulted, live within 1 km
radius and almost 80 percent within a distance of 2 km. This could give
the impression that opinion leaders are mostly neighbours or members
of the own extended family.
(2) Socio-psychological accessibility
All surveys done among black farmers, whether in Uganda, South
Africa, Lesotho or Botswana, indicated that socio-psychological
accessibility is not a constraint. This is in contrast to the situation among
white commercial farmers as can be seen from Figure 3.
The accessibility of opinion leaders in the small-scale and
commercial farming situation (Düvel, 1996)
About 90 percent of all black opinion leaders were assessed to have a
high or very high accessibility compared to only about 50 percent in the
case of white commercial farmers. This means that accessibility is much
more critical in the culture of white commercial farmers and largely
determines the consultation pattern. Unlike the black farmers, where
there was hardly a difference in accessibility assessment between those
farmers classified as very knowledgeable and those actually consulted,
there were very significant differences in the case of the white
commercial farmers. The farmers classified as knowledge leaders, were
assessed significantly lower in accessibility, which largely explains why
they were not consulted or why their identification and involvement
did not have a significant influence on the total extension impact.S. Afr. Tydskr. Landbouvoorl./S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext., Düvel

2. Accessibility is a critical dimension in some cultures, whilst it is
not a factor in others. However, more research is required to
understand this concept and the degree to which it is a constraint
in different cultures.
3. Opinion leadership strategies should be combined with other
local communication network phenomena.
4. An understanding of the diffusion process and its promotion may
be better served by a focus on negative opinion leaders, an area
largely overlooked by research.

REFERENCES
ADUPA, J., & DÜVEL, 1999. The importance of opinion leaders in
agricultural production among male and female farmers of the Kusenge
Parish in the Mukono District of Uganda. S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext., 28:32-44.
BEMBRIDGE, T.J. & BURGER, P.J., 1976. The importance of opinion
leaders in extension. S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext. 5:13-17.
CHEGE, F.W., RÖLING, N., SUURS, F. & ASCROFT, J., 1976. Small
farmers on the move: Results of a panel study in rural Kenya. Paper
presented at the Fourth World Congress of Rural Sociology, Toran,
Poland, August 9-15, 1976.
DÜVEL, G.H., 1996. The role of competence in the identification and
functioning of opinion leaders. S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext. 25:18-26.
DÜVEL, G.H. & VAN DER WATEREN, J.J., 1988. The identification and
accessibility of opion leaders. S.A. Institute for Agricultural Extension.
Research Report. (unpublished).
LIPTON, M. & LONGHURST, R., 1985. Modern varieties: International
research and the poor. Washington: World Bank Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research. Study Paper 2.
PARENT, F.D. & LOVEJOY, S.B., 1987. Communication strategy: Does
the two-step still work? ACE Quarterly, 1:5-7.S. Afr. Tydskr. Landbouvoorl./S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext., Düvel
Vol. 37, 2008:17-27
ISSN 0301-603X (Copyright)
26
PIENAAR, J., 1983. Experience with permanent audiences as extension
method in the Stellenbosch viticultural area. S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext. 12:53-
60.
ROGERS, E.M., 1983. Di usion of innovations. 3rd Ed. New York: The Free
Press.
ROGERS, E.M & KINCAID D.L., 1981. Communication Networks:
Toward a new paradigm for research. The Free Press, New York.
VAN DER WATEREN, J.J., 1986. Opinie-leierskap in landbouontwikkeling. PhD thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria
(Unpublished).
WILLIAMS, R.F. & DÜVEL, G.H., 2005. Nature and determinants of
opinion leadership in Lesotho. S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext. 34(2):260-274.
WILLIAMS, R.F. & DÜVEL, G.H., 2006. Factors contributing to the
accessibility of opinion leaders in Lesotho. S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext.35(2):12

IFC APPROVES FINANCING FOR MERCHANT BANK AND THREE COMPANIES IN ZIMBABWE

Asiminia Caminis

The International Finance Corporation (IFC) has approved a credit line of US$5 million for National Merchant Bank of Zimbabwe Limited (NMBZ) and loans totaling US$816,000 for three Zimbabwean companies, Mukwa Milling Company (Private) Limited, Highveld Horticulture Zimbabwe (Private) Ltd., and Sable Safari (Private) Limited. IFC, a member of the World Bank Group, is the largest multilateral source of financing for private sector projects in developing countries. IFC's line of credit to NMBZ will be used to collateralize trade finance facilities at various international banks and to fund medium-term foreign currency loans to export-oriented companies. IFC recently made a Z$3.75 million (US$580,000 equivalent) equity investment in NMBZ, Zimbabwe's first indigenously owned merchant bank. The loans to the three Zimbabwean companies will be made by the Africa Enterprise Fund (AEF), IFC's vehicle for funding small and medium-sized projects with total costs ranging from US$250,000 to US$5 million. The US$200,000 AEF loan for Mukwa Milling Company, which manufactures wooden window and door frames, mainly for export to South Africa, will cover 48 percent of the financing required by the company for the acquisition of new machinery and an additional workshop, and long-term working capital. ..MORE.. - 2 - AEF's venture loan of US$216,000 to Highveld Horticulture Zimbabwe, which operates a vegetable and fruit packhouse and cold store in Mvurwi and processes fruits and vegetables for export, will help finance the company's expansion program. The company, which is owned by 33 commercial farmers and Selby Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd (Selby), Zimbabwe's second largest produce exporter, plans to purchase the packhouse it now leases. AEF's loan of US$400,000 to Sable Safari will help finance the upgrading and modernization of two safari camps at Chikwenya, on the Zambezi River, and Fothergill Island (Lake Kariba), and the construction of two new camps adjacent to Hwange National Park. AEF's loan will cover 46 percent of Sable Safari's project costs, estimated at US$863,000.