Climate Change and Coping strategies in Africa ( by Mayibongwe Mabanda)

Introduction

Climate change is one of humanity’s greatest challenges, affecting both current and future generations. Without urgent and concerted action, it will damage fragile ecosystems, impede development efforts, increase risks to public health, frustrate poverty alleviation programs, and force large-scale migration from water or food-scarce regions. The environmental, economic, and social costs of inaction will far exceed the cost of taking immediate steps to address climate change.

Climate is usually defined as the "average weather" in a place. It includes patterns of temperature, precipitation (rain or snow), humidity, wind and seasons. Climate patterns play a fundamental role in shaping natural ecosystems, and the human economies and cultures that depend on them. But the climate we’ve come to expect is not what it used to be, because the past is no longer a reliable predictor of the future. Our climate is rapidly changing with disruptive impacts, and that change is progressing faster than any seen in the last years.

Conceptualisation of terms

Climate change is approached by dealing with the three sides from which the danger comes which are global warming, increasing climate variability, meteorological and climatology extreme events. According to African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (2006) these are the three panels of this triptych review. The second panel starts with a compelling review of the present situation of food security, referring to African examples to improve the situation. Then the influence is discussed that the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) has an increasing climate variability as a consequence of climate change. It is indicated that, to date, climate models have been developed with little knowledge of agricultural systems dynamics. On the other hand one can illustrate that agricultural policy analysis has been conducted with little knowledge of climate dynamics.

Climate change, can be referred to as global warming, according to Conway (2010), this is the rise in average surface temperatures on Earth. An overwhelming scientific consensus maintains that climate change is due primarily to the human use of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the air. The gases trap heat within the atmosphere, which can have a range of effects on ecosystems, including rising sea levels, severe weather events, and droughts that render landscapes more susceptible to wildfires. The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) acknowledges climate change as one of the factors affecting rural poverty and as one of the challenges it needs to be addressed. While climate change is a global phenomenon, its negative impacts are more severely felt by poor people in developing countries who rely heavily on the natural resource base for their livelihoods. Rural poor communities rely greatly for their survival on agriculture and livestock keeping that are amongst the most climate-sensitive economic sectors.

 The primary cause of climate change is the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil and coal, which emits greenhouse gases into the atmosphere primarily carbon dioxide. Other human activities, such as agriculture and deforestation, also contribute to the proliferation of greenhouse gases that cause climate change. Pitts (1996), argues that due to climate change droughts and floods are destroying especially the crops and harvest of farmers in developing countries, leaving them in a miserable situation and threatening their livelihood. As in most of the African countries, the majority of the workforce for example in Ghana (almost 60%) is working in the agricultural sector but contributes just a little percentage to the national GDP. Most of the farmers are living in abject poverty, struggling with life and just managing to survive by scraping for a living through multiple informal economic activities. These of course mean an immense toll in the livelihoods of families, especially those in the rural areas.

Impact of climate change

 Impact of climate change on African agriculture has been a challenge. Farmers in Africa are currently the most vulnerable to climate variability. Scenario analysis also shows that maize production in Southern Africa will be positively affected by climate change under both low-input and irrigated management systems. According to Malhi & Wright (2004), droughts and floods, out-of-season rain and dry spells are affecting the welfare of millions of people. The suspected root of the problem, climate change, is a reality for the people of Africa. These and many other changes have led to unreliable farming seasons and low water supplies. Amisah (2007) et al pointed out that the governments and other stakeholders at all levels are working out various mitigation and adaptation responses with varied implications for different sections of the population. The adaptation measures, which seek to reduce the vulnerability and build the resilience of people to climate change are necessary and critical given the growing effects of climate change.

As a direct consequence of capricious behaviour of particularly rainfall in West Africa, the adaptation of its farmers has lagged behind enormously. This statement is valid for most farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. Within the climate science community there is an emerging effort to make findings more suitable for decision making, but as yet there is little consensus as to how data may be relied upon for decision making. Then a lot of attention is paid to how response farming, that is thoroughly defined, can play an important role in coping with the consequences of climate variability. Response farming is often limited envisaging rainfall events, but coping with weather and climate disasters as well as using windows of weather and climate opportunities are other forms of responding to weather and climate realities. Services such as advice on design rules on above and below ground micro-climate management or manipulation, with respect to any appreciable microclimatic improvement: shading, wind protection, mulching, other surface modification, drying, storage, frost protection belong to such “response farming” agro meteorological services. Ideally, to get optimal preparations, farmers get advisories/services through extension intermediaries.

How farmers in Africa are surviving with the phenomenon of climate change

To survive the consequences of climate change farmers in Africa have adopted measures to reduce climate change. According to Conant and Paustian (2002), in Ghana, the traditional and local authorities identified clearing of riparian vegetation as a major factor increasing soil erosion and siltation of rivers, which eventually reduces stream flow, and they are adopting measures to remedy the situation. The measures include creating awareness of the effects of deforestation around water bodies, sensitizing the communities about prevention of bush fires, promoting community-based management of forests and imposing fines on those who indiscriminately set fire to the forests, clear riparian vegetation or violate other measures to protect the environment. However, According to Cohen et al (2002) these efforts by the traditional authorities are not yielding notable results because the communities, although still rural in terms of development and infrastructure, have become more cosmopolitan or heterogeneous and no longer adhere as absolutely to traditional authority as they did in the past. The communal nature of the communities is breaking down; people now tend to be more concerned with individual than with collective well-being.

In addition, most farmers recognized the importance of having trees on their farms to shade their crops from intense sunshine. However growing trees had little appeal to them because they had had negative experiences with timber companies and illegal chainsaw loggers trampling their crops. Sustained awareness programmes are needed to inform rural farmers of their rights and to empower them to protect their farms and most importantly to plant more trees. Ghana Environmental Protection Agency (2000) argues that responses to climate change include adaptation to reduce the vulnerability of people and ecosystems to climatic changes which is all activities that help people and ecosystems reduce their vulnerability to the adverse impacts of climate change and minimize the costs of natural disasters. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for adaptation and mitigation, to reduce the magnitude of climate change impact in the long term. According to Werf, (2008), mitigation activities are designed to reduce the sources and enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases in order to limit the negative effects of climate change.

Also, in Africa farmers are adapting to this constraint by planting different or various crops. According to Brooks (2006), crops that thrive well under the current prevailing conditions are increasingly being planted in areas that previously did not support their cultivation. For example in Kenya, there is a shift from cocoa cultivation to drought-resistant crops such as cassava. Vegetable growers are also gradually moving into the river plains where their crops can get more water. These are forms of adaptation techniques but are obviously not sustainable. Cocoa crops, for example, were previously a major source of income for the upkeep of the farmers’ families, for the purchase of agricultural inputs and for expansion of their farms. The clearing of riparian vegetation and the use of agricultural chemicals close to the rivers and streams create hazards for the environment and ultimately for the people of the region.

Farmers in Africa have developed several strategies to adapt to this phenomenon. One is to re-use water, for example from washing clothes or utensils, to irrigate backyard gardens and nurseries. Households are also rationing water, trying to reduce the water use per person per day. However, the practice is abandoned as soon as the rains begin. This strategy needs to be part of a behavioral change and not applied only during periods of water shortage. Also according to, Nicholas (2009), most communities are actively reviving rainwater harvesting, a traditional way (Indigenous Knowledge Systems) of collecting and storing rainwater in big barrels placed under the roofs of houses. This practice had largely been abandoned when the communities installed wells and boreholes, but has attracted interest again as a result of their drying up. However most of the communities covered in the study reported that they are unable to harvest enough rainfall under the current climate.

There is  use of media to adopt climate change, the 'Climate Change Adaptation in Africa (CCAA) is also funding research into using the media to enhance climate change adaptation. According to Human Development Report 2007, one project, led by the African Radio Drama Association, will commence in Nigeria, where there is a need to produce and disseminate information that will help smallholder farmers adapt their farming methods. For example in Nigeria Radio broadcasts produced locally in two local Nigerian languages, with scripts available in English and French informing smallholder farmers of climate change adaptation measures and strengthen their capacity to mitigate the impact on their livelihoods.

In  Africa farmers had started crop diversification and seeding small businesses so as to survive the consequences of climate change. They are also producing income that is not linked to the rain cycles. According to Windfuhr et al (2008), In Kenya, one-thousand-dollar loans were made to groups of women who have started small businesses for example an egg hatchery, a paraffin shop and even a small lending bank. The bank's loans helped families pay for emergency health care and food purchases during the drought. Bals-Christoph et al. (2008) argues that it is a way of diversification, so people are not just relying on farm income for survival.

Furthermore, there is also an arid lands program that takes root. According to Bohnenberger and Burck, (2011) in 2006, a group of non-governmental organizations, funded by a grant from the Global Environment Facility, Norway and the Netherlands implemented the measures that would alleviate today's current climate stresses. They also recruited people who work with Kenya's World Bank-funded arid lands program, to help. Since then, farming practices there have changed dramatically. According to the UNEP, (2006), due to this programme Agricultural Extension Officers now offer seasonal and locally relevant climate predictions explained in simple terms in the regional tribal language. They are now producing a handbook to translate weather predictions into practical advice about what and when to plant. For example, if rains are not plentiful, there are seeds with a 90-day growing cycle that might survive where higher-yielding 130-day varieties would not. The project has also helped farmers set up a seed bank. A group of about 40 men will collect, process and preserve the best local seeds and loan them out again during the next planting season, slowly selecting them for the best climate-adapted varieties. Now, farmers can circumvent the expensive seed market, where they can't even tell if they are getting the seed varieties they are paying for. A total reliance on maize also is a big part of the current problems. More often now farmers are hedging their bets. Increasingly, they are diversifying their crops by planting more drought-tolerant grains, peas and beans.

In a nutshell, climate change affects all countries in the world. Extreme weather conditions like drought and floods have become more intense and more frequent, with far reaching destructive effects on the livelihoods of people, especially those in developing countries and more so those in climate sensitive economic activities like agriculture. All categories of agricultural workers are therefore affected. But however farmers in Africa had come up with several strategies to survive the consequences of climate change, these include growing of drought resistance crops, Crop diversification and seeding small businesses and water reuse just to mention a few.

References

Bals, Christoph et al. (2008): Making the Adaptation Fund Work for the Most Vulnerable

                        People

Bals, C.; Harmeling, S.; Windfuhr, M (2008): Climate Change, Food Security and the Right

                        to Adequate Food, Stuttgart: DiakonischesWerk.

Bohnenberger, K.; Burck, J. (2011): Climate Change Performance Index 2012. Climate Action

                        Network Europe and Germanwatch.

Brooks, N. (2006). Climate Change, Drought and Pastoralism in the Sahel:Discussion note

                        for the World Initiative on Sustainable Pastoralism.

Cohen, R.D.H., Sykes, C.D., Wheaton, E. E. and Stevens J. P.(2002). “Evaluation of the

effects of Climate Change on Forage and Livestock Production and Assessment of Adaptation Strategies on the Canadian Prairies,”University of Saskatchewan: Saskatoon.

Conant R.T. and Paustian K. (2002). “Spatial variability of soil organic carbon in grasslands:

implications for detecting change at different scales.” In Environmental Pollution.

Dourmad, J., Rigolot, C., and Hayo van der Werf, (2008). Emission of Greenhouse Gas:

Developing management and animal farming systems to assist mitigation. Livestock and Global Change conference proceeding. May 2008, Tunisia.

Ghana Environmental Protection Agency(2000).Ghana’s initial national communication

under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Accra: Ghana.

Gyampoh, B.A., Idinoba, M., Nkem, J. &Amisah, S.(2007). “Adapting watersheds to climate

change and variability in West Africa – the case of Offin River basin in Ghana”InProceedings, Third International Conference on Climate and Water, pp. 205–213. Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)

Human Development Report (2007): Fighting Climate Change: Human

                        Solidarity in a Divided World, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kofler, Stern, Nicholas (2009): The Global Deal. Public Affairs

Malhi, Y. &Wright, J.(2004) Spatial patterns and recent trends in the climate of tropical

                        rainforest regions: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series.

Smith, J.B., Ragland, S.E. & Pitts, G.J.(1996). A process for evaluating anticipatory

                        adaptation measures for climate change (Water, Air and Soil Pollution)

UNEP, (2006). Final Report for Assessment of Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change,

            Project No: 06.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AGRICULTURAL INPUT SCHEME TO COMMUNAL FARMERS IN ZIMBABWE BY OSWALD CHISHANGA (D.PHIL CAND- DEVELOPMENT STUDIES)

Key words: effectiveness, input scheme, communal farmers, agricultural inputs, Zimbabwe, free distribution, dependency syndrome, corruption, market

Definitions

Effectiveness- he degree to which objectives are achieved and the extent to which targeted problems are solved. Effectiveness is determined without reference to costs. It is doing the right thing

Communal Farming- are various types of agricultural production in which multiple farmers run their holdings as a joint enterprise. This type of collective is often an agricultural cooperative in which member-owners engage jointly in farming activities.

Mechanisation-is the process of changing from working largely or exclusively by hand or with animals to doing that work with machinery.

The Zimbabwean government has over the years strived to expand its agricultural production through agricultural mechanisation and the agricultural input scheme. The government has identified communal farmers as key towards reviving the agriculture sector which is on the road to recovery since the government embarked on the fast track land resettlement programme (FTLRP) in 2000. Therefore, through agriculture mechanisation and input schemes there has been acquisition of farming inputs and use of tractors by arable crop farmers in communal and resettlement state land delineated during the period following the launch of the FTLRP. The agricultural input scheme in particular has been seen by the government of Zimbabwe as the most effective way of empowering communal farmers over the years. The government has since independence put in implemented several input schemes namely the Winter Crop Input Scheme, Agriculture Sector Productivity Enhancement facility (ASPEF), the Crop and Livestock Credit Input scheme. These schemes there were put in place with a noble cause of empowering communal farmers and bridging the gap in agriculture production following the land redistribution programme in the year 2000. However the effectiveness of the input scheme has been over they have been marred by several setbacks that have hindered their full implementation. Some of these challenges include too much government control, corruption, lack of funding, politicisation, lack of skills among communal farmers, persistent droughts and floods and crop diseases among others. These have severely weakened the effectiveness of the agricultural input scheme to communal farmers in Zimbabwe.

Agricultural input schemes have been a common feature that have been used by the Zimbabwean government to assist communal farmers especially in the event of disasters and droughts. During these periods the government would distribute inputs like fertilisers and seeds for free or reduced costs to communal farmers.  In Zimbabwe, the Ministry of Agriculture is largely responsible for the administration of the Government Input Support Schemes since 2000 with its Economics and Marketing Department being responsible for the planning and procurement. The inputs are distributed through relevant parastatals such as the Grain Marketing Board (GMB), Tobacco Industry Marketing Board (TIMB), Agricultural and Rural Development Authority (ARDA), Pig Industry Board (PIB), District Development Fund (DDF), and National Oil Company of Zimbabwe (NOCZIM). Muchara (2009)

These institutions are also involved in the identification of beneficiaries and recovery of the loans. Initially the private sector used to distribute inputs to the farmers on behalf of the government (e.g. Reapers for groundnuts and COTTCO for cotton). The Ministry of Finance and the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe provided funds for the procurement of the inputs. The private sector was encouraged to get involved in the provision of inputs to farmers through contract farming. Over the years the number of institutions involved in the government input schemes was reduced and companies from the private sector ceased to distribute inputs on behalf of the Government.  Muchara (2009)

The practice of input schemes dates back to the colonial era where colonial governments rendered agricultural resource support to farmers though  this was less of direct input support and more of input price subsidies, viable product prices and general institutional support to relevant private and public enterprises. Chatizwa (1997). Intensification of the agricultural input scheme intensified from the year 2000 after the implementation of the FTLRP. From this period Govere etal (2009) highlights that there has been a deliberate government effort to support farmers through direct provision of inputs, necessitated by the need to prop up the new farmers created by the FTLRP. The FTLRP created a massive vacuum in agriculture production following the forced eviction of commercial white farmers. The   programme thus resulted in massive land transfers from the large-scale commercial farmers to the smallholder farmers under Model A1 (small-scale resettlement) and Model A2 (medium to large-scale resettlement) schemes. Govere (2009).

In the immediate aftermath of the FTLRP the Zimbabwean government in its quest to boost agricultural production and restore it to the glory years introduced the Crop and Livestock Credit Input Scheme to assist the new farmers in meeting production levels sufficient to enhance national food security and food self-sufficiency. The input scheme was put in place with the key objective of assisting communal farmers to establish themselves and to recover from the devastating effects of unfavourable economic and natural Environments like droughts and floods. Mushunje (2005). However, the input scheme proved to be not successful as it lacked adequate funding and government support to see it through. The government was already operating on a budget deficit thus the coming in of the input scheme put so much strain on government coffers. As a result very few communal farmers managed to benefit from the input scheme and those who managed to benefit were so few that they had no impact to the overall agriculture production and development. The limited government resources also resulted in failure to meet input demand while the inherent leakages in the distribution system have fuelled the black market thus exacerbating the plight of the smallholder farmers. The delays in input provision affected the production levels of most farmers, even those who are well endowed, because of the apparently widespread dependency syndrome among farmers. GoZ (2006).

In addition, the 2005/2006 summer season saw the launch of Operation Food Security/Maguta/Inala input scheme programme. The programs objective was to ensure food security by mainly focusing on production of maize, wheat and small grains. The input scheme was not that effective since it streamlined the targeting of crops and it resulted in a narrower-range of crop inputs being distributed. Only a few communal farmers managed to benefit from the input scheme since gave top priority to those farmers that were close to water sources or had access to an irrigation scheme. During that year another input scheme known as the Agriculture Sector Productivity Enhancement facility (ASPEF) was introduced by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) following the announcement of the May 2005 Post- Elections and Drought Mitigating Monetary Policy Framework to provide capital finance for agriculture and related activities at concessionary rates. This was in recognition of the critical role played by agriculture in the Zimbabwean economy, with the sector then contributing about a fifth of the country’s Gross Domestic Product.

ASPEF aimed at establishing linkages between agriculture and other key sectors of the economy that are critical in enhancing economic growth and to enhance food security, boost foreign currency generation through exports and foreign currency savings through import substitution on food and related products (RBZ, 2006).however, this input scheme for the communal farmer was not effective as it mostly targeted A2 farmers who had been lefty behind in previous input scheme. However as compared to the previous input schemes this was better funded thus communal farmers missed out on a valuable input scheme. This same scenario resonated in the implementation of the The Winter Crops Inputs Loan Scheme which mainly encompassed wheat production, had limited scope targeting only those farmers with capacity to irrigate although the implementation modalities were the same with the summer programmes.

Moreover, as earlier highlighted agricultural input scheme in Zimbabwe is not only done by the government alone. NGO’s and private companies are actively involved in the input scheme system. Over the years development aid agencies have been playing a significant role in the provision of agricultural inputs and support services in Zimbabwe and other developing countries. On the NGO side the main aim of agricultural input scheme relief and recovery programmes is to ensure food security and self- sufficiency of vulnerable households and to strengthen their capacity to handle future disasters. According to Rohrbach et al. (2004), several reasons have been commonly cited to justify the need for embarking on agricultural input assistance in Zimbabwe. These reasons are key indicators of showing how effectiveness the agricultural input scheme has been to communal farmers in Zimbabwe. Some of these reasons include poor rainfall leading to widespread shortfalls in food production relative to household and community needs, Shortages of basic foodstuffs on the retail market, increasing the probability that farmers will consume some of their seed supplies, The sharp decline in economic growth, reducing remittance income and off-farm employment, Shortages and consequent high prices of agricultural inputs on the retail market, The high incidence of HIV/AIDS resulting in labour shortages, capital losses and a larger proportion of child headed households.

Against this background it can therefore be said that the agricultural input scheme in Zimbabwe has been effective in addressing short term goals. For example a number of donor agencies have assisted farmers to recover from seasons of natural disasters and many communal farmers have benefited from new technologies. However, generally the input scheme has created donor dependency whether it is conducted by the government or NGO’s. Donor dependency has created more problems as people have become over reliant on the government for support every farming season. The government itself has done little to capacitate or empower communal farmers to be self-sufficient. Resultantly the agricultural input scheme has not been effective since year in year out there is continuous repetition of the same thing without any progress. Therefore in light of this input distribution is gradually being replaced by more market-friendly relief distribution approaches such as input credit schemes, vouchers redeemable at rural retail shops or voucher-based seed fairs.

Furthermore, it can be said that the input scheme in Zimbabwe has not been effective for communal farmers because The implementation of the government input support programmes has been occurring in an environment characterized by declining macro-economic fundamentals and has thus faced many challenges. Some the challenges that have emanated include hyperinflation and shortages of foreign currency resulted in acute input shortages. For instance, the fertilizer industry operated at between 30 and 60% of capacity during most of 2006. These shortages of essential inputs like fertilizer, chemicals and fuel have impacted negatively on agricultural production during the post-2000 period, thus, slowing down the recovery of the agricultural sector. Rusike (2006)

In the same vein of argument in factoring the costs of production, input suppliers were compelled to use the overvalued official exchange rate for the determination of the input prices yet some of the foreign currency would have been obtained at parallel market rates. The controlled prices in an environment characterized by hyperinflation and foreign currency shortages resulted in severe input shortages which expectedly gave birth to a thriving parallel market for most of the agricultural inputs thus defeating the purpose of assisting the vulnerable new farmers who were sometimes crowded-out by powerful individuals who took advantage of the inherent loopholes in the distribution system. This happened in this way because the government input programme took advantage of the geographical spread of GMB depots to distribute inputs (Govere et al. 475) whose prices were pegged at the same price throughout the country. Consequently, this reduced the marketing margins that could have obtained by private firms had the traditional marketing systems been allowed to prevail.

The unavailability of heifers on the market and shortage of foreign currency to import breeding stock severely constrained the livestock component of the input programme. Furthermore, government price controls affected the supply of most of the critical agricultural inputs such as fertilizers, seeds and fuel. These controls reduced the profitability of private sector involvement in the supply of inputs especially at a time when they had to source most of their foreign currency requirements at parallel market rates. Inadequate fuel supplies hampered the distribution of inputs to farmers and there were major delays that seriously affected crop production input schemes was never planted due to the low levels of mechanization in the smallholder sector. For instance, the 2002/2003 season saw the sale of 45,000 tonnes of maize but some of it was not planted (Matondi and Munyuki-Hungwe, 2006).

The issue of lack of land tenure security has hampered the access of commercial loans by new communal farmers. The Ministry of Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement has started the process of issuing 99-year leases for the A2 farmers who were allocated land. However, there are still major concerns on whether the 99-year leases offer sufficient tenure security to be used as collateral against commercial loans. There were some dishonest farmers and non-farmers who exaggerated their financial requirements and successfully acquired government assistance but later diverted the money to other investments such as the money market (RBZ, 2006). Some non-deserving farmers with own resources also applied for inputs and funds, thus crowding-out other farmers who genuinely needed assistance.

In light of the central role that was played by the government in funding input supply, it should be noted that the combination of controlled input prices and credit funds availed at concessionary rates resulted in farmers enjoying an implicit subsidy at a huge cost to the economy, especially considering the macroeconomic destabilization effect of the budget deficit. Furthermore, some of the inputs were not used at all (Matondi and Munyuki-Hungwe, 2006) or unproductively used while some funds were diverted to non-agricultural uses (RBZ, 2006). Widespread evidence in the press over the years indicates massive leakages from the government input support programmes. Some of the inputs were disposed off on the parallel market where they fetched higher prices while other inputs were directed to non-agricultural activities, particularly fuel which would have been distributed to farmers at highly subsidized prices by NOCZIM thus severely compromising the effectiveness of the input scheme to communal farmers.

Moreover, the severely limited transport and administrative capacity of the GMB has resulted in serious delays in the distribution of inputs to farmers despite the existence of a wide network of GMB depots throughout the country. Most commercial transporters are reluctant to service remote rural areas because there are insufficient incentives to ply the off-tarred routes. The administration of the Government Input Scheme has been so capacity demanding that GMB has been stretched to the extent of diverting from its core business of crop marketing and relief food distribution. Some farmers have voiced their concerns about their perceived “dumping” of inputs by GMB, which is usually unaccompanied by important information such as the prices of the inputs and crop management instructions. (Matondi and Munyuki-Hungwe, 2006)

One of the major policy shortfalls of the Government Input Scheme has been the failure by the relevant government ministries to clearly distinguish between commercial agricultural input credit schemes and the free relief handouts. This has confounded the targeting of beneficiaries under each of the input schemes with some well-endowed farmers also receiving inputs under the free scheme. This poor targeting has created two major problems.  Firstly, most recipients under the government input schemes do not feel obliged to repay the input or cash loans. They assume that government support is always a benevolent act meant to bring its citizens out of poverty. This has worsened the burden on the fescues. Secondly, it has also created a deep-rooted dependency syndrome among Zimbabwean farmers. The concomitant problem is that when government distribution is late in the season, even the well-off farmers are also affected because they have become so used to receiving and not buying agricultural inputs.

In conclusion it can be said that the Government Input Support Programme was essentially a response to the needs of the new farmers under the FTLRP including the communal and old re-settlement farmers. While the objective of the programme has primarily focused on ensuring household food security, the 2006/2007 season has witnessed a renewed focus on building national strategic grain reserves. The government input support schemes have immensely benefited the smallholder farmers who would otherwise have languished in a vicious trap of low improved input utilization and poor agricultural productivity. These input programmes have ensured agricultural recovery of farmers operating under periods of harsh economic and natural environments. However, a number of things went wrong. The massive government involvement as an input price controller, purchaser of inputs and input distributor created a conflict of interests due to the direct competition with the private sector in the provision of inputs.

In addition, the government failed to separate the commercial agricultural input credit schemes from the agricultural free handout scheme which led to significant leakages at a huge cost to the economy. The private sector is also to blame for the failed input distribution policies during the FTLRP period. The private sector failed to respond adequately to the input demands of the new farmers, not only because of the unfavourable economic climate, government controls and the high costs and risks of serving the new smallholder farmers, but also due to lack of innovation to meet the new challenges. Finally, if the government has to supply agricultural inputs to farmers, the use of alternative input distribution approaches such as vouchers and seed fairs which involve the private sector, offers an opportunity to effectively and efficiently distribute inputs to farmers without necessarily undermining or disrupting private inputs markets

Reference

Chatizwa L and Jones B (1997) “Zimbabwe smallholder farmers: an assessment of the use and

maintenance of tillage implements In Improving the Productivity of Draught Animals in Sub-SaharanAfrica” Proceedings of a Technical Workshop, 25–27 February 1997, Harare, Zimbabwe.

Chisoko A (2004) The Zimbabwe Situation agricultural sector, promotion of mechanization, and rainfalls in the past Harare Zimbabwe

Govere I, (2004). Opportunities for Improving Agricultural Input Distribution under Drought Relief Programmes in Zimbabwe, ICRISAT WORKSHOP REPORT, Bulawayo Holiday Inn, 9 September 2004

GoZ (2006). Mid-Term Fiscal Policy Review 2006, Presented to the Parliament of Zimbabwe By Hon. H.M. Murerwa, M.P. Minister of Finance, 27 July 2006, http://www.mofed.gov.zw/html,http://www.mofed.gov.zw/html/mid%20term%20final%20soft%20copy.pdf

GoZ (2004). Pre-Budget 2004 seminar Report: Support for the Land Reform Programme, Availability of Inputs and Pricing System, Portfolio Committee on Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement, October 2004, Mutare

Muchara, B. (2009), “Implications of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme on Marketsand Market Relationships for Livestock, Cotton and Maize in Mwenezi District of Zimbabwe”,Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Fort Hare (mimeo).

Munyuki-Hungwe, M., and P. Matondi. 2006. The evolution of agricultural policy: 1990-2004. In Mandivamba, R., P. Tawonezvi, C. Eicher, M. Munyuki-Hungwe, and P. Matondi eds. Zimbabwe’s Agricultural Revolution Revisited. University of Zimbabwe Publications.

Mushunje, A. (2005). Farm Efficiency and Land Reform in Zimbabwe. Alice: University of Fort Hare.

RBZ (2006). Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Monetory Policy Statement, 24 January 2006, http://www.rbz.co.zw/inc/publications/legaldept/ rbzpdfs/Supplement5.pdf

Rohrbach DD, Rod C, Jacob N (2004). Guidelines For Agricultural Relief Programs In Zimbabwe, International Crops Research Institute For The Semi-Arid Tropics, PO Box 776, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe, 2004

Rusike J, Sukume C (2006). Agricultural Input Supply in Rukuni, M., P. Tawonezvi, C. Eicher, M. Munyuki-Hungwe and P. Matondi (eds) Zimbabwe’s Agricultural Revolution Revisited, University of Zimbabwe Publications, Harare

Key factors affecting agricultural intensification in Africa.( By Tariro Gwete)

Introduction

During the past four decades, the contribution of agriculture in Africa to production has been declining. Agricultural production grew at slower rate than that of population. This decline in agricultural production has been attributed to severe droughts, low farm prices, labour and capital flow into cities, cheap imports of food and neglected agricultural research. With per capita food production declining, higher commercial food imports and food aid have become necessary.

Hunger has become more wide spread, life expectancy has been declining, food security and access to proper diets have been deteriorating and growing open unemployment has been increasing. Environmental degradation has posed a serious threat to food production and rural livelihoods. There is poor physical condition of institutions, breakdown of judicial systems in a number of countries, poor state of roads and railways, corruption, oppression, tribalism and nepotism are increasingly evident. This is made worse by high transportation costs, inadequate market infrastructure, weak institutions and support services, and inadequate diversification and limited vertical integration,harsh environmental factors, poor infrastructure, insufficient or lack of use of modern inputs and poor crop and animal husbandry,high population pressure, ecological potential and economic factors,low labour intensity,low stocking rates,low land,low application of manure or fertiliser and poor policies to enhance market access,level technological,inputs and skills of the agricultural producers are generally considered as major factors retarding agricultural intensification. (Delgado1998)

Definition of agricultural intensification

Traditionally agricultural intensification has been defined in three ways,increasing yields per hectatre,increasing cropping intensity with two or more crops per unit of land or other inputs such as water and changing land use from low-value crops or commodities tothose that receive higher market prices (Godfrey et.al,2010)

Some have defined it as the cultivation of land where there are very high inputs of labour, fertilisers, pestcides, herbicides, fungicides to obtain the maximum output.

Lack of resource mobilisation

Poor agricultural performance has also been retarded by the lack of potential for resource mobilization and enhancing productivity through use of modern packages. Sustainable options for unraveling this potential lie in a well-concocted African green revolution (AGR). However, farmers will only utilize the modern packages if they know them and if the necessary inputs are available when needed (Elz, 1987).

Lack of markerts

Markets have a role to play in providing input supplies and providing signals about products and crops in which to specialize. Considering the fact that between 50 and 90 percent of the total production comes from small-scale farmers, the performance of smallholder producers is vital. Kenya like other SSA countries, displays the hallmarks of a developing economy. Agriculture still dominates the national economy with most of the output coming from small-scale producers (Odhiambo, 1998). Growth of the sector has deteriorated and this has been attributed partly to an increasing shortage of land suitable for agriculture and cultivation of marginal areas.

Poor agriculture policies

Agricultural policies adopted by a particular country in order to promote agricultural development plays a central role in agricultural change through extension services, development of technologies, subsidies, credit, and access to market (Lele & Stone, 1989).However,in African countries there has been a series of poor policies if not at all that support agricultural intensification.

Lack of research and extension services

Moreover, institutional involvement which equally plays an influential role in facilitating particular paths of agricultural intensification has been lacking  (Carswell, 2000). A s well as extension services that may be provided through formal and informal institutions, and are a key factor in making farmers aware of and enabling them to promote new agricultural technologies has also been lacking hence with holding the development of agriculture in Africa (Thapa & Rattanasuteerakul, 2010; Paudel & Thapa, 2004).  Arex mass employing and training extension workers for two months and deploying them soon after the Fast Track Land Reform

Commercialisation

 Lack of key factors that facilitate agricultural diversity and commercialization has also retarded the agricultural intensification across Africa.There should be a  rapid development of technologies; changes in agricultural production practices, such as improved seeds, chemical fertilizer use, technologies to control weeds and harvesting; improved rural infrastructure; and diversification in food demand patterns that will enhance the productivity of agriculture. (Pingali & Rosegrant, 1995).

Lack of credit and financial systems

Access to credit may enable farmers to adopt more capital intensive methods of production (Hazarika &Alwang, 2003). The development of agriculture may be increased if appropriate institutional systems for marketing farm products, agricultural inputs, credit systems and professional advice are provided (Weitz et al.,1976).Thus, sustainable agricultural intensification can be achieved by improving extension programs (inputs, new technology), credit provision, infrastructural services and the promotion of irrigation facilities. Lack of

effective credit systems has adversely affected agricultural development in this village. Farmers require credit for farm investment, production and for marketing.

References

Boserup, E. (1965). The conditions of agricultural growth: The economics of agrarian change under population pressure. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Carswell, G. (2000). Agricultural intensification in Ethiopia and Mali. IDS Report 48. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies.

Elz, F. (1989). Peasant Economics. (2nd ed.) (Chapter 5). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

Hazarika, H., & Alwang, J. (2003). Access to Credit, Plot Size and Cost Inefficiency Among Smallholder Tobacco Cultivators in Malawi. Agricultural Economics. 29 (1), 99-109. doi:

Johnson, E. A. J. (1970). The organization of space in developing countries. Harvard University Press.

Lele, U., & Stone, S. W. (1989). Population pressure, the environment and agricultural intensification in Sub-Saharan Africa; variations on the Boserup Hypothesis. Managing Agricultural Development in Africa (MADIA) Study. Washington: World Bank.

Nepal, R., & Thapa, G. B. (2009). Determinants of Agricultural Commercialization and Mechanization in the Hinterland of a City in Nepal. Applied Geography

Pingali. P., Bigot, Y., & Binswanger, H. (1987). Agricultural mechanization and the evolution of farming system

in Sub-Saharan Africa. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Pingali, P. L., & Rosegrant, M. W. (1995). Agricultural Commercialization and Diversification: Processes and Policies. Food Policy.

Thapa, G. B., & Niroula, G. S. (2008). Alternative Options of Land Consolidation in the Mountains of Nepal: An Analysis Based on Stakeholders’ Opinions. Land Use Policy. 25,

Weitz, R., David, P., & Levia, A. (1976). New settlements and employment. Rehovet: Settlement Study Center.