CGSpaceA Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs
    View Item 
    •   CGSpace Home
    • International Water Management Institute (IWMI)
    • IWMI Journal Articles
    • View Item
       
    • CGSpace Home
    • International Water Management Institute (IWMI)
    • IWMI Journal Articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Joint venture schemes in Limpopo Province and their outcomes on smallholder farmers livelihoods

    Thumbnail
    
    Authors
    Mapedza, Everisto
    Koppen, Barbara C.M. van
    Sithole, P.
    Bourblanc, M.
    Date
    2015
    Language
    en
    Type
    Journal Article
    Accessibility
    Open Access
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Share
    Citation
    Mapedza, Everisto; van Koppen, Barbara; Sithole, P.; Bourblanc, M. 2015. Joint venture schemes in Limpopo Province and their outcomes on smallholder farmers livelihoods. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 8p. (Online first) doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2015.10.016
    Permanent link to cite or share this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10568/72591
    DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2015.10.016
    Abstract/Description
    Joint Venture schemes based on the floppy irrigation technology are being promoted in the post-Apartheid South Africa's Limpopo Province. Access to land and water resources in South Africa are largely viewed as a mechanism for re-dressing the Apartheid injustices. This research was part of a broader applied research to help inform irrigation practise in the Limpopo Province. The research used literature review, key informant interviews and a questionnaire survey. The overall research question sought to understand how the Joint Venture Schemes had benefited the smallholder farmers. This paper argues that the joint venture partnership created a new injustice. Firstly, the Joint Venture Scheme design is fundamentally a bad idea which disempower farmers not only to water access but also land as well. The choice of the ‘efficient’ floppy irrigation technology was made by the state and entailed that land had to be managed as a single unit. In order to make more effective use of this highly sophisticated new technology, the smallholder farmers also needed to go into a joint venture partnership with a white commercial farmer. By virtue of signing the Joint Venture agreement the farmers were also forfeiting their land and water rights to be used for crop production. The smallholder farmers lost access to their water and land resources and were largely relegated to sharing profits – when they exist - with hardly any skills development despite what was initially envisaged in the Joint Venture partnership. Secondly, the implementation of the JVS has been skewed from the start which explains the bad results. This paper further shows how the negative outcomes affected women in particular. As the smallholder farmers argue the technological options chosen by the state have excluded both male and female farmers from accessing and utilising their land and water resources in order to improve their livelihoods; it has entrenched the role of the state and the private interests at the expense of the smallholder male and female farmers in whose name the irrigation funding was justified. The paper concludes by offering recommendations on how joint venture schemes can be genuinely participatory and meaningfully address the rural livelihoods.
    CGIAR Affiliations
    Water, Land and Ecosystems
    AGROVOC Keywords
    SMALLHOLDERS; LIVING STANDARDS; IRRIGATION SCHEMES; SPRINKLER IRRIGATION; GENDER; MALE LABOUR; FEMALE LABOUR; LAND RESOURCES; WATER RESOURCES; WATER USE; MULTIPLE USE; SUSTAINABILITY
    Collections
    • IWMI Journal Articles [1921]

    AboutPrivacy policySend Feedback
     

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Browse

    All of CGSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesBy AGROVOC keywordBy ILRI subjectBy CPWF subjectBy CCAFS subjectBy CIFOR subjectBy IWMI subjectBy RegionBy CountryBy SubregionBy CRP subjectBy River basinBy Output typeBy CTA subjectBy WLE subjectBy Bioversity subjectBy CIAT subjectBy CIP subjectBy animal breedBy CGIAR System subjectThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesBy AGROVOC keywordBy ILRI subjectBy CPWF subjectBy CCAFS subjectBy CIFOR subjectBy IWMI subjectBy RegionBy CountryBy SubregionBy CRP subjectBy River basinBy Output typeBy CTA subjectBy WLE subjectBy Bioversity subjectBy CIAT subjectBy CIP subjectBy animal breedBy CGIAR System subject

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    AboutPrivacy policySend Feedback