Official Government Wires
humanitarian news and analysis
a service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
Removing subsidies in Zambia - the way to go?
JOHANNESBURG, 30 September 2013 (IRIN) - The Zambian government has
subsidies for farmers and millers because the expenditure is perceived
as draining the country's resources. Fuel subsidies have also been
removed, and the combined loss of assistance is pushing up the price of
maize meal, a staple foodstuff in the Zambian diet.
Removal of the subsidy is just
one in a series of
similar moves by Zambian President Michael Sata, who is known for
taking a tough stance on issues ranging from Chinese investors, whom he
has threatened to deport, to fuel subsidies, which have been removed on
the ground that their US$200 million annual cost would be better spent
on health and education.
The loss of subsidies for farmers has angered the Zambian National
Farmers' Union (ZNFU), which said the move was "ill-timed". Inadequate
rains, an attack of army worms that forced many farmers to replant, and
the late delivery of subsidized fertilizers have already affected the
2011/12 harvest. ZNFU warned that any reduction in support for
beleaguered Zambian farmers could threaten maize production and
national food security.
"Government has reduced the Farmer Input Support Programme (FISP)
subsidy," the media officer for ZNFU, Kakoma C Kaleyi, said in an email
to IRIN. "Previously, government would pay 75 percent while the farmer
would pay 25 percent for 50kg bag of fertilizer, but now the
cost-sharing is 50%-50% for government and farmers respectively. A bag
of fertilizer costs ZMW200 [about US$37], [with] farmers paying ZMW100
[almost $19] and government covering the remaining ZMW100, though
farmers are still receiving a 10kg bag of seed for free."
About 900,000 small-scale farmers covered by FISP have been affected.
Kaleyi noted that in the past some of them had failed to raise enough
money to cover even their 25 percent share of the fertilizer cost, so
it remained to be seen how they would cope now.
The FISP accounted for roughly 39 percent of the more than $231 million
allocated to the agriculture sector in Zambia's 2011budget, yet rural
poverty rates remain stubbornly high. A study by agricultural experts
Thom Jayne and Auckland Kuteya, of the Indaba Agricultural Policy
Research Institute, in Zambia, found that the support programme was
benefiting wealthier land owners more than poorer ones, and that around
80 percent of rural people were still categorized as poor, despite many
years of inputs and consumer subsidies.
"The question one has to ask, is: were the funds spent instead on
research, extension, better rural roads, and perhaps - because it's
difficult - some intervention to kick-start rural financial services,
would this do more to increase production than subsidizing inputs?"
"Unbalanced agriculture policies have caused an over-production of
maize and hampered the development of other segments of the agriculture
sector," the International Monetary Fund (IMF) noted in its 2012
country report on Zambia.
The government has said that
2013 it will continue to buy maize for the Food Reserve Agency (FRA),
paying a set higher price to farmers, but will not sell it at a
subsidized rate to millers, as was usually done in the past.
Zambia's Agriculture and Livestock Minister, Bob Sichinga,told a media
briefing in May 2013
that the FRA had been buying maize at the current rate of ZMW 65
(roughly US$12.27) per 50kg bag, and selling it to millers at ZMW60
($11.43), amounting to a loss of ZMW100 ($19) per tonne.
In 2011, for instance, the FRA bought maize from
farmers at $270 per metric tonne and sold it to millers at $180 per
metric tonne, resulting in a "50 percent loss" to the government, the
Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS-NET) noted.
The programme - which spent US$258 million on maize purchases alone in
2012 - was meant to help farmers, while keeping food prices low for
consumers, but Jayne and Kuteya found that virtually none of the
subsidy to maize millers was passed on to consumers.
Consumers pay more
The removal of subsidies to millers has already begun to impact
consumers. Kaleyi told IRIN the price of a 25kg bag of maize meal has
jumped from ZMW55 ($10.38) to ZMW65 ($12.27) since the beginning of
2013. According to the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection (JCTR),
a faith-based NGO that calculates the monthly cost of a basket of
essentials for a household, prices have been rising since the removal
of the subsidies.
Daniel Mutale, the social conditions programme manager at JCTR, said
the price of maize meal had already reached ZMW 59.28 ($11.19) in June
2013. "The effects of removal of subsidies on basic food items are
deepening,'' he noted in a statement, and called for an urgent response
to address rising food costs.
"[In] the absence of alternative programmes for small-scale farmers to
access finance," ZNFU said, they expected to "see many more [rural]
households slide into the social security safety net category. [which
will] ultimately increase expenditures on [the government's] social
FEWS-NET reported that maize prices have begun to rise because private
traders, who now hold most of the stocks of maize, are paying more for
it. "Maize prices across the country are generally higher than the same
period last season, and the five-year average," the organization noted.
A higher demand for maize in southern Africa - combined with the poor
harvests reported in parts of Zambia and the region, such as in
neighbouring Zimbabwe - is also pushing up prices.
FEWS-NET noted that farm-level information on the impact of the reduced
FISP has been limited, but expects less access to inputs, which could
affect timely planting and yields. "We'll need to reassess early next
year, once the quality of the 2014 harvest becomes apparent. it's a
victory for a more sustainable policy environment, one that is likely
to attract increased private investment and competition into food value
chains as long as this environment continues," Jayne said.
Should other countries follow suit?
Zambia's experience may contain a broader message about agricultural
subsidies, especially for neighbouring Malawi, which has been spending
enormous amounts of its donor-funded budget on subsidizing inputs. It
essment_3ie_2011_core.pdf> than a $100 million in 2009/10, and more
than $250 million in 2008/09.
Jayne has been drafting a review of the arguments for and against
agricultural subsidies, based on evidence from southern Africa, said
Steve Wiggins, an agricultural policy expert with the Overseas
Development Institute, a UK-based think-tank.
"There is lingering doubt about the effectiveness of fertilizer applied
to soils low in soil carbon, low in nutrients, and with poor structure.
The agronomic argument for such soils is that fertilizer will only
boost yields to the potential of the nutrients when the soils have been
improved. None of the experts are opposed to supporting farmers, but
they insist the circumstances must be right."
Wiggins told IRIN in an email that subsidized inputs work where there
are few local agricultural supplies dealers, who stock small
quantities, so seeds, fertilizers etc, are therefore more expensive, or
when the farmer does not have enough cash at the beginning of a new
crop season and lacks access to credit to buy inputs.
"These issues become acute in countries such as Malawi, where maize
yields are lower than they could be, and farmers are seemingly trapped
into producing low yields by their poverty and the various failures of
rural markets for inputs and credit."
Subsidies are expensive to maintain, and are not very sustainable in
the long run, especially for poor countries. "The question one has to
ask, is: were the funds spent instead on research, extension, better
rural roads, and perhaps - because it's difficult - some intervention
to kick-start rural financial services, would this do more to increase
production than subsidizing inputs?" Wiggins asks.
Kuteya says the timing was right for the removal of subsidies in
Zambia, as elections are only expected in 2016.
Read report online
[This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United
Feedback | Terms &
Conditions | RSS feeds News
Feeds | About IRIN
UPI distributes certain third party submissions from official government news agencies, such as this article. Since UPI does not control the material included in these submissions, UPI does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of the material in such submissions, and UPI does not endorse any of the views or opinions expressed therein.