Published by the government of Zimbabwe
16 November 2009
editorial
Harare — Zimbabwe's decision to start subsidising limited sales of seed and fertilizer for communal and small-scale grain farmers is a good route to follow, if the success of similar schemes in Malawi, Zambia and Botswana is anything to go by.
Both our northern neighbours used to struggle for food self-sufficiency. Both are now significant exporters of maize largely because of these schemes to empower their small-scale growers.
Zimbabwe could do a lot worse than follow the full example, including the measures taken to stop leakage of subsidised inputs into the commercial markets and to stop cheating.
Malawi eventually charged, tried and jailed a Cabinet minister and two MPs caught cheating, and that severe example stopped others from even thinking about trying to abuse their positions or otherwise cheating.
The problems with some Zimbabwean schemes earlier this decade shows how vital it is that the inputs are bought only by those who qualify, and only in the quantities allowed.
We would like to see an extra safeguard put in, with the packs of fertilizer and seed marked in a way that makes it difficult for those who buy them to resell them at a higher price.
There is plenty of seed and fertilizer readily available at normal commercial prices in Zimbabwe this year, so shortages are not a problem for the well-capitalised farmer nor for the urban worker wanting to plant a small plot of maize to provide fresh food for his family.
The subsidies should only be a method of getting real small-scale farmers back into production and getting Zimbabwe back into self-sufficiency as quickly as possible.
Targeted and subsidised inputs, with appropriate limits, are a far better way of restoring small-scale agriculture than free inputs or crop-packs.
For a start, the person with no intention of planting anything is less likely to take up the offer when they actually have to find some money of their own. Most of those taking up the offer will be serious farmers, even if their farms are small.
We hope that some sort of system is in place to ensure that those buying subsidised seed and fertilizer are genuine. At the very least, a farmer should produce some documentary evidence from his or her village head or community head, certifying that they do, in fact, have land and that they are a serious farmer.
Secondly, by having to pay something towards the cost, the farmer is less likely to waste the seed or fertilizer. Most of the farmers taking up the offer will have had to struggle a little to find their share of the money, or have had to borrow the cash off a relative, and so are more likely to make good use of what they bought.
We are also pleased that the seed packs include sorghum. There have been warnings already that three-quarters of the country will have less than average rainfall this season, with the deficiencies tending to accumulate in the second half of the season.
Sorghum is the indigenous African grain and is far better adapted than most for the harsh climate of the continent. In particular, it can cope far better than maize with long breaks in the rains.
We still feel that more efforts need to be made in Zimbabwe to produce and market acceptable sorghum varieties; it is only in the last 80 or so years that maize has overtaken sorghum as the staple food. In pre-colonial and early colonial Zimbabwe, maize was an optional extra, not the basic food.
Another of our neighbours, dry Botswana, has more than doubled grain production through several schemes that have seen bumper sorghum harvests, producing this grain both for people and for livestock.
Far too much of past research in Zimbabwe was aimed at the large commercial farmers, and not nearly enough at the smallholders and communal farmers.
Our neighbours were in the same position, or had no significant research, but have now started that long haul to create a rural middle class.
We can easily catch up, making our land reform far more meaningful and within a relatively short time ensuring that the bulk of our rural population are earning a reasonable income, as well as putting Zimbabwe back in the club of net food exporters.
Subsidised inputs will not last forever; these schemes are intended to get production started, convert small-scale growers into small commercial growers, and build up rural incomes and savings.
As time goes on subsidies can be reduced and eventually eliminated. But experience among our neighbours suggests strongly that they are easily the best way of starting the process of raising production, especially if such schemes are well-administered, properly targeted and adequately policed.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2009 The Herald. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
