Agriculture and Agribusiness in Zambia

Governance and Small-scale Agriculture in Southern Africa

2009-10-04T11:48:00Z

Organisation: Idasa Economic Governance Programme,
Conference Dates: November, 9th – 11th/ Johannesburg, South Africa

From 9th to 11th November 2009, Idasa’s Economic Governance Programme will host a conference on ‘Governance and Small-scale Agriculture in Southern Africa’. The aim of the conference is to discuss governance and public investment processes and how these are shaping small-scale agriculture in the region. Specifically, the meeting will focus on three themes: priorities for public investment in agriculture; trends in public expenditure on small-scale agriculture; and, policy processes and stakeholder participation. The conference will provide a forum for stakeholders to identify constraints and opportunities in agriculture and draw interdisciplinary lessons and best practices.

Background and Scope:

In Africa, agriculture continues to be the linchpin of most national economies and serves as the main source of livelihood for poor rural households. For a continent facing perennial food shortages and limited financial resources, meeting the challenges of sustainable rural development and poverty reduction presents a daunting undertaking for most governments. Promoting agriculture remains crucial for meeting the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of halving poverty and hunger by 2015. However, a lack of concrete proposals for transforming small-scale agriculture across Africa has undermined efforts to overcome constraints and take advantage of opportunities in the sector. For example, the paradox of declining budget allocations to agriculture despite its continued high contribution to GDP in most African countries reflects some of the inconsistencies that need to be reconciled. With only 19% of African countries meeting their commitment to allocate at least 10% of their national expenditure to agriculture, it is clear that a seismic shift in thinking across the continent will be required to achieve ambitious targets such as those set out in the MDGs.This has conjured calls for a paradigm shift in thinking of appropriate ways of addressing the multiple facets of rural development interventions. Regions, such as SADC, have taken cognizance of the role that agriculture plays in national development and have responded to emerging challenges such as drought, food shortages, increased food prices, climate change and the role of bio-fuels. In responding to such challenges, it has become increasingly important for policymakers in the SADC region to rely on regional frameworks of governance to formulate proposals and actions for agricultural development. Central to this process is the sharing of lessons and exploring best practices around key issues such as priority setting and pro-poor policy formulation.

Conference approach

The Conference will be structured as paper presentations and facilitated discussion sessions around the following three sub-themes: (i) Priorities for investment in agriculture; (ii) Trends in public expenditure on small-scale agriculture; and policy processes and stakeholder participation.

Sub- Theme 1: Priorities for investment in Agriculture

In the last couple of years, there has been renewed focus on small-holder agriculture as a potential driver for growth and poverty reduction in sub-Saharan Africa. Governments and development agencies alike have expressed hope that such renewed interest will eventually fend off considerable skepticism as to whether public investment in small-holder agriculture will eventually lead to the desired growth and poverty reduction given the track record of failed agricultural investments in Africa. It is now widely acknowledged that agriculture-based investments have the potential to drive broader economic growth, and also provide the best prospects for pro-poor development outcomes as poverty is most chronic in rural parts of Africa where over 65% of the African population lives. Because of the complexity of most rural livelihood systems, details on the form of investments to prioritize under specific socio-economic conditions however remain poorly understood. These shortcomings have undermined investment efforts to reduce poverty through transformation of small-scale agriculture. This sub-theme explores lessons and best practices that are emerging from work done on prioritization and sequencing of agriculture-based investments to achieve pro-poor outcomes. Specifically it explores the following questions:

To what extent does small-scale agriculture provide realistic opportunities for rural populations to lift themselves out of poverty?
What are the current trends in investment to support smallholder agriculture and how effective have they been in different African countries?
What areas of investment in agricultural/rural development offer the best returns and how is this affected by the socio-economic context?
What are the most effective approaches to sequencing of investments to support small-scale agriculture?

Sub- Theme 2: Trends in public expenditure and Small-scale farming

Many African governments continue to treat agriculture as a way of life for peasant families such that concrete commitments for transforming rural livelihoods are few and far between. Currently most SADC countries are allocating less than 6% of their national budgets to agriculture despite the sector contributing an average of around 18% to GDP. The lack of effective farmer organizational systems and limited support from civil society groups has undermined the ability of small-scale farmers to put pressure on governments, through sustained lobbying for adequate share of public expenditure. This subtheme focuses on the trends in public expenditure on agriculture and the nature and magnitude of its impact on small-scale agriculture. Specifically this theme will ask the following questions: • What are the trends in government expenditure on small-scale agriculture and how effective are these in promoting pro-poor economic growth?

How does government spending on agriculture compare with their stated commitments (e.g. Maputo Declaration) and what advocacy strategies are most effective in holding governments accountable to their commitments?
How can public expenditure programs be sufficiently targeted to enable small-scale farmers to capture their full benefits?

Sub- Theme 3: Stakeholder participation in Agriculture policy

Stakeholder participation is a common practice in contemporary development policymaking. This is crucial in establishing ownership and a demand driven process from a stakeholder perspective. A key constraint is the lack of sufficient and accessible information to enable stakeholders at different levels to adequately engage in open dialogue and negotiation processes on issues that affect their welfare. This issue remains a major challenge for small-scale agricultural policy formulation processes across Africa. Farmer groups remain marginal to processes of public expenditure and priority setting, without a voice to influence political decisions that affect the sector. Often they are not sufficiently organized or informed enough to engage other more sophisticated stakeholders with concrete alternative proposals that better represent the needs and aspirations of the smallholder farmers. This theme explores models of stakeholder participation in agricultural policy making processes and distills key lessons on making these more effective. Specifically this theme tackles the following questions:

What are the current models of stakeholder participation in agricultural policy making process, and have these improved pro-poor policy outcomes?
What are the most pressing constraints to effective farmer representation in agricultural policy formulation processes and how can these be overcome?
What is ‘best practice’ when designing models for small-scale farmer participation in policy making at nation and regional platforms?

Abstracts:

The abstract shall be self-contained and citation-free and shall not exceed 150 words. It will directly address the questions/issues raised in each sub-theme. Abstracts must contain the title of the paper, name(s) of the author(s), affiliation(s), and contact information of author(s). All abstracts should be sent to Leslie Nyagah at lnyagah@idasa.org.za by September 31st for consideration.

Final papers:

The papers shall be evidence based and can be theoretical, empirical or policy oriented, and can approach the issues from a range of disciplinary perspectives. Moreover, papers shall be unpublished, present findings that fills-in critical gaps in knowledge or policy and/or analyze an emerging issue. All papers shall be submitted according to these instructions: max 6000 words or 20 pages in length, 12pt Times New Roman font and 1.5 margin spacing margins. Papers shall include the following:

Title of the paper
Full name(s) of the author(s)
Full contact details of the author(s)
Biographical note(s) of author(s) (max 100 words)

Note for presenters

Participants must be available to present findings at the conference to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa planned for 9- 11 November 2009. Subject to peer review selected papers will also be published in an edited conference book through a reputable publisher. For further inquires please contact Robyn Lubbe at rlubbe@idasa.org.za.

Chitemene, Fundikila and Hybrid Farming

2005-02-26T16:38:00Z

Chitemene

Chitemene has been well described by several authors (e.g. Peters, 1950; Trapnell, 1953; Stromgaard, 1989). It is a form of 'slash-and-burn' cultivation, but is unique in that the lopped area is much larger than the cropped area. There is some evidence that the system is indigenous to the Zaire-Zambezi watershed, and that it was brought from that area during migrations in the 17th century (Stromgaard, 1989). Although there are variations described by Stromgaard (1989), the basic (or 'large-circle') form of chitemene is as follows. Branches are lopped from trees within the selected area betwen July and September, laid out to dry, and before the beginning of the rains in November, are gathered into a heap in the centre of the cut area. In general, the area of a heap is around 0.4 ha (Trapnell, 1953), while the size of the cut area depends on the quantity of woody biomass in that area; where the regeneration period is long (30 years), it may be around 4 ha, but for shorter fallow periods may be as high as 11 ha (Peters, 1950). The heap is burnt just before the first rains, with finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn.) usually being the first crop sown in the ash plot. The subsequent cropping sequence varies, but typically is groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.), millet and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) (see Trapnell, 1953). Often cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) is planted as an intercrop with the millet in the first year and harvested gradually from the third year onwards. When the field is exhausted after 4-5 years, it is abandoned and traditionally left fallow for 20-30 years (Mansfield, 1973), and another field opened. Mansfield et al. (1975) estimated that the chitemene system could support between 2 and 4 persons per square km depending on the amount of suitable land available. Nearly 90% of farmers in the high rainfall region practise chitemene.

Fundikila

In the north-eastern part of the region, where the population is higher and there are fewer trees, the Mambwe people have developed the fundikila or 'grass-mound' system of cultivation. Detailed descriptions of the fundikila process are given by Stromgaard (1988). It has been suggested that the system is a culmination of the breakdown of the chitemene system as the area became deforested by an increasing population (Stromgaard, 1989). Briefly, the process involves the formation towards the end of the rainy season of mounds of grass (predominantly Hyparrhenia filipendula and Pennisetum purpureum) covered by earth on a previously fallowed site. The grass rots within the mound during the dry season, and at the start of the next rains the mounds are levelled, and the finger millet planted. This may be followed in the second season by a variety of crops including maize (Zea mays L.), beans, sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) and groundnuts. Millet is usually planted again in the third year, followed by a legume. In some cases, the field may be mounded every second year, and the crop planted on the mounds. This combination of green-manuring and alternating cereal crops with legumes helps to slow the exhaustion of soil fertility. There is some evidence that the system is sustainable (Stromgaard, 1990), but in practice the cropping period is 3-5 years, and the fallow period is traditionally up to 20 years (Mansfield, 1973). It has been estimated that the fundikila system is able to support 20-40 persons per square km (Mansfield et al., 1975), considerably more than the chitemene system.

Hybrid maize production

In order to meet the ever growing urban demand for maize meal in Zambia, government agricultural policy since independence has aimed at increasing national maize production. In Northern Zambia, in the last decade in particular, this policy has focused on promoting maize production by the small-scale farming sector through subsidised schemes involving the use of hybrid varieties and imported fertiliser (Stromgaard, 1984). In addition, there was a rapid population increase during 1970-1980 in the region, causing pressure on the traditional chitemene and fundikila systems of shifting cultivation, and forcing many subsistance farmers to intensify their farming practices (Chidamayo, 1987). Population density in some areas of present-day Northern Province has been recorded at 12 persons per sq. km (Stromgaard, 1985), well above the chitemene capacity of around 2-4 persons per sq. km (Mansfield et al., 1975). As a result of both of these factors, maize production, based on official figures, increased from 18,000 tonnes in 1978 to almost 160,000 tonnes in 1988, representing 11% of total marketed maize in Zambia. Production of soybean has also been promoted, and is often grown in rotation with maize. The growing of hybrid maize using imported fertiliser has been promoted in Zambia in recent years in an attempt to meet the country's expanding demand for food. The maize growing programme, however, has been criticised for being too dependent on government subsidies and for its marketing system being too costly. At present, there is a heavy dependence on donor support for investment and running costs, and there is concern that the government will not be able to maintain the production and marketing infrastructure when donors phase out. In addition, there is evidence that maize yields are falling despite increased fertiliser application (Bolt & Holdsworth, 1987), possible reasons being a worsening in the timing of fertiliser supply, and increase in continuous maize monocropping with lack of crop rotation practices, or the acidifying effect of some chemical fertilisers. To compound the issue, subsidies on fertiliser and seed were removed in 1990, and maize production opened to market forces, exposing farmers in the remoter areas of the province to competition on the same terms as those closer to the points of consumption and input supply. Many small-scale farmers, unable to afford inputs, are now returning to the traditional chitemene and fundikila systems of cultivation.

Anticipation of these developments made it clear that to sustain maize production in the region, there was an urgent need to initiate research into alternative methods of soil fertility management other than the use of fertilisers. Biological methods of maintaining soil fertility, and alley cropping in particular, were suggested as potential solutions to the problem (AFRENA, 1989). The use of trees to enhance fertility is not a new concept to the subsistance farmers of Northern Zambia; the traditional chitemene shifting cultivation practice predominant in the region uses nutrients accumulated by trees of the miombo woodland. Alley cropping retains the basic principles of traditional bush fallowing, but attempts to keep all the land productive at the same time.

Article by Dr. Robin Mathews. Reproduced with permission from Dr. Robin Mathews Agroforestry in Zambia.

Agricultural Gains in Zambia

2004-07-08T19:02:00Z

A recent article in The Economist (June 24th 2004) caught our attention, and for the viewing pleasure of the rest of our visitors, below are some key points:

More than 300 Zimbabwean farmers have been welcomed by President Mwanawasa
More than 150 farms are now leased from the Zambian government
One such farmer has invested more than $10 million and employed over 3,500 people
Zambia's tobacco crop production estimates are set to double in 2004 and have lured Universal Corporation into investing in Zambia
Lusaka will soon be host to a tobacco processing plant, scheduled for completion in 2007

Government Policy on Agriculture

2004-03-09T17:57:00Z

Prior to 1991, agricultural policy was characterized by government controls through parastatals, cooperatives and other government-supported institutions to deliver agricultural services and, to some extent, direct production of commodities. In 1992, the government embarked on agricultural policy reforms as part of the economic structural adjustment program (SAP). The main focus of the policy reforms was to liberalize the agricultural sector and to promote private sector development and participation in the production and distribution of agricultural goods and services. Agricultural policy endeavored to create an enabling environment for private sector participation through measures such as withdrawal of direct government involvement in production, marketing and distribution of inputs and produce, privatization of parastatal companies, elimination of price controls and direct subsidies in the sector.

The policy objectives for the sector were:

To ensure nation and household food security through dependable annual production of adequate supplies of foodstuffs at competitive cost.
To ensure that the existing agricultural base is maintained and improved upon.
To generate income and employment through increased agriculture production and productivity.
To contribute to sustainable industrial development by providing locally produced agro-based raw materials.
To increase agricultural exports thereby enhancing the sector’s contribution to the national balance of payments.
The strategies for attaining these policy objectives included among other things the strengthening and monitoring the liberalized markets, the facilitation of the private sector development, diversification of agricultural production particularly among small holder farmers. The review and realignment of institutions and legislative arrangements was a critical policy objective.

From 1995 to 2001, the main vehicle for the implementation of these policy objectives in agriculture was the Agriculture Sector Investment Program (ASIP) under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF). ASIP adopted a holistic approach to provide improved and sustainable services to the sector through efficient use of resources. The major underlying assumption was that all government and donor resources would be pooled into a “basket funding” for the various ASIP activities. The strategies for achieving the objectives of ASIP focused on enhancing production through free market development, reduction of government role in commercial activities, and provision of efficient public services.

The interventions of ASIP were organized around the following sub-programs: Extension, Irrigation, Research, Agriculture Training, Animal Production and Health, Agriculture Finance, Marketing and Trade, Seeds, New Product Development, Farm Power and Mechanization, Policy and Planning, Standards, and the Rural Investment Fund. These sub-programs set the outline of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF) during the last five years. Consequently, the ministry was restructured to meet the objectives of the program. During this period the program scored a number of successes and recorded some failures. (These are outlined in the GRZ/MAFF ACP document of November 2001).

Government policy with the inauguration of President Levy Patrick Mwanawasa has shifted decisively in favour of agriculture. In this respect government aims to make Zambian agriculture competitive and diversified away from maize. The government also aims to make the private sector in particular through the out grower schemes to have a strong role in the development process of the Zambian agriculture. It is policy to have Zambian agriculture science and technology led. In his speech on the occasion of the opening of the first session of the 2002 Parliament, President Mwanawasa underscored his Government’s vision on agriculture. He emphasised the need for adoption of farming practices, which are both economically and environmentally sustainable.

Article By Muna Hantuba the Economics Association Of Zambia President.

Gardening Galore

2004-03-09T17:56:00Z

This month I would like to cover some of the plants and other organic remedies that can be used for pest and disease control.

Basil is insecticidal, fungicidal and a repellent. Take 100 grams of leaves per litre of water, soak overnight, blitz it in a liquidizer, add a teaspoon of soft soap, filter and spray. Basil controls aphids, flies, caterpillars, mosquitoes, spidermites and seedbed pests.

Chives are also fungicidal, insecticidal and repellent. Recipes vary from 10 grams to 100 grams of leaves or peels per litre of water. Pound or crush and soak for a minimum of 4 days. Add soft soap, strain and spray. Controls aphids, mites, scale, ticks, whitefly.

Garlic is insecticidal, fungicidal, bactericidal, nematicidal and a repellent. Crush two cloves of garlic per litre of water, leave to infuse for a day or two, add soft soap, strain and spray. Controls ants, aphids, armyworm, beetles, caterpillars, moths, houseflies, mice, moles, mosquitoes, nematodes, termites, ticks and fungal and bacterial diseases.

Pawpaws are insecticidal, fungicidal and nematicidal. Add about 1 kg finely shredded leaves per litre of water, shake and stir well. Filter, add a further four litres of water, soft soap, two teaspoons of kerosene and mix thoroughly. Spray on plants. Controls aphids, caterpillars, nematodes, termites, rust, mildew, leaf spot and bugs in general.

Tomatoes are insecticidal, fungicidal, and repellent. Shred 1 kg of leaves, fruits, stems into two litres of water. Leave for half a day, filter, add soft soap and spray. Controls aphids, beetles, caterpillars, cockroaches, moths, flies, nematodes, whitefly and other bugs, fungal and bacterial wilt.

African marigolds are insecticidal, a contact poison, fungicidal, bactericidal, nematicidal and repellent. Crush 100 – 200 grams leaves, roots and flowers. Pour 1 litre boiling water over, soak for 24 hours. Filter, add a further litre of water and soft soap and spray. Water into the soil for nematodes. Controls a wide range of insects, ants, beetles, nematodes, fungal diseases and blight. Can also be planted as an intercrop to repel insects and nematodes.

Lantana is a contact poison. Crush a handful of leaves per litre of water and leave it to infuse. Strain, add soft soap (5 ml per litre) and spray on plants. Controls a wide range of insects and pests.

Chili is insecticidal and repellent. Crush or grind 2 handfuls of chilies, soak in one litre of water for a day. Shake well and filter. Add a further 5 litres water and soft soap. Spray. Controls most insects, fungi, bacteria and viruses.

All the above remedies can be mixed to give a broader spectrum of bugs killed or repelled.

Article By Peter Chalcraft. Peter is a horticulturalist who writes a monthly column in The Lowdown. Reproduced with permission are a series of articles that answer some of your gardening queries. Peter can also be reached by email at pete@kantemba.com or by phone on 096 747-990.