5 CONCLUSION

[page-number of print-ed.: 65 (continuation)]

5 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, four issues seem to stand out prominently and to deserve remarking upon. These issues include the representatives of the research sample, the overall performance of the programme, the relationship of the crop pack programme to other drought relief programmes, and the implementation of certain recommendations.

Before drawing this report to a close, it seems necessary to reaffirm that the spatial distribution of the research sample, the techniques of its selection and the methods of data collection applied make the

[page-number of print-ed.: 66]

results obtained and offered in this report fairly reliable. The generalisations made from the data are sufficiently valid.

There is no doubt that the performance of the crop pack programme has achieved some reasonable success in attaining its immediate objectives. But the same cannot be said for the programme sustainability and the ultimate goal for the small scale farming sector. Some evaluation recommendations may therefore be controversial and/or difficult to implement in view of political inertia anticipated in this regard.

It must further be observed that the performance of the crop pack programme cannot be conclusively stated in isolation of the performance of the other drought relief programmes. Cattle restocking programme and debt rescheduling programme, for instance, are closely linked to the performance of the crop pack programme in so far as they provide draft and manure, and enhance the farmer's borrowing opportunities and input purchasing capacity respectively. Perhaps, there is need to undertake some evaluation of these other programmes.

It has already been noted that certain recommendations may seem politically unacceptable and hence may be unimplementable. It is a considered view of this evaluation that all the recommendations proffered are both politically and economically feasible. What is required are carefully designed implementation strategies along the lines suggested in 4.2(b). Again perhaps there is need for a study to formulate these strategies for the discontinuation of the programme and for the promotion of an alternative programme which would sustainably develop the smallholder framing sector.