˘ ˇ ˆ · Cheetah Zambia offers paprika outgrower schemes in Chitina in Mkushi. According to the...

1

��

��

2

3.0 DATA QUALITY ANALYSIS INCLUDING EFFECTS OF BIAS AND NON-RESPONSE

In this study non-response was not a problem in that all the households that were sampled responded. This is attributed to the fact that household lists were updated in all the nine villages just before sampling was done. The enumerators contracted for the survey were nine Agricultural Extension Officers who have worked 4 - 8 years in the areas. This offered a great advantage as to the nature of the questions asked and the enumerators familiarity with the area and the farmers. The drawback was their professional position, which way generate ideal/biased answers from the farmers. However, all the enumerators seemed to be aware of the risk for “professional” bias when this was brought up for discussion. In general terms therefore, the quality of the data can be described as good.

3

4.0 VILLAGE LEVEL RESEARCH QUESTIONS 4.1 Physical endowments and natural resources, market access (agricultural dynamism) The villages sampled for the study fall under two distinct regions as regards rainfall pattern. Mazabuka falls under zone II, which is a medium rainfall zone, and covers the sandveld plateau of Central, Eastern and Southern Provinces. Mkushi falls under Zone III, which covers the Northern part of the country and has the highest pattern of rainfall. This is confirmed by table 4.0, in terms of what has been experienced by the villages sampled as regards rainfall in the past three seasons. The village in Mazabuka experienced more drought than the villages in Mkushi which is further North. The soils in the two regions are fairly fertile and all belong to the “maize belt”. Due to prolonged drought in the recent past, Mazabuka is almost or slowly losing its status as a “maize belt” area. Table 4.0: Rainfall Conditions in the Past 3 Seasons

Season

Village Most recent season

Season before the most recent one

Two seasons before the most recent one

Region

Musakamba

below average

average

Above average

I

Musofu

average

above average

average

I

Kalombe

average

above average

below average

I

Chitina

drought

above average

drought

I

Nkumbi

average

above average

average

I

Dumba

drought

average

average

II

Oliver

drought

drought

average

II

Nameembo

drought

drought

average

II

Nega-Nega

drought

drought

average

II

The irregular pattern of rainfall in the past three seasons is a major hindrance to increased crop

productivity especially that none of the villages have any worthwhile irrigation infrastructure.

Despite the presence of water bodies, almost all of the irrigation is of the small-scale farmer

constructed, water control devices managed by individual households. The crops so irrigated are

mostly vegetables and small plots of maize meant for early harvest, just before the onset of the

rains. Apart from Nameembo, all the other villages have all weather roads, the major difference

4

is the distance to the major marketing centres/towns as tabulated in table 5.0.

Villages which are far from the major marketing centres (like Kalombe in Mkushi and

Nameembo in Mazabuka), face problems in getting access to both input and output markets. The

lack of regular public transport in any of the nine villages further hinders access to major market

outlets. This has a negative effect on technology adoption, yields and output market

participation, as farmers may not have the means to hire vehicles to ferry inputs in good time in

order to carry out their agriculture operations in time.

Table 5.0: Distance to Various Social/Economic Facilities by Village (kilometers)

Village

All weather

road

permanent

crop outlet

Town based and

Permanent

market

Permanent

electricity

mobile/per-

manent

telephone

Musakamba

10

10

10

10

10

Musofu

5

5

52

52

52

Kalombe

30

0

75

30

8

Chitina

12

0

48

12

12

Nkumbi

4

7

22

0

8

Dumba

5

15

25

2

2

Oliver

32

66

66

32

32

Nameembo

11

0

63

11

63

Nega-Nega

19

19

45

0

0

All villages sampled have open land frontiers, although in Mazabuka the frontiers are slowly

closing. Land is therefore not an hindrance to increasing area cultivated, by smallholder farmers.

4.2 State Initiatives

In the past i.e., before market liberalization, access to credit was almost assured by almost all

5

categories of farmers. Lima Bank, co-operative societies, the Credit Union and Savings

Association and indeed commercial banks among others used to advance credit to small scale

farmers. These institutions used to offer credit ranging from short term, medium term to long

term loans. The type and amount of loan depended on the collateral being offered by the farmer.

With the advent of market liberalization, the traditional lending institutions were either liquidated

or went under. As a response the government finally delivered credit although the Food Reserve

Agency (FRA) during the 1998/99 agricultural season. The involvement of the FRA in fertilizer

distribution has been widely seen as the agency going beyond its core business of managing the

nations grain stocks. Due to various reasons, access to credit by most small scale farmers has

drastically reduced. Farmers complain of unfavourable payment arrangements in kind. The FRA

normally provides commercial fertilizer and does not provide hybrid seed. This consequently

leads to low yields and low repayment rates. Fertilizers are always supplied late and not in the

required quantities. Sometimes top dressing fertilizer is supplied before basal dressing fertilizer.

Although all the camps in the study area are manned and some extension officers are equipped

with bicycles/motorbikes, extension coverage is low. This is because apart from lack of transport

facilities those who are luck to be equipped with bicycles or motorbikes are expected to take care

of all repairs and or fuel. This is indeed a very tall order, considering that the officers are poorly

paid and there is no way that they can afford to do this from their salaries. The result is that

extension coverage is very low as indicated in the Qualitative Evaluation. The camp officer in

Kalombe (Mkushi) is a classical case, the officer seemed detached from his job and all he waits

for is the pay cheque at the end of the month. The low extension coverage has a negative impact

on productivity, in that very few farmers are imparted with modern or other crop yield enhancing

techniques.

There are no input or transport subsidies in any of the nine villages, neither are there any

infrastructure developments. The marketing structure is liberalized in all the nine villages.

Unfortunately inputs are always sold at market prices, while output, especially maize is sold at

6

prices below the production cost. Non-Governmental Organizations like PAM, Care

International etc. provide starter packs, mainly for the disabled and the very poor.

4.3 Markets

All the nine villages have experienced a significant decline in the quantity of food crops

produced, access to markets of food crops has also declined. Private traders dominate the market

and since the government/cooperatives do not offer them any competition, farmers are always

being exploited, as they are offered below market prices. This tends to discourage farmers as they

feel that their duty is to work and enrich these private traders. Before market liberalization

agricultural markets were well organized through local cooperative societies and the then

National Agricultural Marketing Board (NAMBOARD). Farmers used to grow various crops and

productivity was high, as inputs were readily available. The market was always assured even in

the remotest of areas. The government, unlike no, made sure that rural infrastructure, including

roads was kept in good shape. In addition to the assured market, payment was almost prompt.

These conditions coupled with a conducive macro-economic environment was very attractive to

farmers and induced high production/productivity. The main interest of private traders is

purchase of produce and they are never involved in input supply. The government is trying to

revive co-operatives once again, but unfortunately the ones that are operational are formed on the

basis of input acquisition, and are not involved in any marketing of crops, leaving farmers to be

exploited by the private traders.

Apart from the government employed extension offices there are no private/NGO extension

providers. Even companies like Dunavant Cotton Limited and Clark Cotton Limited, who are

involved in cotton out-grower schemes do not have extension officers of their own. Instead they

sub-contract government extension officers. This obviously has a negative effect on the ability of

these extension officers to execute their duties effectively. Simple logic will assume that, they are

likely to sideline, the farmers who do not grow cotton, leading to a drop in

production/productivity of the other crops.

7

All the villages sampled do not have any local processing industries where they could be

employed in the off-season in order to supplement their incomes. Non farm income

opportunities are rarely available in Mkushi, inside or near the villages. Farmers basically depend

on agriculture for their livelihood. Apart from charcoal burning and beer brewing, there are no

other non-farm income opportunities inside or near the village worth talking about. The situation

in Mazabuka is slightly different in that non-farm employment opportunities are available near

the villages, on white commercial farms, although they get slave wages of between 0.30 cents to

US$1.0 per day.

As mentioned earlier Dunavant Cotton Limited and Clark Cotton Limited offer contractor

farming and outgrower schemes in cotton in all the villages in Mazabuka and Nkumbi in Mkushi.

Cheetah Zambia offers paprika outgrower schemes in Chitina in Mkushi. According to the

qualitative evaluation, the returns from cotton and paprika are decent and may enable farmers

save income and diversify or enhance the productivity of other crops by buying the necessary

inputs when they are required. Consumer goods are always sourced from the main town centres

and there are no market linkages and arrangements, in short farmers are left at the mercy of the

private traders.

4.4 Farmers

In the past co-operative societies or farmer organizations were more effective compared to now

when they are just involved in facilitation of fertilizer acquisition. Co-operatives in the past were

involved in the provision of inputs, purchase of produce, had consumer shops, had tractors for

hire, etc. In addition, cooperatives used to provide services to farmers on time. Potential co-

operative members had to go through a vigorous screening process. Currently, farmer groups are

formed for the sole purpose of accessing fertilizers. When it comes to marketing of produce,

farmers do not operate as a group, instead they sell their produce as individuals. This in effect

weakens their bargaining power and they end up being exploited. Under these circumstances

agricultural intensification is difficult to achieve in that the capital base of the farmers is either

minimized or eroded. The absence of credit facilities does not help matters either. There is no

8

party affiliation when it comes to joining farmer organization or groups. Everyone is free to join

the organization. Some farmer organizations have attempted to help in teaching their members

new farming methods, but have been unable to practice due to lack of inputs. This has had a

negative impact on agricultural intensification.

Land in Oliver, Dumba and most parts of Nega-Nega is on settlement schemes, and is secured

through settlement committees. In other words this land, is state land and to secure it one has to

apply through the district council. Successful applicants are issued with title deeds, which are

evidence of ownership. There is no discrimination in determining successful applicants, all social

strata have the same security. Immigrants/ethnic minorities, female headed households have the

same chances of securing land as male headed households. However, currently all the land in

these settlement schemes has been allocated. In settlement schemes, daughters are given land by

their parents.

In these settlement schemes, tenure insecurity is non-existent, in that occupants of a piece of land

are issued with title deeds. Even in the event of lack of agricultural activity, settlers are not

evicted from their farms. Widows are allowed to stay on such farms as long as they don’t marry.

In Nameembo, Musakamba, Nkumbi, Kalombwe, Musofu and other parts of Nega-Nega and

Chitina, land is secured in several ways in the sites visited. Most of the interviewees were living

in settlements and these were obtained from the local council which issued them with title deeds.

Those in the periphery obtain land from traditional authority. This is usually the case if they are

immigrants. Family allocation of land is a common phenomenon. Both males and females are

allocated land by their families although in most cases females are given very small portions on

the premise that they will get married and will have to access their spouse land thereafter.

Women often have user rights to land and get through inheritance. In some instances female

immigrants are given land by traditional authority but they have to fulfill certain conditions, e.g.,

they have to have children. Upon divorce and sometimes death of a spouse, a woman is sent back

to her family where she is given a portion of land. Effectively the most common way of accessing

9

land by women is through inheritance.

Tenure insecurity is caused by social vices such as witchcraft, bad community relations and

stealing. Amongst the Tongas, pursuing other people’s wives can result in loss of tenure security.

Although tenure insecurity may negatively affect productivity, it is encouraging to note that,

91.5% of the households feel that they have full control of the land they cultivate and do not

have to consult any other person in order to obtain permission for cultivation, change crops/land

use, for some or all of their land . In Mkushi land tenure is secured through allocation by the

chief or headman upon reallocation to the village. The traditional leadership decides on how

much land to allocate depending on availability, family size, potential for agricultural production

and origins of the settler.

Female headed households obtain land through the traditional leadership upon relocation from

another area. However allocation of land is often subjected to a lot of considerations and security.

One of the major deciding factors is if the woman has sons through whom land is entrusted. This

will also determine the size of land to be allocated. Daughters are apportioned land by their

fathers as long as they remain single and remain under control of their male kin. Upon marriage

they are expected to relocate to their husbands dwelling where they mainly have user rights and

not always and necessarily ownership rights.

Immigrants are allocated land by traditional authority and through village committees. The

origins of the immigrants determine how much land they will be allocated. In the last couple of

years there has been a high rate of migration by farmers from the southern province. These

farmers are renowned for their skills in farming and are therefore given big portions of land for

both crop production and for animal grazing. Due to the increased population, most villages are

reducing the size of land being allocated in order to preserve the remaining land. Ethnic

minorities are treated fairly and given land based on the same principle as the majority and

dominant ethnic groups. Upon allocation of land, a farm permit is issued. In the case of married

couples, the farm permit is issued to the man giving him both user and ownership rights.

10

Demand driven research systems are not available in all the 9 villages. However, there is

existence of some demand driven extension system, especially in crops grown on contract basis.

Equally there are no water management systems in any of the 9 villages. For crops grown on

contract or out-grower schemes (e.g cotton in Dumba, Oliver, Nega - Nega, Nameembo and

Nkumbi, paprika in Chitina), there are full credit packages advanced, the market is also assured.

In summary, production trends for crops grown on contract or out-grower schemes are driven by

market demand in that they fetch high prices and are profitable. This is the case with all cash

crops. However, production of food grains seems to be driven by population growth. Farmers

grow maize, cassava and sorghum in order to ensure households food security. As families get

bigger, households tend to grow more of the food grains.

The main factors constraining agricultural intensification in the nine villages is the low number

of farmers with access to hybrid seed, pesticides and chemical fertilisers. The absence of any

organized irrigation infrastructure in the presence of frequent droughts in recent years, also

constrains intensification. While a fair number of farmers practice fallowing, use of animal

manure in the absence of chemical fertilizers has been low due to loss of cattle to diseases. The

low access to oxen ploughing, as a result of oxen deaths also constrains intensification as

farmers are unable to carry out farm operations on time thereby affecting intensification.

11

5.0 HOUSEHOLD LEVEL RESEARCH QUESTIONS

5.1 Natural Resources and Endowments

During the most recent season, the average total cultivated area per household in the study area,

was 2.90 hectares, compared to 3.13 hectares for male headed households and 2.05 hectares for

female headed households. As regards farm expansion, land is not a limiting factor because data

shows that households are able to cultivate an extra 7.84 hectares if they want to increase area

cultivated. Male headed households seem to have more extra land which they can cultivate (8.33

hectares) compared to female headed household (5.87 hectares). The average cultivated area per

household of 2.90 hectares, in the most recent season is much higher than the national average in

1990/91 (1.17 hectares), 1995/96 (1.47 hectares) and 1999/00 (1.45 hectares). This can be

explained by the fact that the two study sites are traditionally “maize belt” areas, although

Mkushi is in a higher rainfall region compared to Mazabuka.

Tables 6 and 7 show average area cultivated, total production and yield for maize, cassava and

sorghum by sex of head of household and by region respectively for the most recent harvest,

one season before the most recent harvest and two seasons before the most recent harvest. It is

clear that on average in all cases , maize dominates the area planted, followed by sorghum and

then cassava. It is also clear that male headed households and Mazabuka region have a larger

area cultivated for each of the three crops over a three period. Comparing the size of the land

under maize, when the household was formed to the most recent season, it is apparent that, even

then maize was the most popular crop, in that 57.2% of the households feel that the size of land

under maize was larger when the household was formed, (See table 8).

14

Table 6: Average Maize, Cassava and Ssorghum area, production and yields for the most recent season, season before

the most recent and two seasons before the most recent harvest, by sex of household head

Maize

Cassava

Sorghum

Area

(ha)

Production

(kg)

Yield

(kg/ha)

Area

(ha)

Production

(kg)

Yield

(kg/ha)

Area

(ha)

Production

(kg)

Yield

(kg/ha) All small holders Male

Female

Total

1.62

1.02

1.50

1689

1063

1566

1043

1042

1044

0.31

0.22

0.29

407

389

404

1313

1768

1393

0.85

0.79

0.84

464

363

443

546

459

527

Table 7: Average Maize, Cassava and Sorghum area, production and yields for the most recent harvest, season before the

most recent and two seasons before the most recent harvest by region.

Maize

Cassava

Sorghum

Area

(ha)

Production

(kg)

Yield

(kg/ha)

Area

(ha)

Production

(kg)

Yield

(kg/ha)

Area

(ha)

Production

(kg)

Yield

(kg/ha)

15

Mkushi

Mazabuka

Total

1.01

1.93

1.49

1170

1905

1568

1158

987

1052

0.29

0.50

0.29

403

-

403

1390

-

1390

0.86

0.90

0.84

460

140

443

535

156

527

16

Table 8: Perceptions of Size of Land Under Maize when Household was Formed.

Sex of household head

Male

Female

Total

Did not grow maize at that time

0.7

1.0

1.7

Same

10.3

3.7

14.0

Larger then

45.0

12.3

57.3

Smaller then

23.3

3.7

27.0

The dominance of maize in terms of popularity is also evident in table 9, which shows the

percentage of households growing various crops in the most recent season and when the

household was formed. The pattern shown below has remained the same in that maize has

always dominated the other crops.

Table 9: Percentage of Farmers Growing Various Crops.

Crop

Last season

When household was

formed

Maize

84.9

91.4

Cassava

35.3

11.2

Sorghum

28.9

23.5

Cash crops, non-food crops

33.5

34.4

17

It is important to note that although there is dominance of maize in terms of area cultivated,

there has been a general increase in the area cultivated of cassava and sorghum. This can be

attributed to the fact that farmers are shifting towards the growing of drought tolerant crops in

view of the drought which has been experienced in recent years. The high price of modern

inputs, cited by 71.5% (55.9 % male and 15.6 % female headed households) of the

smallhoder farmers, as the major market factor constraining maize production for the market

has also contributed to diversification away from maize. In addition 64.1% (51.2% male

headed and 12.9% female headed households) of the farmers, cited lack of capital to buy

modern inputs as the main household factor constraining maize production for the market.

The fact that only 33.5% of the the farmers in the study obtained any form of agricultural

input credit for maize, has made farmers grow more of cassava and sorghum as they do not

require chemical fertilizers and are grown mainly for household food security requirements.

(see tables 28 and 31 for details).

Nevertheless the increase in the average area cultivated for cassava and sorghum has not

been complimented by increase in yields. Table 6, shows very low yields for maize, when in

theory an average farmer is capable of producing more than 2700 kg per hectare, if the

necessary requisites are in place. This is confirmed by the fact that 89.8% of all households

sampled feel that their maize yields have decreased from the time their households were

formed. The yields for cassava and sorghum are equally lower than the expected averages.

This also explained by the fact that 79.5% of the farmers who grow cassava feel that yields

have gone down since the households were formed, while 72.8% of the households feel

sorghum yields have gone down. The dilemma is that the Programme Against Malnutrition

(PAM) and other NGO’s have been promoting the growing of these drought tolerant crops,

using high yielding modern varieties and one would expect higher yields for these crops

compared to when households were formed. However, it is interesting to note that female

headed households compete fairly well with male headed households as regards yields for the

three crops. Infact, when you consider cassava yields female headed households have

performed better than their male counterparts, while yields for maize and sorghum are almost

at par with those for male headed households.

As indicated above, the two study regions do not have closed land frontiers, although there is

18

more land available for expansion in Mkushi than in Mazabuka. In other words land is not a

limiting factor to intensification. In addition, most of the land is on flat terrain or gentle

slopes and most of the soils are of average quality looking at natural fertility and suitability

for cultivation. According to qualitative data, rainfall conditions in the past two seasons

before the most recent season have been fair in Mkushi. The most recent season, however,

experienced drought. For Mazabuka, farmers experienced drought in the past three seasons in

general terms. The rainfall pattern clearly had an effect on the production and yields of crops.

Less than 7% of the farmers grow maize under irrigation and none for cassava or sorghum.

However, the area under maize so irrigated is insignificant. Although growing maize under

irrigation would help increase yields by enabling early planting the majority of the

smallholder farmers do not have the means to do this on a meaningful scale. The types of

crops grown in the study areas are all situated to those areas, although with drought becoming

common in the Southern part of the country where Mazabuka is situated , maize may not be a

wise option, as it is not drought tolerant, thereby affecting yields. Cassava and sorghum are a

better option. Unfortunately cassava in Southern Province is considered a “poor mans” crop

and has yet to become popular as a possible substitute to maize.

5.2 Labor Resources

On average there are four adult members (16 - 60 years old) in both male and female headed

households who are able workers and about the same number who are below 15 years. The

fact that almost all of them (16 - 60 years) do not regularly take on employment outside the

farm and are only involved in some kind of low income micro-business, means that they may

not be in a position to practice intensification as they are unable to have decent savings from

this. This is confirmed by the fact that only 37.3% of farmers interviewed are able to save

money for future needs. The major farming activities in the smallholder sector consisting of

land preparation, planting, weeding and harvesting start in November and end in June.

Family labour constitutes the major source of labour supply for farm households. In the

qualitative evaluation, demand for labour was found to be highest in December and January

when farmers had to finish land preparation and planting in order to start weeding. Demand

for labour was low from June to September/October because most farmers were not growing

19

anything at that time.

Although both female and male household members contribute to farm labour, the Qualitative

Evaluation, exposed important differences between what men and women do. Female

members undertake more activities than men. Weeding, for example, is mainly a female

activity. Women’s farm workload does not reduce after planting as is the case for men

because women are equally involved at the land preparation stage. After harvesting, it is the

women who shell maize and groundnuts in readiness for sale or storage. Farm activities must

be carried in tandem with non-farm activities such as household cores in the case of women

and house building in the case of men. Household chores, such as fetching water, must be

performed daily so that women’s workload is persistently high. Water has to be fetched from

distances as far as 5 kilometers in the dry season. It is for these demands, in addition to the

reliance on hand-hoes, that labour productivity is low. This coupled with the fact that the vast

majority of farmers have lost oxen/cattle, through corridor disease, means heavy reliance on

hand-hoes and hence reduced labour productivity, in that farmers cannot carry out their farm

activities in good time to give them a chance to achieve better yields. This is more so, with

the drought which is becoming a common feature, especially in the Southern part of the

country. Farmers who plant early stand a better chance of achieving reasonable crop yields.

However, the gendered division of labour, as well as women’s labour burden and the

presence of HIV/AIDS, imply a limitation to intensification unless labour demanding

techniques are introduced. The majority of households in the study (58.6%) do not

regurlarly hire farm labour, implying that they either have sufficient labour resources or the

cannot afford it, in order to expand cultivation at peak season.

As shown in table 10, some households (41.4%) are able to hire labour to help in farm

operations, especially land preparation (77.3%), weeding (60.6%) and harvesting (31.5%).

Most of the payments for hired labour are made in kind. It is clear from the table that more

male headed households hire labour for all operations than female headed households.

Overall, only 35.2% of male headed households and 6.5% of female headed households can

afford to hire labour.

Table 10: Percentage of Households Hiring Labour for Various Operations

20

Sale of Household Head

Male

Female

Total

Land Preparation

Watching Crops

Planting

Tending Livestock

Weeding

Transporting Crops

Fertilizing

Harvesting

Other

63.4

0.9

13.5

6.0

53.2

19.9

2.3

28.7

0.9

13.9

-

1.4

0.9

7.4

6.0

0.5

2.8

-

77.3

0.9

14.9

6.9

60.6

25.9

2.8

31.5

0.9

The advent of HIV/AIDS also reduces labour productivity in that, the attention given to the

sick, sometimes takes away labour for crops at critical times. Further, resources are equally

taken away to cater for the sick in terms of medicines, hospital fees etc.

5.3 Social Resources and wealth

The majority (44.4%) of the households in the study regions are very poor and 35.8% are

below average wealth, while only 15.8% have average wealth. This means that in the absence

of credit facilities or any other form of subsidy these farmers will not be in a position to

purchase their own agricultural inputs. This will ultimately lead to low crop yields, especially

where improved seed, fertilizer and other inputs are required. The fact that 62.7% of the

households sampled are unable to save some money for future needs is further testimony of

their inability to purchase inputs using their own cash.

Table 11, shows the sources of non farm cash income in the course of the past year. As can be

seen micro-business is the most common source of non-farm income. However, this is done

on a very small scale and whatever is realised is meant for daily survival and cannot pay for

agricultural inputs that are required. In addition the number of households involved in micro-

business is insignificant.

Table 11: Sources of Non-Farm Income, in the Course of the Past Year

21


Male (%)

Female (%)

Total (%)

Non-farm salaried employment

9.3

1.5

10.8

Micro-business

10.4

1.5

11.9

Rent, Interest

0.4

-

0.4

Pensions

0.2

0.2

0.4

Remittances from absent household

members, children etc.

0.9

1.1

2.0

The ages of the farm managers range from 18 to 68 years, however, the majority of the farm

managers 76.6% are below the age of 55 years. In addition, only 10% of the farm managers

have not been to school, while 56.4 % have some form of primary education (up to 7 years

in school), 31.4 % have secondary education (up to 12 years in school) and 2.2 % have

college education (14 to 17 years in school). It should be noted here that, inspite of the

above statistics, the Qualitative Evaluation revealed that farmers have the skills required to

improve crop yields. The missing link is access to agricultural inputs and/or credit facilities.

The fact that the majority of the farm managers/decision makers are 55 years old or below,

means that age cannot be an inhibiting factor as far as improved agricultural intensification is

concerned.

5.4 Institutional Factors

Only 59.8% (48.9% male headed and 10.8% female headed households) of the farmers are

members of any local farmer organisation dealing with agriculture. This can have negative

effects in that apart from missing out on the latest yield improving technology, farmers who

are not members of farmer organisations are likely to miss out when it comes to acquiring

agricultural inputs. This is because the current agricultural policy is such that inputs are

channelled through established farmer organisations/cooperatives. This will obviously lead to

lower intensification. The fact that more female headed managers are not members of such

22

farmer organisations means that, such households are bound to have lower crop yields. Table

12 shows the percentage of households receiving extension advice from an extension staff

during last year. While 29.4% of the farmers never received any extension advice, 40.9%

received advice on a regular basis and 29.4% rarely received advice. This has obvious adverse

effects on intensification and crop yields. The fact that 59% of the households never/rarely

received extension advice is course for concern, if the country has to be self sufficient as far

as household food security is concerned.

Table 12: Percentage of Households Receiving Extension Advice from an Extension Staff During

Last Year.


Male

Female

Total

Never

22.6

6.8

29.4

Rarely

22.6

7.0

29.6

Regularly

33.7

7.2

40.9

This is more so that only 7.2% of female headed households had regular access to extension

advice and yet women provided most of the farm labour.

The low levels of access to any form of agricultural input credit, especially for hybrid seed

and chemical fertilizers, at 33.5% (27.1% male headed and 6.4% female headed households)

also has a negative effect on crop yield. Under such circumstances farmers are forced to plant

traditional or recycled seed, which are low yielding. Worse still they may purchase and plant

hybrid seed and fail to apply chemical fertilizer because of the high cost and still experience

low yields, if they are lucky to get any harvest. In the absence of Chemical Fertilizers farmers

have the tendency to cultivate larger areas in the hope that the total production will be more,

without realising that the production per unit area is actually low.

At the beginning of the Agricultural Sector Investment Programme (ASIP) in 1996, or one

year after the land act was amended, 96.9% of small scale farmers had no title deeds to land

they occupied. Most of these were obviously in traditional land under customary land tenure.

The situation has not changed much since then. The main difficult is that traditional rulers are

23

still reluctant to consent titling of customary land. At the same time, ordinary farmers do no

see the need to hold titles to customary land. In the absence of other assets which can be

pledged as collateral when obtaining credit, as is the case with the majority of smallholder

farmers, land title can perform the same function. Infact most lending institutions prefer title

to land as collateral, especially in long term loans, to movable assets which can easily be

hidden in case of default.

Table 13, indicates the various ways in which land was first obtained in the village when the

household was formed. The majority of the households, 48% were allocated virgin land or

pasture, while 32.1% were allocated family land under fallow. In both cases male headed

households seemed to fair much better than female headed households.

Table 13: Percentage of Obtaining Land in Various Ways when Household was Formed


Male

Female

Total

Allocated virgin land or pasture

39.1

8.9

48.0

Allocated family land under fallow

23.8

8.3

32.1

Inherited land already under cultivation

6.6

2.3

8.9

Purchased land

4.1

1.0

5.0

Borrowed or rented land

5.6

0.4

6.0

However 91.5% of the households feel they have full control of the land they cultivate and do

not have to consult any other person in order to obtain permission for cultivation, change

crops/land use, for some or all of their land. This sense of land tenure security is good for

intensification in that farmers will engage in capital investments if they can afford, in order to

24

enhance their crop yields.

During the most recent season 77.8% of households applied chemical fertilizers, of these

61.9% were male headed households while only 15.9% were female headed households (see

table 14). Although there is a high percentage of farmers using fertilizer, the quantity applied

on average is 180 kilogrammes per hectare, instead of the recommended 400 kilogrammes per

hectare. With this fertilizer application, the yields are likely to be low because the small

quantities are applied in abnormally minimal quantities over an extended area in an attempt to

produce more per total area, rather than per unit area.

The low quantities of chemical fertilizer applied is due to the fact that prices of modern inputs

have gone up, as cited by 92.2% of farmers in the study (see table 14). The high percentage of

farmers applying fertilizer in the most recent season is due to the efforts of NGO’s like PAM,

CARE International etc, who provide starter packs to farmers in order to try and alleviate the

high levels of poverty. As indicated in table

Table 14: Changes in Price of Modern Inputs (Fertilizers and Seeds) Since Household was Formed

Sex of Head of Household

Male %

Female %

Total %

No significant change

1.7

-

1.7

Prices have gone up

75.8

16.4

92.2

Prices have gone down

4.4

1.7

6.1

Table 15: Perceptions on Quantity of Fertilizer Used when Household was Formed


Male %

Female %

Total %

25

No difference

5.3

1.4

6.7

More than

45.1

11.5

56.6

Less than

22.5

4.8

27.3

No fertilizer applied at that

time

6.5

2.9

9.4

15, the majority of the farmers 56.6% feel they applied more fertilizer when households were

formed compared to now. The period referred to here could probably be the Pre-SAP period

when inputs were subsidised. No fertilizer was applied in Cassava and 92.7% of the farmers

did not apply fertilizer in Sorghum. As indicated in table 15, only 5.3% of households, 4.8%

male headed and 0.5% female headed applied pesticides on maize in the most recent season

while 5.7% applied pesticides when households were formed. Of these 5.0% were female

headed and 0.7% were female headed. Failure to apply pesticides in cases where hybrid seed

is used can have detrimental effects on yields in the event that the crop is affected by disease.

5.5 Market Orientation

The crops marketed include food staples, other non-food crops and vegetables, and non-food

cash crops. It is clear from table 16, that the sale of food staples is not a common source of

cash income. The implication here is that, the bulky of the food staples are retained for home

consumption as shown in tables 17, 18 and 19. Both male and female headed households

have the tendency to retain the bulky of their food staples for home consumption obviously

for household food security reasons.

Table 16: Sources of Cash Income in the Course of the Past Year


Male %

Female %

Total %

Sale of food staples

20.7

3.7

24.4

Sale of other food crops

54.2

12.4

66.6

Sale of non-food cash crops

24.6

4.3

28.9

26

Sale of animals/animal produce

15.9

5.6

21.5

Non-farm salaried employment

17.4

2.1

19.5

Micro-business income

25.0

3.5

28.5

Large-scale business income

0.4

0.2

0.6

Rent, interest

1.4

-

1.4

Pensions

0.6

0.2

0.8

Remittances

5.3

2.3

7.5

Table 17: Uses of Maize Following Most Recent Harvest (kg)

Sex of Household Head

Male %

Female %

Home consumption

813

415

Payment for hired labour

79

37

Sale

328

88

Other uses, (seed, animal feed,

brewing, gifts, storage, loses etc

91

80

Table 18: Uses of Cassava After Most Recent Harvest (kg)


Male %

Female %

Home consumption

454

320


60.13

-

27

Sale

79

9



9

-

Table 19: Uses of Sorghum After Most Recent Harvest (kg)


Male %

Female %

Home consumption

441

325


15

22

Sale

40

60



16

12

Other food crops and vegetables feature prominently on the market. These crops are

composed of mainly sweet potatoes, groundnuts and vegetables. The low sales of food staples

is also due to the poor production/yields experienced by the farmers.

The main market outlet for food crops are private traders, 86.3% for maize, 82.9% for cassava

and 84.2% for Sorghum. The fact that private traders tend to exploit farmers could be

discouraging them from growing these crops for scale, especially that there is no floor price

and in most cases the farmers have no choice but to sell at the price being offered. This is

worse for farmers in areas which are far from the main market centres and where roads are

almost impassable and transport is a problem. Examples of such areas is Nameembo in

Mazabuka. The state owned Food Reserve Agency, which is supposed to be the buyer of the

last resort, seems to have taken a backstage approach. In short farmers seem to have no

choice but to sell to these private traders at prices normally below the production cost. Tables

20,21 and 22 give an indication of crop specific market outlets. The farmer co-operative

organizations only play a very minor role in food staple marketing as evidenced in the tables

referred to below. These farmer co-operative organizations were formed, it seems, for the

28

sole purpose of facilitating farmers to acquire inputs. Little attention is given to how the crop

so produced is marketed.

Table 20: Main Market Outlet or Crop Deport for Maize


Male %

Female %

Total %

Former Cooperative organisation

5.1

1.7

6.8

Private Trader

73.5

12.8

86.3

State Company and Marketing

Board

0.9

-

0.9

Own Piecemeal Local Market

6.0

1.0

7.0

Table 21: Main Market Outlet for Cassava


Male %

Female %

Total %

Former Cooperative organisation

5.7

-

5.7

Private Trader

62.9

20.0

82.9


Board

8.6

-

8.6


2.9

-

2.9

Table 22: Main Market Outlet or Crop Deport for Sorghum


Male %

Female %

Total %

Private Trader

42.1

42.1

84.2


Board

5.3

-

5.3


10.5

-

10.5

29

The absence of powerful local traders equally offers no competition to private traders, who

are mainly from outside the area, leaving the farmers to be exploited.

The most common non-food cash crop grown in the study sited is cotton and in some cases

paprika. As shown in table 23, most of the cotton grown is on out-grower scheme or contract

farming basis. Dunavant Cotton Limited and Clark Cotton Limited are the main companies

who offer out-grower schemes in

Table 23: Households Growing Crops on the Basis of a Pre-arranged Contract with a Private

Trader by Crop


Male %

Female %

Total %

Maize

2.6

-

2.6

Cassava

-

-

-

Sorghum

-

-

-

Other food crops and vegetables

2.5

0.6

3.1

Non-food cash crops

61.3

14.7

76.0

cotton. The two companies contract out farmers, provide a full package of inputs for the crop

as well as the market. Results from the Qualitative Evaluation indicate that the farmers so

contracted are happy with what is offered to them so far. The only major complaint is that the

price of seed cotton/cotton seed is never made known in advance and as such farmers are

unable to make plans in advance. The fact that Dunavant and Clark cotton offer complete

packages make cotton growing very attractive to smallholder farmers, relative to crops like

maize, which attract lower producer prices. This enables farmers to have decent cotton

yields, adopt required technology and participate in the output market, and as shown in table

24, the sale of non-food cash crops is second highest after the sale of other food crops and

vegetables in terms of farm income sources. Qualitative data indicates that smallholder

farmers who are invoveled in cotton outgrowing use more inputs on food crops and tend to

be more productive in that they are able to purchase some inputs from the cotton surplus

income. However, qualitative data reveals that despite the fact that cotton outgrowing is

30

relatively more profitable, farmers expect a higher producer price than is currently being

offered.

Tables 25, 26 and 27 give an overview of the overall changes in access to market outlets for

maize, sorghum and other food crops and vegetables. While the other crops seem to be

picking up, access to market outlets since households were formed for maize, seems to be on

the decline.

Table 24: Farm Income Sources Generating Most Cash During Last Year


Male %

Female %

Total %

Sale of food staple

12.5

1.7

14.2

Sale of other food crops

39.0

9.8

48.8

Sale of non-food cash crops

24.0

4.2

28.2

Sale of animals/animal produce

5.9

2.9

8.8

This could be explained by the lack of a complete credit package for the crop, whereas crops

like sorghum, sweet potatoes etc. do not require fertilizers. The subsequent low yields in

maize reduces the access to market outlets, since most of the produce is retained for home

consumption.

Table 25: Changes in Access to Maize Market Outlets, Since Household was Formed


Male %

Female %

Total %

Same

1.7

-

1.7

Better now

17.8

4.1

21.9

Worse now

62.0

14.4

76.4

Table 26: Changes in Access to Sorghum Market Outlets, Since Household was Formed

31


Male %

Female %

Total %


9.1

-

9.1

Better now

36.4

36.4

72.7

Worse now

18.2

-

18.2

Table 27: Changes in Overall Market Access for Other Food Crops and Vegetables Since Household was

Formed Compared to Now


Male %

Female %

Total %


4.9

0.9

5.8

Better now

53.0

11.7

64.7

Worse now

24.1

5.4

29.5

The non-availability of farm inputs, in required quantities is a big drawback in the efforts of

farmers to increase their production/yields. Sometimes inputs are delivered late in the farming

season and with droughts becoming common of late, farmers find themselves on the losing

side as far as intensification are concerned. In extreme cases top dressing fertilizer is delivered

before basal dressing fertilizer and hybrid seed is advanced to farmers on credit without

accompanying chemical fertilizers whatsoever. This coupled with the fact that prices of

agricultural inputs have sky rocketed makes farming a hostile business. The combination of

these factors affect technology adoption, yields and participation in output markets negatively.

Opportunities for non-farm salaried employment, are a source of income for 19.5% of

households. However, more male headed households (17.4%) than female headed households

(2.1%) are engaged in non-farm salaried employment. Although these opportunities are

available as a source of income, the payments/salaries are mediocre and range from US30

cents to US$1.00 per day. Apart from the payments being too little, most of the engagement is

in the off-season and is meant to supplement or cater for household requirements, leaving

32

almost nothing for investment in farming. Field data from this study shows that, availability

of off-farm work can increase farm production, in that there is a positive correlation of 0.014,

between off-farm-work and farm production. This means that a unit positive increase in farm

work in terms of income, will lead to a positive increase in farm production by 0.014.

Tables 28,29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 indicate various crop specific market (economic) and

household factors constraining crop production for the market.

Table 28: Market Factors Cited for Constraining Maize Production for the Market


Male (%)

Female (%)

Total (%)

No constraints experienced

0.7

-

0.7

Low or fluctuating producer price

3.6

1.4

5.0

High transportation costs

0.2

-

0.2

Unreliable market outlet

5.9

1.8

7.7

High price for modern inputs

55.9

15.6

71.5

Modern inputs not available

4.1

0.7

4.8

Lack of credit facilities

8.8

1.4

10.2

Table 29: Market Factors Constraining Production of Cassava for the Market


Male %

Female %

Total %


39.1

10.9

50.0

Low or fluctuating producer price

1.6

1.1

2.7

33

High transportation costs

2.7

-

2.7

Unreliable market outlet

19.0

4.3

23.3

High price for modern inputs

8.7

1.1

9.8

Modern inputs not available

7.1

2.7

9.8

Lack of credit facilities

1.6

-

1.6

Table 30: Market-Related Factors Constraining Sorghum Production for the Market at Present


Male %

Female %

Total %

No Constraints Experienced

Lower or Fluctuating Producer Price

Unreliable Market Outlet

High Price for Modern Inputs

Modern Inputs not Available

Lack of Credit Facilities

20.3

2.2

19.6

20.3

12.2

2.0

6.1

2.0

2.7

6.1

6.1

-

26.4

4.7

22.3

26.4

18.3

2.0

Table 31: Household Factors Cited for Constraining Maize Production for the Market


Male (%)

Female

(%)

Total (%)


0.9

-

0.9

Household labour shortage

3.2

1.1

4.3

Farm labour too expensive to hire

2.7

0.2

2.9

Chronic illness in the family

0.5

0.5

1.0

Lack of land to grow crops or insecure

land tenure

1.1

0.2

1.3

Lack of knowledge about yield

improving farming techniques

0.2

-

0.2

34

Lack of capital to buy inputs e.t.c

51.2

12.9

64.1

Lack of capital for land preparation

19.3

5.9

25.2

Table 32: Household Factors Constraining Cassava Production for the Market


Male %

Female %

Total %


18.9

7.0

25.9

Household labour shortage

5.9

3.2

9.1

Farm labour too expensive to hire

4.3

0.5

4.8

Lack of land to grow crops or insecure

land tenure

2.7

1.1

3.8

Lack of knowledge about yield

improving farming techniques

1.6

-

1.6

Lack of capital to buy inputs etc

15.7

2.7

18.4

Lack of capital for land preparation

30.8

5.4

36.2

Table 33: Household Factors Constraining Sorghum Production for the Market at Present


Male %

Female %

Total %

35

No Constraints Experienced

Household Labour Shortage

Farm Labour too Expensive to Hire

Lack of Land to Grow Crops or

Insecure Land Tenure

Lack of Knowledge About Yield

Improving Farming Techniques

Lack of Capital to Buy Inputs etc.

Lack of Capital for Land Preparation

6.1

2.7

3.4

0.7

4.1

27.0

33.1

2.0

2.7

1.4

-

0.7

8.1

8.1

8.1

5.4

4.8

0.7

4.8

35.1

41.2

The high price of modern inputs came out prominent (71.5%) as a major economic constraint

for producing maize for the market. This is hardly surprising considering the high cost of

agricultural inputs. Interestingly in cassava production for the market, 50% of the households

did not experience any constraints. In sorghum the economic constraints were varied, the most

prominent being high price for modern inputs 26.4%. The household factors cited for

constraining maize production for the market are lack of capital to buy inputs etc. (64.1%),

lack of capital for land preparation (25.2%), among the most prominent. For cassava 25% of

the farmers did not experience any household constraints in cassava production for the market,

while 18.4% cited lack of capital to buy inputs and lack of capital for land preparation

(36.2%). Sorghum household production constraints for the market showed similar results,

lack of capital to buy inputs (35.1%) and lack of capital for land preparation (41.2%).

It is clear from the above, that lack of capital among smallholder farmers is a major hinderance

to intensification. Among the economic factors cited, the high price of modern inputs

dominated, as was the lack of capital to buy inputs/for land preparation. All these are related

to the wealth of the farmers, in that the study revealed that 44.4 % of the households sampled

were ranked as very poor, 35.8 % below average wealth, 15.8 % average wealth, 3.0% above

average wealth and only 1% very wealth.

Household factors outweigh economic factors when it comes to constraining crop production

for the market, in this study. In maize 71.7% of farmers feel household factors constrain

production for the market while 28.3% indicate economic factors. For cassava and sorghum

the trend is similar with 74.6% and 65.0% citing household factors, 25.4% and 35% citing

economic factors respectively.

5.6 Technology

36

The new technology promoted among traditional farmers in order to increase land productivity

are mainly use of hybrid seed and chemical fertilizer. Crop rotation, inter-cropping, fallowing,

animal manure, conservation tillage/breaking the hard pan, green manure/compost/residue

incorporation and soil and water conservation and other yield enhancing cropping practices

being encouraged. Farmers have been advised by the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-

operatives (MAC) about time of planting, type of seed to be used and fertilizer application

rates and methods since the 1980s. The changes which have taken place in the use of crop

production technologies are important for indicating transformation taking place in the

smallholder sector.

Table 34 shows the number of farmers using various cropping practices on maize in the most

recent season by gender, while tables 35, 36, 37 and 38 indicate the percentage of farmers

using various cropping practices for different crops in the most recent season and when the

household was formed. As can be seen farmers have always been aware of cropping practices,

both modern and traditional, including extended technology farming such as conservation

farming and irrigation which enhance their crop yields. Although, there are varying degrees of

use, the fact is that all that farmers need is to be provided with the required inputs, at the right

time and in adequate quantities and a conducive macro-economic environment and they will

achieve agricultural intensification. The decline in fertlizer application and increase in

conservation tillage and crop rotation seem to tally with liberalization and a more diversified

farming repertoire. The increase in hand hoe cultivation and decline in oxen ploughing

reflects the decline in cattle population in the 1990s due to disease. More farmers seem to be

using improved varieties of cassava now compared to earlier. Less farmers do intercropping

now compared to when hoseholds were formed. This could be due to the fact that, because of

continous cropping the soils have become depleted and farmers realise that intercropping may

have a negative impact on yield due to increased plant density, in the absence of chemical

fertilizers.

Table 34: Percentage of Farmers Practising Various Cropping Systems on Maize, Most Recent Season.

Sex of head of household

Male

Female

Total

37

Fertilizer application

61.9

15.9

77.8

Pesticides application

4.8

0.5

5.3

Hoe cultivation

38.4

11.2

47.8

Oxen ploughing

38.7

9.2

47.8

Tractor ploughing

2.3

-

2.3

Crop rotation

65.6

16.1

81.7

Inter cropping

12.0

2.3

14.3

Fallowing

40.8

10.4

51.2

Animal manure

12.7

2.3

15.0

Conservation tillage

19.7

3.4

23.1

Green manure/compost/residue incorporation

10.0

2.3

12.2

Soil and water conservation

3.4

-

3.4

Table 35: Percentage of Farmers Using Various Cropping Practices for Maize

Season

Practice Most Recent Season

When Household was Formed

38


77.8

90.7

Pesticide application

5.3

5.7

Crop rotation

81.7

78.7

Intercropping

14.3

19.6

Fallowing

51.2

51.9

Animal manure

15.0

30.5

Conservation tillage/breaking

the hard pan

23.1

9.1

Green manure/ compost/

residue incorporation

12.2

12.7


3.4

3.9

Irrigation

6.4

4.7

Improved seed

12.8

10.1

Hybrid seed

61.6

66.7

Traditional seed

24.3

23.3

Hoe cultivation

49.7

21.3

Oxen ploughing

47.8

76.3

Tractor ploughing

2.3

2.4

Table 36: Percentage of Households Using Various Cropping Practices for Cassava

39

Season




Nil

44.2


1.2

7.3

Crop rotation

66.1

54.5

Intercropping

10.4

20.0

Fallowing

27.9

27.3

Animal manure

1.1

3.6

Conservation tillage/breaking the

hard pan

3.3

3.6

Green manure/compost/residue

incorporation

25.8

29.1


2.2

Nil

Improved variety planted

14.2

7.1

Traditional variety planted

85.8

92.9

Hoe cultivation

97.3

83.6

Oxen ploughing

2.7

16.4

Tractor ploughing

Nil

Nil

40

Table 37: Percentage of Households Using Various Cropping Practices for Sorghum


When Household

was Formed


nil

7.3


nil

nil

Crop rotation

58.9

55.4

Intercropping

4.8

12.0

Fallowing

28.8

23.8

Animal manure

nil

6.0

Conservation tillage/breaking the

hard pan

nil

2.4

Green manure/compost/residue

incorporation

27.4

27.4


0.7

1.2

Traditional seed

98.6

100

Improved variety

0.7

Nil

Hybrid seed

0.7

nil

Hoe cultivation

93.1

39.8

Oxen ploughing

6.9

59.0

Tractor ploughing

nil

12

Table 38: Percentage of Household Using Various Cropping Practices in Food Crops/Vegetable and Non-Food

Cash Crops

Other Food Crops/Vegetables

Non-Food Cash Crops

Irrigation

30.2

Nil

Chemical fertilizer

43.1

10.3

Animal manure

34.6

0.6

Green manure

1.3

0.6

41

Pesticides

43.2

74.9

Tables 39 and 40 contain average maize cultivated area and yields for farmers who practicised

conservation farming and those who did not in the most recent season, for Mkushi and

Mazabuka respectively. The results for Mkushi confirm that with or without the application of

chemical fertilizers, farmers who practicised conservation farming got higher yields than

those who did not. However, those who practicised conservation farming and applied

chemical fertilizers naturally achieved higher yields (1558 kilogrammes per hectare)

compared to those who practicised conservation farming but did not apply chemical fertilizers

(1068 kilogrammes per hectare). For Mazabuka, the results also confirm the above theory for

farmers who practicised conservation farming and did not apply fertilizer. There seems to be

a contradiction for Mazabuka, in that farmers who practicised conservation farming and

applied chemical fertlizers got lower yields (334 kilogrammes per hectare), compared to those

who practicised conservation farming but did not apply chemical fertilizers (802 kilogrammes

per hectare)

Table 39: Average maize cultivated area and yield statistics for farmers

practising/not practising conservation farming in Mkushi

With fertilizer

Without fertilizer

Average hectarage

Yield (kg/ha)

Average hectarage

Yield (kg/ha)

Conservation tillage No Conservation tillage

0.87 0.99

1558 1002

1.10 0.66

1068 985

Table 40: Average maize cultivated area and yield statistics for farmers

practising/not practising conservation farming in Mazabuka

With fertilizer

Without fertilizer

Average hectarage

Yield (kg/ha)

Average hectarage

Yield (kg/ha)

Conservation tillage No Conservation tillage

1.71 2.0

334 571

1.43 1.57

802 536

42

The rapid adoption of hybrid maize varieties was a response to fixed input and out producer

prices in the pre-SAP period. The profitability of maize production was ensured in that not

only were inputs made available by the government, but also resources (i.e. credit) to buy the

inputs as required. Although some have found production under the liberalized system

profitable, many among the small-scale farmers have not found maize production profitable in

the 1990s and beyond. The combination of high fertilizer prices and low maize prices,

especially at harvest, has made maize production uneconomic in some locations. Repayment

of loans for maize inputs has become virtually impossible for some households, especially in

those where no oxen are owned. The recent general fall-off in the use of improved maize seed

and commercial fertilizer, thus is partly a natural response to changed market conditions.

The use of improved maize seed and commercial fertilizer will be profitable only if the yields

are satisfactory. Good yield depends upon timely planting, good fertilizer application

practices, weed control, and control of insects and diseases. Insect and diseases can have a

major impact on the yield. White ants (termites), army worms, locusts, and the recently-

introduced large grain borer all represent potential hazards. Even if the yields are good,

marketing risks can reduce the returns per hectare substantially. The marketing risks include

lack of buyers, dishonest buyers who cheat farmers, low prices at harvest, storage losses due to

weevils or other factors, lack of bags for packing the maize, and numerous transport

difficulties. Improved maize does not store as well as traditional maize. Thus, attempts by

smallholders to store improved maize in the hope of obtaining a higher price may be frustrated

by storage losses or poor transport during the rainy season.

For those farmers able to cope with the production and marketing risks who are satisfied that

using the new technologies is profitable, the required inputs must be available locally if the

farmers are to purchase and use the new tools. Most of the seed and fertilizer were supplied in

the past through channels supported by the government. Late delivery of inputs was a

common complaint as was the delivery of inputs of the wrong type. Now, the complaints are

about the lack of private sector input suppliers and the lack of cash. Rural roads should be belt

or rehabilitated as a matter of urgency in order to enhance private sector participation in input

supply.

In summary, past efforts to increase yields among smallholder was directed on maize mainly.

43

Adoption of the new technologies in the early 1980s was very high because of official

subsidies on improved seed and commercial fertilizer. The use of these inputs has been

rendered uneconomic for many small-scale farmers because subsidies and cheap credit were

eliminated. The decline in use of the new technology, however, make the yield levels

achieved already difficult to maintain. The relevance of improved seed and commercial

fertilizer to traditional farmers has changed radically with the massive policy changes

introduced in recent years. While still appropriate for some traditional producers, this

technology will have more limited application than in the past. The new technology is likely

to have very limited relevance for households cultivating only enough to produce own food.

The key to raising land productivity among the smallholder may be with the cheaper

alternatives such as animal manure, green manure crops, crop rotations and weed control. All

these methods were used extensively in traditional cultivation but fell into disuse with the

introduction of subsidized commercial fertilizer. Extensive use of animal manure will depend

upon the recovery of the livestock sector, which has been severely hit by drought and diseases.

There is also an urgent need to vigorously re-introduce conservation farming which, by

restoring soil fertility through the use of previous crops residue as much, increase the organic

matter content. Conservation farming would lead to corresponding reduction in the need to

apply chemical fertilizers. Among the major benefits is that smallholders would become less

dependant on credit. The environmental benefits of using this kind of technology are equally

noteworthy because soil acidity may be avoided by less use of chemical fertilizer. This is

applicable not just to maize, but all crops. Tables 39 and 40 above confirm some of the

benefits of conservation farming. Despite its advantages, the qualitative evaluation revealed

that conservation farming tends to be labour intensive and with the decline in cattle population

due to disease and the advent of HIV/AIDS (which takes away labour, time and money to

attend to the sick), it is very difficult to cultivate large pieces of land especially that some

practices like potholing are done in the dry season. Lack of funds to hire labour for

conservation farming practices, among smallholder farmers, further limits the amount of land

which can be cultivated using conservation farming. It is worth noting that irrigation is a big

input in the seemingly success of other food crops and vegetables, as regards the fact that they

are the major source of farm income in the sampled households. The use of both chemical

fertilizer and animal manure in these crops is equally high.

44

6.0 STATE, MARKETS AND FARMERS RESEARCH QUESTIONS

6.1 State Interventions over the Pre-SAP, SAP and Post-SAP Periods

6.1.2 Productivity, Technology Adoption and Crop Marketing

Table 41 gives a summary of the productivity (yield) of maize, cassava and sorghum, during

the most recent harvest, before the most recent harvest and two seasons before the most recent

harvest. In addition, Table 42 gives a summary of the perceptions of farmers on yields, when

households were formed..

Table 41: Average Maize, Cassava and Sorghum Yields (Kilograms per hectare)

Most Recent Season

Before Most Recent Season

Two Seasons Before the Most Recent Season

Maize

838

1040

1224

Cassava

1454

421

223

Sorghum

509

618

481

Table 42: Perceptions on Yield Changes Since Households were Formed for Maize, Cassava and Sorghum

Yields Increased

Yields Decreased

Maize

10.2

89.8

Cassava

60.4

39.6

Sorghum

27.2

72.8

It is clear from the two tables that from the field data for the most recent season, before the

most recent season, and two seasons before the most recent season, the yield of maize per

hectare has declined. This is confirmed by the perceptions of the farmers on yield changes

since households were formed, in that 89.8% of them feel maize yields have declined, and

45

only 10.2% feel the yields have increased. The picture for cassava appears to be the opposite

in that field data indicates that there has been a significant increase in cassava yields from

223kg/hectare two seasons before the most recent season, to 1424 kg/hectare in the most

recent season. This is also confirmed by the perceptions of the farmers in that 60.4% think

cassava yields have increased since households were formed and 39.6% feel that the yields

have declined. For sorghum the picture is somewhat clouded in that, while field data shows an

increase in sorghum yields from 481kg/ha to 509kg per hectare between, two seasons before

the most recent season and the most recent season respectively, 72.8% of the farmers feel

yields have decreased since households were formed and only 27.2% feel the yields have

increased.

The reasons for the changes in the yields for maize, cassava and sorghum in the study period

are many, but are summarised in Tables 43 and 44 below.

Table 43: Reasons for Increase in Yields for Various Crops (Percentage)

Maize

Cassava

Sorghum

Access to new seed varieties

7.7

3.8

-

Chemical fertilizer

41

-

Mechanised land preparation

5.1

3.8

4.5

Irrigation

-

-

-

Conservation farming, improved tillage

5.6

30.8

77.3

Other

20.6

61.6

18.2

Table 44: Reasons for Decrease in Yields for Various Crops (Percentage)

Maize

Cassava

Sorghum

Poor seeds

3

11.1

-

Declining soil fertility

25.7

22.2

38.6

Increasing pests, weeds etc.

0.3

11.1

-

Inadequate or untimely land preparation

4.4

14.8

38.6

Untimely planting

0.6

-

-

Bad weather conditions

45.3

3.7

19.3

Other

20.7

3.7

3.5

At household level 45.3% of the farmers interviewed cited bad weather conditions as the

major reason for the decline in maize yields, compared to 3.7% for cassava and 19.3% for

46

sorghum. This result confirms that cassava and sorghum are more drought tolerant compared

to maize. Declining soil fertility was cited as a reason for decreased yields by 25.7% of maize

farmers, 22.2% cassava farmers and 38.6% of sorghum farmers.

The decline in maize yields since households were formed may also be explained by the fact

that, during the 1970s and much of the 1980s, agricultural products’ production levels

flactuated considerably and this was due to a host of reasons that included uneconomical

prices paid to the farmers, poor rainfall patterns and inefficient marketing systems. Increased

maize production during this period, was achieved at the expense of other food crops given the

government’s supportive bias in favour of the staple food. The SAP period told a similar story

since the notable gains in agricultural output during the 1980s and early 1990s, as the Ministry

of Agriculture lamented “... were primarily the result of land area expansion, with little growth

in productivity”. Furthermore taking population growth into account, per capita food

production declined. Additionally the gains realised were achieved at a very high cost to

government and there was little growth in agricultural exports.

The problem in the agricultural sector began to grow in the late 1970s as the impact

of the world recession upon the Zambian economy intensified. Since the country had

made little progress towards diversifying its economy away form mining, when the

copper price was halved in seven months in 1974-75, and continued to fall in real

terms for a further eight years, there were serious repercussions throughout the

economy, and the agricultural sector was not spared. The drastic decline in the

profitability of the copper mines, which had provided almost half of government

revenue in the early 1970s, led to a major cutback in government expenditure and to

a series of government cash-flow difficulties across the board. Similarly, the

reduction in overseas earnings from copper, which had provided 94 percent of the

country’s export, let to a persistent and devastating shortage of foreign exchange.

The above deteriorating conditions resulted in a progressive decline in maize

production, productivity and marketed maize during much of the period from 1976

until 1980. This saw Zambia move from a food surplus nation to a food importer,

necessitating more subsidies to maintain the low urban food prices. Consequently,

the country found itself in 1980 spending 19 percent of the government revenue on

agricultural subsidies, and 10 percent of its foreign exchange on food imports, a

47

highly intolerable situation in a country with serious foreign exchange difficulties.

The circumstances within which agricultural policies had to operate were worsened

by the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) in Rhodesia and the

international transport difficulties that this development caused; the oil crisis; and the

world recession. Internally, the lack of experienced manpower within the public

service proved to be a problem especially at policy-making and policy-implementing

levels. These difficulties were further exacerbated by the lack of government

commitment to the support of agriculture, which was exhibited by the under-spending

of the sector.

At the macroeconomic and agricultural sector level, during most of the pre-SAP period, the

agricultural policies set by the government provided a conducive environment for increased

productivity, through heavy subsidies. This may explain why farmers report that the

productivity of maize has declined since households were formed.

6.1.2.1 Pricing and Incentives

Table 45 presents a summary of perceptions of farmers on changes in produce prices since

households were formed compared to now, while Table 46 summarises the perceptions of

farmers on changes in overall profitability of various crops in the same period. The majority

of farmers feel the produce price of maize (55.4%), cassava (70.0%) and sorghum (91.7%),

was worse when households were formed compared to now. At the same time 88.9% of

farmers feel, overall, the profitability of cassava (88.9%) and that of sorghum (72.7%) is better

now compared to when households were formed.

Table 45: Perceptions on Changes in Prices of Produce Since Household was Formed Compared to Now (Percentage)

Maize

Cassava

Sorghum


3.2

10

-

Worse then

55.4

70

91.7

Better then

41.4

20

8.3

Table 46: Perceptions on Overall Profit of Various Crops Since Household was Formed (Percentage)

Maize

Cassava

Sorghum

Same

6.9

11.1

-

Better now

41.5

88.9

72.7

Worse now

51.6

-

27.3

In the Pre-SAP period the producer price for the country’s staple crop (maize) continued

to be set by the government so that it remained the same throughout the country

48

(pan-territorial) and throughout the year (pan-seasonal). Started in the 1974/75 crop

season, uniform farm-gate floor prices were set for producers, according to the

government then, to ensure a ‘fair’ and ‘equitable’ compensation to all farmers.

Such uniform prices failed to recognise variations in transport costs. The government

fixed maize prices using four main criteria, namely, (a) production costs; (b) export

and import parity; (c) crop profitability; and (d) ‘fairness’ to both consumers and

producers. Of all these criteria, ‘fairness to consumers’ seemed to have been more

influential particularly in so far as the government aimed to appease the politically

charged urban-based consumers. Consequently, by trying hard to keep the

consumer prices low, the government actually succeeded in making producer prices

remain well below both import parity and free market prices. (See Table 45).

With respect to consumer price policies, it is worth observing that, for much of the

pre-SAP period, the government controlled the retail price of processed maize meal

(the more refined ‘breakfast’ meal and roller meal). To ensure that prices were kept

at controlled levels, a large proportion of marketed maize meal was sold through

state shops. The marketing of maize had also benefited from government subsidies

(marketing subsidies), initially through NAMBOARD and later through ZCF and the

provincial unions. Under the system, millers were able to procure maize at prices

that were closer to producer prices. The government also used to set into-mill price

for maize and ensured that the price was uniform throughout the country. The

budgetary implications of the heavy maize subsidies were significant. In particular,

between 1980 and 1990, maize subsidies ranged between 21 percent and 145

percent of the total budget deficit.

6.1.2.2 Crop Purchasing Policy

Data from the study indicate that cassava appears to be taking a prominent role

among food crops sold, in that more farmers (90.9%) report that they have sold more

of the crop since households were formed, compared to 9.0% for maize and 16.7%

for sorghum (see Table 47). This development indicates diversification away from

maize and maybe attributed mostly to the efforts of the Programme Against

Malnutrition which has been promoting the growing of improved varieties of both

cassava and sorghum, especially in drought prone areas, like the Southern Province.

Table 43, indicates that more cassava growers (70.0%) and sorghum growers

(91.7%), feel the prices of the two crops have increased since households were

formed. On the other hand, 55.4% of maize farmers feel the producer price of the

crop has gone up.

49

Table 47: Perceived Changes in Quantity of Crop Sold Since Households Were Formed Compared

to Now (Percentage)

Maize

Cassava

Sorghum

No Significant Change

4.5

9.1

-

More Sold Now

9

90.9

16.7

Less Sold Now

86.6

-

83.3

The above developments could also be attributed to the fact that in 1982, the

government announced new crop prices for the long-neglected traditional staples of

sorghum and millet, and for the first time created an official market for cassava. This

development herald a shift in crop purchasing policy away from maize as the

exclusive staple crop for official purchases and urban consumption. Another rationale

for the change in policy was the desire to increase food production as quickly as

possible from all sections of the farming community and so achieve self-sufficiency.

By encouraging the cultivation of crops, which are ecologically suited to the different

parts of the country, harvest fluctuations was expected to be reduced and more

regular and secure marketed food supply achieved.

6.1.2.3 Crop Marketing and Input Supply

Table 48 indicates the perceptions of farmers in the price of modern inputs (fertilizers

and seeds), since households were formed. The majority of maize farmers (92.3%)

feel the prices of modern inputs have gone up, while 50.0% of cassava farmers also

feel prices have gone up. However, it is the maize farmers who use more of the

modern inputs, who we should be concerned with. This is because in the Pre-SAP

period prices of modern inputs were kept artificially low due to heavy subsidies by the

government. In this environment it was possible to achieve intensification and

technology adoption because inputs were readily available.

Table 48: Perceptions on Changes in Price of Modern (Fertilizers and Seeds), Since

Household Was Formed (Percentage)

Maize

Cassava

Sorghum

No Significant Change

1.7

25

60

Prices Have Gone Up

92.3

50

40

Prices Have Gone Down

6

25

-

However, marketing and producer price policies during the pre-SAP period had a

serious adverse effect on the performance of the agricultural sector. The marketing

50

of most agricultural commodities were monopolised by the parastatal sector and

government-instituted co-operatives. Nitrogen Chemicals of Zambia Limited, another

parastatal, monopolised fertilizer production and importation. Seed marketing was

exclusively assigned to Zamseed, another parastatal. Overall, it was NAMBOARD

that possessed the virtual monopoly over most agricultural inputs. Moreover, for all

the controlled agricultural commodities, the government regulated both the

procurement and sale prices. Transport rates were also determined by the

government. Hence, in order to maintain uniform prices of controlled goods and

services, the government had to extend subsidies. It is a result of this that 76.5% of

maize farmers feel access to market outlets was better when households were

formed compared to now (see Table 49), because the farmers were able to

access/afford subsidized inputs and produce for the market.

Table 49: Perceptions on Changes in Access to Market Outlets Since Household was

Formed Compared to Now (Percentage)

Maize

Cassava

Sorghum

Same

1.7

100

9.1

Better Now

21.8

-

72.7

Worse Now

76.5

-

18.2

In the late 1970s, NAMBOARD was increasingly being criticised for inefficiency in

meeting farmers’ needs. Thus, it was stripped of its rural functions and left only with

national imports and exports, inter-provincial movement of crops and inputs, and

national and provincial storage. Its rural functions were handed over to provincial

cooperative unions and the Zambia Co-operative Federation (ZCF). This policy

initiative was reversed in 1985 when problems of corruption and inefficiency in

several provincial cooperative unions led to NAMBOARD resuming responsibility for

all stages in crop collection and input supply. In early 1986 and prompted by SAP-

induced liberalisation, major changes away from state control over marketing and

input supply were announced with the removal of NAMBOARD’s monopoly in these

activities. As a result, private trading in input provision and crop collection were

allowed alongside Namboard, in order to encourage efficiency and improved services

to farmers.

6.1.2.4 Agricultural Research and Extension

51

Table 50 gives the number of farmers planting various varieties of seed for maize,

cassava and sorghum when households were formed and in the most recent season.

It is clear that the user of hybrid seed was more widespread for maize (66.7%) when

households were formed compared to both cassava and sorghum where no hybrid

seed was planted at the time. During the most recent season the use of hybrid seed

in maize still dominated (61.6%) compared to that of sorghum (0.7%) and almost nil

for cassava. However, the use of improved cassava variety increased from

Table 50: Variety of Seed Planted for Various Crops (Percentage)

Most Recent Season


Traditional

Improved Variety

Hybrid

Traditional

Improved Variety

Hybrid

Maize

24.2

12.8

61.6

23.3

10.1

66.7

Cassava

85.8

14.2

-

92.9

7.1

-

Sorghum

98.6

0.7

0.7

100

-

-

7.1% when households were formed to 14.2% in the most recent season. In the

meantime the use of chemical fertilizer in maize was highest when households were

formed (90.7%), compared to the most recent season (77.8%). It is important to note

that because of the availability of input subsidies at the time, 44.2% and 7.3% of

cassava and sorghum farmers respectively, applied chemical fertilizers in their fields

(see Table 51). The increased use of hybrid seed and chemical fertilizer was

achieved through a deliberate government policy in trying to increase productivity

through technology adoption. Table 51: Number of Farmers Applying Fertilizer to Various Crops (Percentage)

Most Recent Season


Maize

77.8

90.7

Cassava

Nil

44.2

Sorghum

Nil

7.3

By developing improved technologies and imparting better farm management

practices, research and extension are critical in helping farmers raise their yield

levels. While many of policy reforms presented above were relatively sudden and

were clearly responses to the crisis in Zambia’s food supply, a number of changes in

agricultural research and extension occurred more slowly.

52

A number of changes in agricultural research and extension have occured since the Pre-

SAP period and include; the Lima Programme of 1977, the Adaptive Research Planning

Teams of 1978, the Extension Train and Visit Method of 1982, the Village Extension

Groups adopted in the 1990s. Accounting for 20 percent of the Ministry of Agriculture

budget in 1990 to 1994, agricultural extension operated under a ratio of 4.5 farm

households per extension worker.

Technologies suitable for smallholder farmers have been produced by the Research

Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture. The new technologies include the high-yielding

varieties of maize, sorghum, soyabeans and other crops designed to suit the various

agro-ecological zones. By promotion through extension, subsidies and favourable

prices (to small-scale farmers in outlying areas), the use of hybrid maize seeds

increased from 30 percent in 1985 to 57 percent in 1990. Zambia has one of the

highest adoption rates of hybrid varieties in east and southern Africa. The use of

hybrid varieties other than maize by the smallholders has been less widespread. The

value of improved seed for all crops, not just maize, is well understood and

appreciated by farmers. Thus lack of adoption may point to technology being

developed with little knowledge of farmers’ constraints. This particular difficulty could

be avoided by researchers obtaining feedback from the farmers.

The Farming Systems Research was established to help bridge the link between

research and the farmers. It is up to the researchers to be able to identify the most

important problems of the farmers and the technology appropriate to solving those

problems. Extension officers have always been recognised to make an important part

in the chain linking the farmers and the researchers. After more than 20 years since

establishment, however, the Farming Systems Research (FSR) has yet to improve

the link between research and extension. This is mainly due to the fact that

research/extension liaison still remains weak as little resources are available for joint

activities. In some areas FSR teams still remain weak.

6.1.2.5 Liberalization and Agricultural Productivity

Under SAP, the emphasis on the need for a minimalist state whose role was limited

to provision of infrastructure that would stimulate investment by the private sector

continued to be a major component of government strategy. Thus, the antipathy to

the role of the state led to the reduction in critical public expenditure outlays on

53

agricultural input subsidies, marketing boards and research and extension services.

The removal of subsidies and the introduction of cost recovery for agricultural

services have resulted in limited gains for a handful of smallholder farmers, a

deterioration of food security and declining income of the majority of poor farmers.

Notwithstanding the generally conducive environment for agricultural production, the

implementation of the presented policies still continues to compromise increased output

and diversification. At the policy facilitative level, the evident heavy politicisation and

unpredictability of government policy on agriculture has had its toll on the sector,

generally, and on smallholder farmers, in particular. The frequent political interventions in

the sector have in part given rise to the failure by the private sector to actively get

involved. The performance of the former Administration of Chiluba best illustrates the

magnitude - and price - of policy inconsistency. In particular, although the Chiluba

Administration had persistently maintained the SAP policy of liberalisation, there was still

policy instability at the level of implementation. In particular, although policy consistency

was much stronger at the level of output marketing, there was evidence that the

government was still having difficulties in the area of freeing input supply and credit

market development. Government interventions in inputs supply had tended to make the

private sector lose confidence in the government’s stated policy of retracting from this

area in preference for private sector entry. The government did interfere with agricultural

markets on a number of occasions during the entire period of SAP.

In almost all these interventions, the state cited the perceived weaknesses of the

private sector in meeting the special requirements of the smallholder farmer. And yet

evidence shows that the private sector, when properly facilitated, would show marked

potential. During the 1995/96 season, for example, the private sector alone financed

a minimum of US$150 million in the area of agriculture while the government’s

estimated financial outlay was only US$31.5 million. The private sector actually

accounted for around 80 percent of agricultural commodity purchases during the

1995/96 season, a good enough signal to the government regarding the

responsiveness of the sector. Additionally, private sector-led outgrower schemes

have continued to remain the main source of agricultural credit for small-scale

farmers in outlying areas.

Government intervention in fertiliser market is yet another policy area worth reflecting

54

upon. Each year since the economic reforms began, the government (both the former

and the current one) has intervened in supply markets by importing fertiliser. This is

done because the state believes that the private sector cannot adequately meet market

demand. It seems the government tends to under-estimate the capacity of the private

sector to bring fertiliser in sufficient quantities and has instead opted to use its agent in

the importation and distribution of the commodity. The government’s lack of confidence

in the capacity of the private sector has become a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense

that its continuing involvement in the market despite market liberalisation has fuelled the

private sector loss of confidence in this activity and, hence, a good justification for further

government entry.

Against the above policy experiences, it is important that the government clearly re-

defines the roles of the public and private sectors in agriculture in a manner that

makes it clear as to their respective roles and functions - as well as their limits. In

such redefinition of the government policy framework, the starting point should be the

recognition of the limited nature of government input, which should be confined to

policy, legislation, regulation and co-ordination while direct intervention should be an

act of last resort under very special circumstances. Actual implementation of activities

should be left to the private sector and the beneficiaries themselves, mainly

smallholder farmers, including NGOs and CBOs. Moreover, in the definition of, and

support for, the private sector, the policy framework should make a clear distinction

between the category that provides development services (e.g. NGOs, Community

Based Organisations, etc.), on the one hand, and those that are engaged in

commercial activities, on the other.

Another important consideration regards unfettered liberalisation of the Market. With

respect to marketing, the failure to protect local produce from unfair competition with

cheap outside produce has also inhibited the smallholders’ productive capacity as their

produce can not compete favourably with outside products. Similarly, one consideration

that has scantly been recognised in interventions that target smallholders in outlying

areas regards the important question of regional differentiation. There is no single, fit-all,

appropriate institutional development or production model for all the regions of Zambia.

Policy makers and planners, however, often refer to smallholders and outlying areas as if

they were homogeneous. They have centrally allocated resources and used standard

implementation protocols with little regard to the variability of regions, agro-ecological

zones and differently-endowed communities and hardly an allowance is given for

55

possible shifts in resource demands during the course of a given intervention as a result

of, inter-alia, regionally-determined re-prioritisation. Everyone seems to agree that

differentiation between regions and within communities of the same regions ought to be

considered at the planning level and yet the planning and implementation modalities

hardly reflect this reality.

Another set of policy-induced constraints to smallholder productivity and intensification

regards the government’s marketing and pricing policies. The policy of liberalisation has

resulted in a constricted market for smallholders. Following the liberalisation of the

agricultural sector and the concomitant pull out of the state in the marketing and pricing

of farm produce, smallholder farmers have found it increasingly difficult to access market

for their farm produce. Consequently, local produce has often gone to waste thereby

forcing smallholder farmers to reduce on production and/or dispose off their products to

unscrupulous traders. The poor bargaining capacity of smallholder farmers has resulted

in non-cost-clearing disposal of their products. Coupled with the fragmentation of

smallholders due to non-existent farmer groups following the policy-induced collapse of

the cooperative movement in Zambia during SAP, smallholders have been unable to

determine the prices for their farm produce. The resultant low profit margins have

inhibited these farmers from increasing their agricultural productivity.

6.1.2.6 Infrastructure Constraints

The poor agricultural infrastructure has had a negative impact on the productive

capacity of smallholder farmers. The constraints include the following:

o State of rural roads: Table 5.0, gives a summary of the distances

to various social/economic facilities by village in the study areas,

which range from 4 to 30 kilometres. The vast majority of these

roads are not maintained and some like in Nameembo are

impassable in the rainy season. This picture is the same all over the

country in that feeder roads in almost all rural areas are in very poor

state and are hardly maintained to desirable standards. In the

qualitative evaluation many farmers perceived transport as the main

problem to their increased productivity as this implies that the supply

of the requisite inputs and the marketing of their outputs remain

constrained. The poor feeder road network has resulted into high

transport costs to the market and has also inhibited the private

sector from penetrating the outlying areas in order to conduct

56

business with smallholder farmers. Consequently, farmers have

found it increasingly difficult to dispose off their agro produce. To the

extent that market liberalisation enhances competition in the supply

of inputs and marketing of agricultural commodities, this would not

be effectively realised if the absence of a dependable feeder road

network continues to check the timely movements of inputs and

outputs.

o Farm Storage: Most smallholders use traditional storage structures

that are generally inappropriate in both quality and handling

capacity. Without reliable storage facilities, the degree to which

these farmers are integrated into the liberalised agricultural market

would continue to be checked.

o Electrification: In this study none of the farmers interviewed had

access to electricity. In general terms the vast majority of rural

farmers have no access to electric power. This utility is essential

particularly for farmers that are entering commercial scale of

production and getting integrated into the liberalised market.

Electricity also makes it easier for farmers to process their

commodities in a way that adds value which, in turn, improves the

income levels.

o Draught power: The study revealed that the majority of farmers lost

oxen/cattle through cattle diseases. The qualitative evaluation

revealed that before the 1990s farmers had a lot of cattle/oxen and

were thus able to carry out their farm operations on time to enhance

intensification. The picture has now drastically changed due to

cattle deaths, mostly due to corridor disease. In Mkushi only 7.5%

of farmers interviewed had oxen. The picture for Mazabuka was

slightly better in that 36.7 of the farmers had access to oxen.

However, the general picture countrywide is much more saddening

in that less than 10% of small scale farmers have access to oxen.

This development affects agricultural production in that regression analysis

has revealed that shortages in draught power and labour availability chiefly

explain small size of cultivated areas. As the 1996 ASIP Sector

Performance Analysis report noted, “…a unit change in the number of

57

draught animals used will increase total area planted under all crops by

0.75 hectares, while a marginal increase in labour would increase

production by 0.47 hectares.” It is, therefore, evident that a proportionate

increase in a farming household’s number of oxen would have a significant

positive impact in terms of raising the area cultivated.

o Limited access to irrigation facilities: The study revealed that

although most farmers are involved in some kind of irrigation in

growing crops, mainly vegetables, the majority (88.1%) of them use

small scale farmer constructed water control devices, managed by

individual households. Irrigation in such arrangements is done by

buckets and agricultural intensification is almost impossible. The

situation has remained the same throughout the Pre-SAP and Post-

SAP periods, in that there have been no large scale systems,

constructed and managed by supervillage organisations at district or

state level. In addition, there have been no small scale, farmer

constructed water control devices managed by associations of

households at local level.

As a result smallholder farmers rely heavily on rain-fed agriculture and this

has exposed them to natural calamities such as droughts. Similarly,

smallholder farmers do not engage in large-scale off-season agricultural

production due to inadequate irrigation facilities. This has resulted in low

land utilisation since farming is confined to only a few months in a year

during the rainy season.

6.1.2.7. Constraints to Agricultural Finance

Table 52 shows the number of farmers receiving some form of agricultural input

credit by sex of household head and region at present. Overall, only 33.5% of

farmers interviewed received credit, of these 27.1% were male headed households

and only 6.4% were female headed households. Mazabuka district had the highest

number of farmers obtaining some form of input credit at 22.7%, while Mkushi had

10.8%. The higher number of farmers Table 52: Number of Farmers Obtaining Some Form of Agricultural Input Credit by Sex

of Household Head and Region at Present (percent)

Received Credit

Did Not Receive Credit

Male

27.1

51.8

58

Female

6.4

14.7

Mkushi

10.8

45.2

Mazabuka

22.7

21.3

obtaining credit in Mazabuka could probably be due to the presence of more NGOs

in view of the drought which has persisted in Southern Province in the recent past.

During the qualitative evaluation, it clearly came out that in the Pre-SAP period the

majority of farmers had access to credit, compared to the SAP and Post-SAP

period.

The area of agricultural finance has been neglected in Zambia. Since independence

in 1964 up to the mid-1990s, the Zambian Government wrongly equated rural

financial services as necessarily the extension of credit to smallholder farmers,

mainly those in maize production. It was primarily this ‘maize worshiping’ by the

producers themselves that led the government to route very large volumes of highly

subsidised credit through the state-owned Lima Bank and different co-operative

financial institutions to smallholder farmers. In the early years after independence,

apart from the Agriculture Finance Company (later re-named Lima Bank), there was

also the Cattle Finance Company from which a number of cattle farmers benefited.

It was clear that little effort was made to explore how best to strengthen the

operations of private-led and/or community-based financial institutions. In fact,

political interference in cropping and marketing, expressed through frequent

amnesties for credit defaulters, resulted in the unsustainably low recovery rates. The

burden of subsidised agricultural credit was colossal by 1992, accounting for 15

percent of Zambia’s GDP, evidently an unsustainable development in the face of

the falling copper revenue. The subsequent collapse of state-sponsored lending

institutions such as the Lima Bank was clearly inevitable though hastened by the

post-1991 economic liberalisation. Everything that the then credit policy encouraged

was simply unsustainable. Deposit mobilisation, for example, was not part of the

strategy.

Following the liberalisation of the economy, in general, and the agricultural sector, in

particular, and the subsequent collapse of state run-agricultural lending institutions,

there have been no well established lending institutions providing timely, affordable

and adequate agro inputs. Despite the strategic importance the designers of the

Agricultural Sector Investment Programme (ASIP) placed on rural finance for

improving the output levels of private sector farmers, particularly smallholder

59

farmers, this sub-programme was never really commenced. The government

withdrawal of its support to agricultural financial institutions in the name of

liberalisation, complemented by the low rates of loan recovery by these traditional

credit institutions, has continued to cripple input supply. Less than 10 percent of all

smallholders have access to credit.

Whichever way one looks at it, the facilitation of rural finance seems to be at the

core of any meaningful strategy of empowering smallholders to steadily enter a

liberalised and commercialised agricultural sector and be placed in a better position

to meaningfully face the challenges of agricultural intensification. The haphazard

manner in which the Rural Finance Sub-programme has been developed (itself a

function of the failure of the donors, particularly the World Bank, that prescribed it to

provide the requisite resources) not only reveals the poor prioritisation of the ASIP

Sub-programmes relative to each other but, equally important, the somewhat

insufficient conceptualisation of how best to bring in the private sector and

community-based organisations/associations in the provision of the needed financial

services that are so strategic to empowering smallholders to produce for the market.

Notwithstanding the above, it is worth noting that outgrower schemes are expanding

at a considerable speed and the PRSP has identified them as one of the best ways

to address rural finance. But the sustenance of outgrower schemes in ameliorating

the input delivery problem of smallholders is greatly dependant upon improved

macroeconomic stability. There is also concern regarding the unequal power

relationship between smallholders and agribusiness in the outgrower arrangement.

The interviews during the course of this study revealed that conditionalities under

outgrower schemes are simply imposed on smallholder farmers on a “take-it-or-

leave-it” basis, a situation that is worsened by the low educational status of the

average smallholder farmer who does not understand such contracts. Similarly,

smallholders do not have the capacity to enforce compliance of the contract on the

part of the agribusiness ‘partner.’

6.2 Private Sector Roles and Initiatives Over the Pre-SAP to Post-SAP Period.

Table 53, gives a summary of the involvement of various players in the provision of

inputs, and extension services, in the Post-SAP period and beyond. It is encouraging to

note that with liberalisation and after Pre-SAP government dominance in the provision of

agricultural services, the private sector seems to be taking its rightful position in the

provision of agriculture services.

60

Table 53: Sources of Inputs and Extension Services for Various Crops (Percentage)

Source of Inputs (Sells/Provides)

Provision of Extension Services

Private

55

37.4

Government

67.2

88.9

NGO/Donor Project

66.9

55.4

Farmer Groups/Organisation

11.9

56.3

During the study, it was revealed that 55% of the farmers interviewed reported that they

got their inputs from private companies, compared to 67.2% from government and 66.9%

from NGO/donor projects. Only 11.9% of farmers acquired inputs from farmer

groups/organisations. The involvement of the private sector in the provision of

inputs/credit is a welcome development as government seeks to move away from direct

involvement, and only provide a supportive role in agriculture development.

However, the private sectors’ involvement in the provision/selling of inputs/credit is

restricted to crops grown under contract farming or out-grower schemes arrangements.

Table 24, gives a breakdown of the number of households growing various crops on the

basis of a pre-arranged contract with a private trader by crop. Only 2.6% reported

growing maize on the basis of a pre-arranged contract with private traders and 3.1%

indicated they grew other food crops and vegetables on the basis of a pre-arranged

contract. On the other hand 76% of farmers reported growing non-food cash crops,

mainly cotton, on the basis of a pre-arrangement contract with a private trader. From the

above, it is clear that the involvement of the private sector in increasing or enhancing the

productivity, and technology adoption in food crops is very minimal.

On the other hand, the involvement of the private sector in contract farming has been

growing at an astronomical rate, particularly for high value crops such as cotton, tobacco,

paprika and castor oil. Lonrho Cotton alone had 70,000 farmers contracted to it in the

1998/99 season, qualifying as being one of the largest out grower schemes in sub-Saharan

Africa. Other main contractors include privatized agro-processing firms in the oil seed,

dairy, meat, fruit and vegetable processing industries. Crude calculations would indicate

that at least 150,000 farmers, or 30% of smallholder farmers are now covered by contract

farming in one way or another.

61

Nevertheless, the emerging of contract farming has not been without problems. First,

contractors such as Lonrho Cotton that provided full-fledged extension services have

found this aspect too expensive and unsustainable. Second, perhaps related to the first,

the capacity of some firms has been inadequate and left disastrous consequences in the

process, as they fail to buy the product they contract farmers to produce, especially in

outlying areas. Third, the fall in world commodity prices in the last few years has resulted

into contractors failing to offer the farmer attractive prices. The low prices offered have

tended to induce farmers to sell their produce to other traders and eventually default on

their obligations. Lack of enforcement of the agricultural Credit Act mean that there is

little recourse to the law and the contractors merely blacklist the defaulters.

Aspects that show increased private participation include: (I) the emergence of private

sector led associations with the objective of promoting diversification into high-value

crops; (ii) contract farming covering at least 30% of smallholder farmers; (iii) the

emergency of a viable cottage seed multiplication industry; and (iv) successful

privatization of agro-processing industries that have increased their production capacity

and demand for agricultural products. To enhance private sector development, a number

of steps ought to be taken including:

• Stabilising the macroeconomy and removing liquidity problems that make long

term capital investment in the sector difficult.

• Revising the current tax regime in line with that obtaining in the region to help

agro-processing industries become more competitive.

• With the help of private sector, organisations such as Agri-Business Forum and

the Cooperative League of the United States (CLUSA), adopting a programme to

promote the formation of Rural Business Groups that would link farmers and the

private sector. Current efforts to form cooperatives on a mass scale without

careful consideration of group dynamics should be avoided.

Table 43, also shows the source of extension services for the farmers interviewed in the

study. It is clear from the table that the government is the major source of extension

services (88.9%), followed by farmer groups/organisations (56.3%) and NGO/donor

projects (55.4%). The private sector was only a source for 37.4% of the farmers. The

62

extension services provided by the private sector were mainly targeted at farmers growing

crops on contract arrangements, mainly cotton.

Due to the high costs involved, the participation of the private sector in providing

extension services to food crops in the Post-SAP period has been minimal as in the Pre-

SAP period. This is mainly because their main crops of interest are high value crops like

cotton and of late paprika and export fresh vegetables. As a result, their involvement

through provision of extension services in increasing productivity and technology

adoption in food crops can be described as insignificant, in both the Pre-SAP and Post-

SAP periods.

Table 54, indicates the main market outlets or crop depots for various crops. It is clear

from the table that the private sector has taken a leading role in providing a market for

farmers produce in the Post-SAP period compared to the Pre-SAP period. More than

80% of farmers reported selling their maize, cassava and sorghum to private traders.

Table 54: Main Market Outlet or Crop Depot for Various Crops (Percentage)

Maize

Cassava

Sorghum

Farmer Cooperative

Organisation

6.8

5.7

-

Private Trader

86.3

82.9

84.2

State Company and

Marketing Board

0.9

8.6

5.3

Own piecemeal local market

7

2.9

10.5

Less than 10% of the households reported selling any of the above crops to a state company

and marketing board. However, farmers complain of exploitation by private buyers, as in

most cases they are offered prices lower than the production cost. This makes farmers unable

to save money for future input acquisition to increase yields and increase participation in the

output markets. Technology adoption is also hampered because, as a result farmers cannot

afford the required inputs. Private traders are not involved in any local processing industries

in which small scale farmers would get employed in order to supplement their farm income,

for the purpose of purchasing inputs, in the absence of credit facilities. They equally do not

63

provide any worth while non-farm employment opportunities, apart from probably loading

produce onto trucks, which is insignificant.

In spite of their positive contributions, the private sector participation has been constrained by

the poor infrastructure (roads, communication facilities and electricity), macroeconomic

instabilities and continued Government policy inconsistency. Policy inconsistency has been

much stronger at the level of output marketing. The Government is still unable to cede

completely fertilizer supply to the private sector, often sending wrong signals to private

suppliers. Interventions that have undermined private sector confidence since ASIP

implementation began to appear to have been worst in 1996. These included an export ban

on maize, the handling of a debt relief for drought affected farmers, the sale of emergency

grain stocks, and Government’s participation in input supply. In 1997, Government largely

refrained from such interventions despite pressure to do so. However, the selling of fertilizer

through the Food Reserve Agency contrary to the organisation’s original mandate continues

to be a source of concern. Private firms through out grower schemes are playing an important

role in the supply of inputs and marketing of produce among small farmers and are becoming

an important way in relieving the access constraint of these farmers to farm inputs. They are,

however, worried about the disruption to the efficient operations of input markets by the

activities of the FRA.

Government policy inconsistency mainly arises from the political pressure that surrounds the

supply of fertilizer which is associated with the production of maize, whose production in

remote areas is unprofitable due to high transportation costs. It means that producing maize

in these areas with adequate use of fertilizer is unprofitable and any credit facility for

fertilizer supply linked to maize is unlikely to be sustainable. The challenge therefore, is

64

References

Chinene, V.R.N., 1999 Sector Performance Analysis of the Agricultural Sector

Investment Programme, Report prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture and

Co-operatives, Institute of Economic and Social Research, University of

Zambia, Lusaka.

Haantuba, H. and Wamulume, M., 1997 Factors Affecting Agricultural Production in

Zambia, Report prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries,

Institute of Economic and Social Research, University of Zambia, Lusaka.

Kalinda H.K.C., 1997, Pre- ASIP Policy Analysis, Report prepared for the Ministry

of Agriculture and Co-opertives, Institute of Economic and Social Research

University of Zambia, Lusaka.

Kane Consultants and Rural Net Associates., 2003, Evaluation and Assessment for

Sector Performance Analysis of the Agricultural Sector Investment

Programme (ASIP), prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-

operatives, Lusaka.

Saasa Oliver., 2003, Agricultural Intensification in Zambia, the role of policies and

policy processes, Report prepared for Lund University of Sweden, Institute of

Economic and Social Research, University of Zambia, Lusaka.

Saasa Oliver, Dennis Chiwele, Foustin Mwape and John C. Keyser., 1999,

Comparative Economic Advantage of Alternative Agricultural Production

Activities in Zambia, Institute of Economic and Social Research, University of

Zambia, Lusaka.

Sipula, P.M., 1997, Agricultural Services and the Performance of the Smallholder

Sector: A Statistical Analysis, Report prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture,

Food and Fisheries, Institute of Economic and Social Research, University of

Zambia, Lusaka

Wamulume, M., 1999, District Key Performance indicators prepared for the Ministry

of Agriculture and Co-operatives, Institute of Economic and Social Research,

University of Zambia, Lusaka.

˘ ˇ ˆ · Cheetah Zambia offers paprika outgrower schemes in Chitina in Mkushi. According to the...

Documents

Transcript of ˘ ˇ ˆ · Cheetah Zambia offers paprika outgrower schemes in Chitina in Mkushi. According to the...