A recent editorial in the Post ... as usual, my comments in red among the text.
Chinese
Ambassador to Zambia Yang Youming is urging Zambia to prioritise agriculture as
it is essential to the development of any nation.
“In terms of
development of agriculture and this is the basis of economic takeoff in China
because when we talk about the economic miracle in China, we always talk about
industrialisation in China and China being the main manufacturing base for
commodities to be exported to the entire world. But we must remember the first
thing we emphasise is that we should have a solid agricultural base because you
have to provide food and clothing to our people. And food and clothing all come
from agriculture, so agriculture has always been and will remain a priority
area,” says Ambassador Yang.
For Zambia, we
have no sensible alternative to prioritising agriculture. The great majority of
our people are dependent on agriculture for survival. Eight five [85%] per cent of
our country’s workforce is in agriculture. And only six per cent of our labour
force is deployed in the industry. The remaining nine per cent is in services.
The argument CFU makes is that most of these people in agriculture are not "farmers" per se, e.g. the production of food, fuel and/or fibre is not the primary goal of their farming endeavors. There is some truth to that, but the letter of the article is fundamentally correct ... they are growing crops for survival, e.g. food. Disqualifying someone as a farmer is all well and good, but it remains the essential means of survival for the overwhelming majority of rural Zambians.
But despite 85
per cent of our people being deployed in agriculture, the sector’s contribution
to our GDP is only 19.80 per cent. The contribution to our GDP by industry and
services is far above that of agriculture - 33.80 per cent for industry and
46.5 per cent for services. How can a sector in which 85 per cent of our
workforce is deployed account for less than 20 per cent of our GDP? Despite 85
per cent of our workforce being deployed in agriculture, only 4.52 per cent of
our arable land is under use. And only 0.05 per cent of that land has permanent
crops. And with so much water, only 1,559 square kilometres is irrigated land.
There is some funny math at work here ... would be interesting how you count maize (the faraway leader in crops planted by that 85%) after taking away government subsidies on the production and consumption of the same. Most of what IAPRI says is that the majority of those 85% don't produce a surplus for sale. So ... huge labor force contributing almost nothing to the GDP.
It is clear that
we have not prioritised agriculture. The contribution of agriculture to our GDP
is too low and more so given its great potential. With 85 per cent of our
workforce deployed in agriculture, it means that agriculture is the major
source of livelihood for the great majority of Zambians who today, over 60 per
cent of them live in abject poverty.
This means that
if we have to move our people out of poverty, great effort will need to be
exerted to increase agricultural production and consequently increase incomes
of the majority poor who are totally dependent on agriculture for survival. This
will call for consistent and sustainable high productivity growth in
agriculture.
Okay, a bit of funny logic at work here; bunch of people do agriculture, ergo, improving agriculture production will "increase incomes of the majority poor who are totally dependent on agriculture for survival". Most people we work with are a lot like kids on Midwestern farm in the U.S.A. ... once they get the chance, they boost off the farm looking for easier work that pays cash (you would, too if you spent your formulative years swinging a hoe). Even people in rural areas are not likely to engage in sale of farm produce; they may engage in some other livelihood activity. This is where people get the message goobered up ... if you were to, say, get everybody to be a better cabbage farmer, what the hell would they do with all those cabbages? Same really with maize; people, typically the great mass of poor, are really excited when their production equals their consumption levels, or if their production allows them to reach their yearround consumption levels (vis-a-vi sale of their produce).
To improve
agriculture, a lot of things have to change. Our agricultural policies have to
change. We can’t continue with the policies that have failed our people and
have left them poor over many decades.
Here we go. Policies. As if words on paper can make the soil fertile.
There will be
need for diversification in agriculture. It doesn’t make sense to continue
thinking and acting as if maize production is all that agriculture is about.
Crop diversification is urgently needed. There is need to promote other crops
that can be easily or cheaply grown by our people. And not every part of our
country is good for every crop.
We also need to find markets for all those diverse crops and figure out how to dismantle the great spinning economic, gastronomic, cultural and political engine that maize production and consumption has become.
There is need to
strengthen co-operative structures if we are to improve agriculture, especially
for the poor. Efficiently run co-operatives can help a lot in terms of
marketing, skills building, research, ICT services, finance, infrastructure and
irrigation investment.
Now off to find that cooperative that efficiently uses all those services. "Cooperative" is what I call an automatic word. When you say "cooperative", farmers hear "subsidized inputs". They need to not think of the word "cooperative". Maybe "covenant" or "tontine", though the latter might bring in some interesting repercussions.
There is also
need to focus on crops that will help ensure household and national food
security and also provide some surplus for exports. Such crops may include
Irish and sweet potatoes, mixed beans, cowpeas, groundnuts, cashew nuts,
fruits, in addition to cassava, millet and sorghum.
The contribution
of our agriculture to exports is very low. It is just about five per cent. This
needs to be increased if we are to see a reversal of economic fortunes.
Of course, crops
like sugar, wheat, barley, soya beans, cotton, tea, coffee, tobacco, sunflower
and so on and so forth also need policy priority if we are to develop a strong
agri-business and light manufacturing.
Sigh. Of all of those, soyabeans, cotton, tobacco and sunflower are within the realm of reason (barely) for a small-scale farmer to grow (the others require irrigation and quite specific management regimes. However, these would be the best-off farmers, those with land and labour to spare. This past week when meeting with farmers, I recognized that the great mass of rural Zambians, who often operate on a quarter-tank with regards to caloric energy, plant maize and cassava because they are a) easy to get and b) provide the most calories. You don't go planting cotton or tobacco when your body's screaming for fuel.
Livestock
production also needs to be increased if we are to meet the rising domestic
demand and create a surplus for export and increase the incomes of our people.
Livestock production calls for improved testing and treatment of all diseases
of economic importance for cattle, pigs, goats, sheep and poultry in order to
stabilise and increase stocking levels.
Funny enough, it appears that the number of cows in the country could meet demand; it's just that selling cows for money is still at cross-purposes with the fundamentals of cattle possession in the social context; status, non-liquid wealth, the medium of exchange to seal marriage arrangements, etc. Chickens are the way to go; less touchy with the whole gender thing, and villagers are so attached to Lil' Cluck-cluck.
Of late, the
Minister of Finance Alexander Chikwanda has shown some increasing interest in
fish farming. And the President has also shown some interest in this sector.
But more needs to be done to improve fish farming. What is coming out of our
fish farms is too little to meet the increasing demand for fish that has been
complicated by the depletion of fish stocks in our rivers and lakes.
We agree with
Ambassador Yang’s observations on the need to prioritise agriculture. It is a
sector in which the great majority of our people are deployed. The poverty that
we are experiencing today is a result of poor agriculture. (my opinion poor agriculture practices) If agriculture
improves, the poverty levels will equally drop (will they really?). We have low agricultural
productivity because the sector is not receiving adequate attention. We are
spending over US$300 million per annum subsidising maize. But what are we
getting out of that investment as a country? There is no strong political will
needed for crop diversification. Too much political opportunism is tied to
agricultural policies. Political (and cultural and gastronomic) sensitivities have ridiculously been created
around maize production and subsidies. It’s time we stopped cheating our people
and took a courageous way out of these sterile agricultural policies that are
leading us nowhere other than to the deepening of poverty.
True ... but it's the practices, the capacity of extension to improve practices, and the mentality of how to improve production that are at fault. The Ministry of Agriculture is packed with ghost workers, agriculture officers not at their posts, or agriculture officers who fail to develop, recognize, and / or refine local innovations, etc. It is a system built on the assumption that knowledge comes from on high and should be followed w/out question. I think our constant struggles with CA come from the fact that everyone wants to harmonize the methods (e.g., basins and ripping), rather than understanding the goals likely have multiple opportunities for realization.
Whatever we do,
whatever we earn from mining and other sectors, without meaningful developments
in agriculture, we are going nowhere and we will not be able to move our
people out of poverty.
Let's move them out of hunger first.
