By STANSLOUS NGOSA –
POVERTY continues to be the greatest challenge Zambia is facing today. The national average poverty level is estimated at 64 per cent while in rural areas it is at 80 per cent
Given that the highest levels of poverty are in the rural areas, therefore, agriculture has been identified to be an important source of livelihood and income for most rural communities.
Government has identified agriculture as priority sector to reduce poverty and enhance household food security.
The National Development Plans continue to place agricultural sector high on the agenda as the potential engine for economic growth required to reduce poverty
This is according to the Revised Sixth National Development Plan 2011 – 2015.
The failure of the agricultural sector to provide for livelihoods for the majority people in rural areas is considered a major factor contributing to rural poverty.
A broad range of policy reforms in the sector have been introduced to stimulate growth and improve the performance of agriculture to reduce poverty and enhance household food security in the country.
These reforms included land reforms, fertiliser and crop market reforms that allow the private sector to participate in the input supply and crop marketing, while reducing Government participation.
However, there was recognition of failure on the part of the private sector to provide adequate services compelling the Government to introduce the Fertiliser Support Programme (FSP).
This was later revised to be called Farmer Input Support Programme (FISP) to service smallholder farmers so as to improve the accessibility to inputs such as fertiliser.
It was felt that increased accessibility to farm inputs by small-scale farmers would enhance participation and in the long run ensure sustained food security at both household and national levels.
The overall objective of the FISP programme is to increase private sector participation in the supply of agricultural inputs to small scale farmers and contribute to increased household food security and income.
FISP specific objectives include expanding markets for private sector input suppliers, dealers and increase their involvement in the distribution of agricultural inputs in rural areas, thereby reducing direct role of Government.
Ensuring timely, effective and adequate supply of agricultural inputs to targeted small scale farmers and improving access of the farmers to agricultural inputs are other objectives of FISP.
The other objectives are ensuring competitiveness and transparency in the supply and distribution of inputs as well as serving as a risk sharing mechanism for small-scale farmers to cover part of the costs for improving agricultural productivity.
To facilitate the process of farmers’ organisation, dissemination of knowledge and creation of rural institutions that would contribute to the development of the sector are other objectives of the programme.
However, FISP has been hit by several challenges that have hindered its successful implementation.
One of the main challenges includes failure to graduate farmers from the programme.
The programme is designed in such a way that every after two years beneficiaries should graduate, however, none of the farmers, have graduated, since its inception in 2002.
The FISP is designed to wean-off farmers because it is anticipated that in the two year period, a beneficiary of FISP should have generated sufficient income.
Inputs received by farmers are inadequate and unsustainable unless the farmers are able to raise money to meet the cooperative requirements, they are unable to participate and benefits from the programme are some of the challenges affecting the programme.
Other challenges include lack of sensitization on the change of mode of programme delivery by Government.
Salome Chilufya, a farmer from Kapiri Mposhi’s Kafwaka area, claims that sensitisation during the change from FSP to FISP was not adequate hence the ‘confusion’ in the programme
She says late delivery of farm inputs which is attributed to practice and cumbersome procedures that the farmers are subjected to, is another annual problem the beneficiaries face.
Fake co-operatives which have been formed for the sole purpose of accessing inputs and some farmers collecting farming input from more than one input provider are other major challenges.
Some farmers have completely no access to the programme and yet it is meant to serve the vulnerable but viable small scale farmers.
There are a number of ways in which the poorest households are excluded from direct FISP benefits.
For example, the FISP implementation manual states that the programme should be targeted towards viable farmers with cooperative membership and the capacity to grow at least 0.5 hectares of maize
Depending on how capacity is defined, this policy excludes 15-20 per cent of the households with the least access to land.
This is according to a case study of Mazabuka and Monze by Civil Society For Poverty Reduction assessment of the implementation and viability of FISP in Zambia
The Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute (IAPRI) says that public spending on the Food Reserve Agency (FRA) and FISP has had little effect on poverty reduction and raising productivity rates.
IAPRI Outreach Director Ballard Zulu was quoted as saying says no country has made the transition out of poverty without boosting levels of agricultural productivity.
Although Zambia has made some progress in this respect, the evidence shows that despite achieving annual growth rates of more than six per cent in agriculture, crop yields remain low by international standards and rural poverty rates remain stubbornly high at about 80 per cent.
The current agricultural policies are not doing enough to prioritise measures that would achieve productivity and reduce poverty especially among rural populations.
A significant proportion of the poverty reduction strategy portion of the agriculture budget is being spent on FISP and FRA which he said has not proved effective at boosting productivity.
Government expenditure through FRA and FISP has been benefiting larger and relatively well-off households hence, limiting poverty reduction in rural areas.
Research has also shown that while FISP improves maize yields, the level is very low and not commercially and sustainably viable.
Productivity under FISP could be improved better by targeting the poor farmers who are not currently benefiting from the subsidy, through ensuring that the fertiliser is delivered on time and farmers are given greater choice of fertiliser.
Through FISP, the Government is investing heavily in Compound D fertiliser which is not suitable to larger parts of Zambia where the soils are acidic.
Resources from major public expenditure on smallholder farmers in the form of FISP and FRA be redirected and invested into more productive areas.
The Indaba Research Institute Director has since called for a stronger focus on sustainable productivity that enhances farming practices such as conservation farming which has the potential of boosting productivity.
Mr Zulu, however, welcomed the decision to introduce an e-voucher saying this would improve the way FISP operates adding that a flexible e-voucher.
The e-voucher would even be more effective as it would give farmers wider options of purchasing productivity enhancing inputs of their choice.

. Monde

But Agriculture Deputy Minister Greyford Moonde said the FISP has improved since the Patriotic Front took over Government as evidenced by early deliveries of the inputs and the bumper harvest recorded, although more work needs to be done.
“You can see that when we took over, we started by improving the operations of Nitrogen Chemicals of Zambia so that we can produce fertiliser locally and stop importing because it is cost,” Mr Moonde says
Mr Moonde says Government was able to produce and deliver fertiliser on time last farming season apart from one or two negligible incidences where there were some delays due to technical factors.
He says the distribution of fertiliser started early around August last year.
Mr Moonde, however, maintained that Government has no intention of waning off the programme because it is viable although it needs to be improved so that it meets its intended objectives.
The agriculture deputy minister admitted that no farmer has graduated from being dependant on FISP to self sustenance because of the manner the programme was handled by the previous regime.
“We are now accessing the impact of FISP so that we can review it for a better agriculture future. It is evident that the farmers have become dependent on the programme, but we want farmers to start graduating,” Mr Moonde said.
Currently, Mr Moonde said the Government is conducting a census for farmers and creating a register as well as a data for easier monitoring, evaluation and eventually successful implementation of the programme.
He said over one million farmers have been registered while 400 are remaining to be captured before reaching the target.
“We want to capture 1, 400 million farmers who we expect to graduate after two years before another batch is considered,” Mr Moonde said.
On late payment of farmers, Mr Moonde says farmers who delayed getting their money were those that produced more and asked Government to buy their produce even after FRA had reached its ceiling.
He said Government budgeted for 700, 000 tonnes but farmers over produced and asked the State to buy excess the produce because it was already delivered to FRA sheds countrywide.
“That is the reason why we even delayed to close the marketing season because we wanted to buy the excess the maize produced so that the farmers are not demoralised,” Mr Moonde said
However, some of the questions that begs answers includes whether fertiliser and maize subsidies are still the best way to uplift small scale farmers
After 50 years of not successful policies and interventions, is it not time for new thinking?
It is however, important to refocus the national priority from the achieved goal of food security to becoming a net exporter of staple foods and higher value agricultural commodities to the region and beyond as observed by IAPRI.
This should be supported with a greater emphasis on research, education and extension services to Small Scale Farmers.
Government should to encourage private sector expansion into rural areas through infrastructure development as well as targeting support appropriately.
There is also need to encourage diversification of Small Scale Farmers from cropping into high value crops and locally appropriate crops.