Fertiliser Support Programme
Fertiliser Support ProgrammeWritten by Editor
So much has been reported about the distribution process of the farming inputs under the Fertiliser Support Programme regarding thefts and misapplication of the facility which is meant for our vulnerable but viable farmers.It is sad that several farmers from different parts of the country are complaining of not having accessed the subsidised inputs despite registering with co-operatives and making payments for the fertiliser.
It is also disturbing because a lot was said about this fertiliser support arrangement just before the October 30 elections, with announcements that farmers could access fertiliser at a reduced price of K50,000 per bag. However, what is on the ground is totally different from what the farmers were told a few months ago.
Right from President Rupiah Banda’s pronouncements that the price of fertiliser had been reduced to K50,000, we questioned the motive behind that. Of course, we knew it was done for political expediency. Worse still, Rupiah went on to say that even civil servants and the military personnel could also access the subsidised inputs. But the question is: are the civil servants and defence personnel vulnerable farmers? If they are not, then why allow them to access inputs under the Fertiliser Support Programme when they have the capacity to purchase elsewhere?
Again, we say this announcement was for political expediency because going by the objective of the Fertiliser Support Programme, this facility is not meant for civil servants, defence personnel or even those farmers who can manage to fund their crop production without needing subsidies from the government. We are not surprised to learn of abuses of the facility because it seems the Fertiliser Support Programme is losing its focus at a much faster rate than was anticipated.
We are aware of the fact that Zambia has over a million small-scale farmers. From this figure, three quarters of the small-scale or peasant farmers require government support in one way or the other and input subsidies in this situation can prove to be an attractive incentive to increase production and household and national food security.
From this year’s allocation, we know that 200,000 vulnerable small-scale farmers are supposed to benefit from the Fertiliser Support Programme inputs. But this has not happened because Rupiah and his sponsors allowed rich farmers with enough resources to purchase their own inputs and civil servants to access the inputs under the Fertiliser Support Programme, thereby denying the vulnerable farmer an opportunity to produce.
We know that prices of fertiliser drastically increased to unprecedented levels of around K250,000. But this should not be the cause for Rupiah and his sponsors to even allow rich farmers and civil servants to enjoy benefits of the Fertiliser Support Programme instead of it focusing on vulnerable farmers.
It is not surprising that all these complaints are now coming forth. This is always the result of telling so many lies – a lie will always catch up with the one who has told it. Rupiah targeted the issue of farming inputs during his campaigns because he was trying to solicit votes from the poor farmers.
This is totally unacceptable because agriculture is not an area that needs to be played around with. A lot of poor farmers now cannot even afford just four bags of fertiliser because they need not less than K1 million.
We obviously know what this means for our country – less yields and more hunger, malnutrition and poverty among the rural households, even among urban dwellers, just because a few selfish individuals opted to enrich themselves at the expense of many suffering citizens.
We all know that Zambia is heavily dependent on agriculture, especially for its food needs. That is why politicians should not be allowed to play games with the agriculture sector, like is the case now.
We are aware of vulnerable farmers even in places such as Lundazi who have not accessed a single bag of fertiliser because their co-operatives either refunded them their membership fees or were delaying to give them the inputs because the fertiliser is simply not there. Where the inputs have gone is the question that needs to be answered.
But going by past experiences, it seems the government never learns lessons and never strives to correct past mistakes, and improve on weaknesses of some of these critical developmental programmes.
Over the years, the government has been supporting some small-scale farmers, vulnerable but viable farmers, in maize production through the provision of subsidised inputs under the Fertiliser Support Programme. This initiative has been in place since 2002. But sadly, it has not fully served its intended purpose.
We say so because we believe that during every farming season, only a few of the targeted group have access to the government-subsidised fertiliser, while the larger part of the allocation either finds itself on the black market or is given to those farmers who have the capacity to fully finance their own crop production.
There are several hiccups or weaknesses in the Fertiliser Support Programme. We also feel that its objective needs to be revisited to ensure that it targets vulnerable farmers and assist them to graduate to a level where they will have the capacity to finance their own production while leaving room to new entrants to benefit from the agricultural subsidies.
Granting subsidies to farmers can enhance agricultural production, although the practice can be financially unsustainable for the government. But as the situation stands now, Zambia cannot do without subsidies to the vulnerable but viable small-scale farmers as they constitute the largest part of the farming community, and produce over half of Zambia’s total maize production.
The trend in maize production should tell us more and is a warning that so much needs to be done in the agriculture industry. In the 2005/2006 season, Zambia produced around 1.6 metric tonnes per hectare. In 2006/2007, the country produced about 1.57 metric tonnes per hectare, and then in the 2007/2008 season, we came to 1.31 metric tonnes per hectare. We believe there is still so much more that needs to be done besides granting subsidies, which, anyway, don’t even reach the intended beneficiaries.
For example, Rupiah and his friends need to enhance agriculture extension services so that farmers can get first-hand information from experts on crop production. Without this and without tackling the weaknesses of the Fertiliser Support Programme, we will see that maize production will continue to dwindle until we reach levels where cultivation of the crop will no longer be viable and profitable.
As demand for food increases – fuelled by growing populations, rising incomes and global integration – Zambia needs to critically strategise on improving its agricultural production for household and national food security. The starting point for Rupiah’s government therefore is to recognise the fact that the country has an enormous agricultural potential, in terms of land, water and labour.
Given the different agro-ecological zones in one country, this should enable the country to grow almost anything, anywhere. We have the high rainfall area of about 1,200 to 1,500 millimeters of rain every year, which covers Northern, Luapula and North Western provinces. We also have the medium rainfall area of about 800 to around 1,000 millimeters of rain per year. Copperbelt and some parts of Western, Central and parts of Eastern and Lusaka provinces are some of the places with medium rainfall patterns. Then we have the low rainfall areas of 500 to 800 millimeters of rain per year, predominantly in some parts of Southern and Eastern provinces.
Immediate gains in poor households’ welfare can be achieved through agricultural growth, which can help the poor overcome some of the critical constraints they now face in meeting their basic needs.
Although agriculture accounts for only 25 per cent of Zambia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), it is still the main source of livelihood for most of the country’s population, including the majority of the country’s poor who live in rural areas where the incidence and severity of poverty is greatest.
We therefore believe that an improvement in agricultural performance has the potential to increase rural incomes and purchasing power for a large number of people.
With greater prosperity, the consequent higher effective demand for Zambian industrial and other goods will induce dynamics that will be a significant source of economic growth and employment in urban areas.
Labels: AGRICULTURE, FSP, LAND RIGHTS
posted by MrK @ 3:22 PM
1 Comments:
Please check out my My Manifesto for Economic Transformation, which includes a section on a comprehensive agrarian reform strategy.
Developing agriculture should take up most of the budget, in my opinion. There is nothing more important than securing the food supply, both in the short and long run.
And it represents such a huge opportunity for growth and development, especially in the rural areas where most people live.
But we have to let go of the idea that foreigners will develop Zambia for Zambians - they will only do what is in their own best interest. Not necessarily because they are bad or uncaring people, although many are, but because corporations in the West have only one mandate - maximize profits for their shareholders. So unless you're a shareholder, you are not going to benefit from their pursuit of profits at all cost. And if you're a citizen, you are going to suffer from environmental pollution and low wages - unless we have a government that looks at the world from the perspective of workers, farmers and citizens first.
'Development' is not enough. Economic growth must take place in such a way, that it actually raises both wages and purchasing power. And the only way that can happen, is by both putting the citizens to work and making sure most of the money made through economic activity in Zambia and Africa ends up in the wallets of ordinary citizens and the managers of businesses that employ them, not shareholders or even (in the long run) the state.
Why not have 20% of profits go to workers as bonuses, and leave 80% of profits in the hands of farmers and business managers, so they can use it to set up more businesses?
If foreign businesses need to set up in Zambia, why not have them pay the same minimum wage as prevails in their home country?
But getting back to agriculture, we need to create out of the million strong subsistence farmers, a class of medium scale commercial organic farmers, with access to 100 hectares and equipment (either owned outright or hired). This is enough space to have 50 hectares under cultivation for staples like maize (which would generate 50 x 2 tonnes x $200 per tonne = $20,000 in revenues; if half of that was cost, it would leave the farmers with $10,000 per year income). The other 50 hectares could be used for other staples like cassava and sorghum, or commercial crops like (dare I say it) hemp, cotton, tea, etc.
It would also have enough room for the farmer's son or daughter to run a 1 ha greenhouse, which would have a huge impact on employment in itself. There would be enough space for meat production.
In other words, with this much space, the farmer can spread out into any agricultural business opportunity he or she sees. Skills can be passed on from generation to generation.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home