1 / 13

CRDP: Technology and Innovation use in Rural South Africa

CRDP: Technology and Innovation use in Rural South Africa. Tim Hart and Peter Jacobs Parliament SA 7 June 2013. Economic Performance and Development. Introduction. 2010-2011 HSRC contracted by DRDLR to audit technologies used in 8 CRDP sites (Vryheid excluded)

pascha
Download Presentation

CRDP: Technology and Innovation use in Rural South Africa

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. CRDP: Technology and Innovation use in Rural South Africa Tim Hart and Peter Jacobs Parliament SA 7 June 2013 Economic Performanceand Development

  2. Introduction • 2010-2011 HSRC contracted by DRDLR to audit technologies used in 8 CRDP sites (Vryheid excluded) • 20 wards to be extended to 160 by 2014 Social science that makes a difference

  3. Definitions • Technology: “…any tool or technique, product or process, physical equipment or method of doing or making, by which human capability is extended”, (Wallender 1979) • Product technologies – higher productivity or improved quality • Process technologies – create new or improved products • Transaction technologies - facilitate co-ordination, information sharing and market exchange • Innovation (novel, value, diffused) – activity of invention, adoption, diffusion and adaption of products, processes, marketing strategies and organisational arrangements

  4. Methodology • A scoping study was undertaken - involved a desktop component, a qualitative fieldwork component and an analysis component. • Due to time frame this was a participatory rapid assessment to determine current picture within historical context and local experience. • To identify technologies - focus on identifying projects / initiatives that make use of some form of technology Social science that makes a difference

  5. Profile of Technologies • In 8 Pilot sites activities using some form of technology include 113 examples: • 64 projects receiving government and non-government support – ‘modern’ technologies • 39 initiated prior to onset of CRDP mid-2009 • 27 local initiatives using ‘modern’ technologies but with no external support • 22 examples of ‘indigenous’ knowledge • Many technologies common across sites – mechanisation, VIP latrines, hybrid seed home gardens, brick and block making, various ICTs products or support services

  6. Technologies

  7. Recommendations Following Findings • Effectively use social facilitation processes – participation is an action and process – not simply a means to achieve consensus • Commercially oriented projects must consider existing conditions and challenges – historical and current – as well as experiences. • Build institutional technical and non-technical capacity of project participants and strengthen their relationship with broader economy – integration Social science that makes a difference

  8. Recommendations Following Findings • Encourage and support entrepreneurs – the ignored ‘27’ • Consider alternative project models that might be more suited- Poverty projects cannot suddenly become commercial - invest in identifying models, organisational arrangements and support. • Pilots sites for learning? Establish M&E system that allows for challenges to be identified and addressed so as to ensure interventions have desired impacts – numbers say little when quality, lessons and expectations are excluded Social science that makes a difference

  9. CRDP Between 2010 and 2012 • Access to progress of CRDP is restricted • By end 2012 – 92 wards reached out of proposed 160 (58%) • But actual service delivery unclear • Predominantly identification of wards, discussions with traditional leaders and councillors, WoP household profiling • Only 60 of 92 have been profiled (+90 LR farms) • Only 25 status quo reports ‘more or less’ completed - out of original 29 wards – nothing on the remaining 63 • Decisions taken by Council of Stakeholders – elitist • Participation, iterative learning, social cohesion, vibrancy? - are these being achieved

  10. Food Security and Capacity Building • By 2014: expect 67 929 food gardens and agri-food parks across 160 wards = 60% of households • By 2011: only 1346 food gardens (2% of target) and 2 agri-food parks (5%) • By 2011: only 472 rural residents including land reform beneficiaries part of skills development programmes - out of the potential millions living in these areas • By 2011: 9 949 ward residents employed through EPWP and CRDP projects • By 2011: NARYSEC youth training target between 7401-7958 but what has been achieved

  11. Policy Considerations • How much support is given to new ideas since CRDP initiated and how much is support to existing and often floundering projects? • How much thought is going into conceptualisation in terms of sustainable rural development – bigger picture? • Development process more important than actual technologies available and introduced – there are no universal solutions. • Are we building on what people know or simply replacing? • There is space for integrating IKS and modern technology- requires acknowledgement, tolerance and willingness to learn • What lessons can we learn from local initiatives? • How do projects link into the broader rural and national economy?

  12. Conclusion • So much research exists, so much more is being conducted but what is happening to the results and outputs of this research? • What pause for reflection on the CRDP has occurred • M&E must be participatory and continuous if fundamental principles of CRDP are to be followed – once-off bi-annual assessments are useless exercises • Ships turn slowly so change in direction must be gradual and timely.

  13. Graph slide

More Related