IMPACT OF FERTILIZER INPUT SUPPORT PROGRAMME ON THE FINANCIAL

PERFORMANCE OF THE SMALL SCALE FARMERS IN ZAMBIA A CASE STUDY OF

NJOLA CAMP IN MONZE DISTRICT SOUTHERN PROVINCE

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT

FOR THE AWARD OF THE MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION -FINANCE

BY

DENNIS MAPIKI

MBA-008-580

CAVENDISH UNIVERSITY

2019

ii

ABSTRACT

The Ministry of Agriculture has been supporting small scale farmers through e-voucher

system for four years now. The support is aimed at improving both the financial performance

and food security at household level. Input subsidy programs have now become a major

activity of agricultural development strategies in Zambia. Hence, this research examined the

impact of these subsidies to the economic performance of the small-scale farmers as well as

its influence of food security at household level. The research was done at Njola Agricultural

Camp of Monze District. A structured questionnaire was used to collect the required data

from the sample of 60 farmers. The SPSS soft ware was used which came up with charts and

Histograms. The study employed a combination of quantitative and qualitative approach to

generate data about the impact of the e-voucher on the economic performance of the small

scale farmers at Njola camp in Monze district. The analysis of the study reviewed that the

majority of the respondents were between the age of 19 to 29 and no one was below 19

which mean that the there was no minor found to have been benefiting from the e-voucher

system. This could also mean that the ministry of Agriculture is considering the age of the

majority when allocating inputs to farmers. Above all the ministry of agriculture is gender

sensitive this was noticed because the number of men benefiting is no where far from the

number of women beneficiaries that‟s 53.3 % against 46.7%. Upon close observation it was

found out that Njola camp has 4000 eligible farmers but only 2000 so far benefit from the

program and all respondents confirmed that they have been benefiting from the system since

inception. The study reviewed that the farmers of Njola camp are not able to access decent

health services due to inadequate funds derived from fisp e-voucher. The returns are not able

to cater for all their requirements and leave something for the purchase of inputs in the forth

coming season. It was also found out that some individual members were even unable to find

their K400 contribution because they were not able to have extra income from the program.

iii

The study reviewed that the farmers of Njola camp‟s financial performance is not good

because they are unable to invest from the e-voucher system because farmers feel they

receive inputs late and that the pack is not enough to enable them attain economical freedom.

They are attributing the late input delivery to the late release of the funds by the government

to agro dealers. The conclusion of this study therefore is that FISP only has the capacity to

increase the food security and not financial performance of the farmers at Njola camp in

Monze Southern Province of Zambia. Recommendations are made that the government

should release the funds to agro dealers on time and as well load the money in the famers

voucher on time so as to enable the famer to have enough time to prepare and plant early.

Further more if Fisp is to improve the economical status of the farmers it‟s important for the

government to think of increasing the value of the voucher from the current K2000 to at least

4000 to enable farmer access also farming implements and increase the their income from

the farming proceeds. However the governance structure has proved vital and should be

maintained for fisp to continue attaining its goals. Moreover it‟s also important for the

government to intensify the training to farmers on the aims of fisp e-voucher because the

study shows that farmers are reluctant to start investing because they think they will be

benefiting from the programme throughout their life. If this is not taken serious after

graduation and recruitment of other farmers the first farmers will be more destitute than ever.

Key words: Farmer Input Support Programme, Cooperatives, Agro-dealers, E-Voucher

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost I would like to thank the almighty God the creator of the heavens and

earth for giving me life, direction and wisdom in my studies. May His omnipresence nature

continue hovering around me as I continue in my education journey.

I am highly indebted to Mr. Hikachila Cifwala my supervisor who took time through his busy

schedule to read through my research and helped me to excel and successfully finish my

studies. It has not been an easy journey and am sure without his effort huge mountains could

have been a great hindrances for me to finish my research .He opened his doors to encourage

me, gave his constructive comments, suggestions and corrections, proof-read the paper from

inception to finality so as to make it more meaningful.

My sincere appreciation goes to my dear wife Namweene Simango Mapiki who has been

there for me throughout my studies. She has supported me financially, materially and

spiritually in my studies

I cannot forget Mr Lee Muhlangu the dean of students Cavendish University ,Dr. Nyimba

Phanuel the District Agricultural Coordinator Chikankata District, Mr. Mangwato Foster MS

Animal District Agricultural Coordinator Pemba District for putting much effort in ensuring

that I was doing the right thing as I was writing my research project may God bless them

abundantly.

Finally I would like to thank my four children Namakala, Dennis Jr, Bulelo and Mapiki II,

there question and noise kept me connected to my family during my studies.

v

DECLARATION

I, Dennis Mapiki, declare that this thesis represents my own work, and that it has not

previously been submitted for degree, diploma or other qualifications at this or any other

university.

Signature:……………………………………………………………………………..

Date:………………………………………………………………………………….

LIST OF ACRONYMS

1. FISP: Fertilize Support Program

2. DACO: District Agricultural Coordinator

3. PACO: Provincial Agricultural Coordinator

4. DMCO :District Marketing and Cooperatives Officer

5. MOA: Ministry of Agriculture

6. GDP: Gross Domestic Product

7. AMB : Agriculture Marketing Board

8. SSF: Small Scale Farmer

9. ZIAMIS

10. NCZ: Nitrogen chemicals of Zambia

11. ZNFU: Zambia National Farmers Union

12. DAC: District Agriculture Committee

13. CAC : Camp Agriculture Committee

14. FP: Farmer group

15. AEO: Agricultural Extension Officer

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Back ground to the study 1

Problem Statement 4

Research Purpose 5

Rationale of the study 5

Objectives of the study 5

Research hypothesis 6

Research questions 6

Significance and scope of the study 6

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Overview of literature 8

Management support the small scale farmers 9

Farmer economic status 11

FISP E-voucher target group 13

Research Variables 15

Conceptual Model 15

CHAPTER THREE

Methodology and design 16

Introduction 16

Research Approach 16

Research Strategy 16

Sampling Frame 16

vii

Sample size and sampling techniques 17

Data collection Techniques 18

Data analysis Methods 18

CHAPTER FOUR

Presentation of findings 19

Introduction 19

Presentation of qualitative and quantitative findings 19

Demography 19

FISP Beneficiaries 23

Farmer Management Interaction 26

CHAPTER FIVE

Analysis of Data 34

Analysis of overall findings 34

CHAPTER SIX

Conclusion and Recommendations 41

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Farmer categories.

Table 2 Conceptual Frame work

Table 3 Sampling frame

Table 4 Distribution by age

Table 5 Distribution by gender

Table 6 Distribution by Marital status

Table 7: Distribution of respondents by Education Standards

Table 8 Fisp E-Voucher benefit

Table 9Hectors of land

Table 10 Farmer-Fisp Management Interaction

Table 11 crop yield

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1Fisp inputs

Figure 2 Input delivery time

Figure 3 Farmer management interactions

Figure 4 Farmer camp officers interaction

Figure5 Farmer Agro dealer interaction

Figure6Farmer group

Figure7 Hose hold income

Figure 8 Child education

Figure 9Ability to access health services

Figure 10 Investment ability

APPENDICES

1 Questionnaire

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

The Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) is one of the primary ministries of the Government of the

republic of Zambia responsible for designing; implementing and managing all government

activities within the Agricultural sector (Mason et al, 2013). The National Medium Term

Priority Framework 2009-2013 highlighted that the government of the republic of Zambia in

partnership with other donors especially (FAO) Food and Agriculture Organizations

identified the important areas of development in terms of reduction in post-harvest losses,

improved food safety and improved availability and diversity of nutritious food at household

level MOA facilitates and supports the development of a sustainable, diversified and

competitive Agricultural sector that assures food and nutrition security, contributes to job

creation and maximizes the sector‟s contribution to Gross Domestic Product (Mofya-Mukuka

et al, 2013). Agriculture falls into the following categories: Animal husbandry, crop farming,

and poultry farming and horticultural. Animal husbandry is the type of farming which

involves rearing or keeping of animals such as cattle, pigs, goats, rabbits and crop farming, as

the name suggests, this is the growing of vegetables like rape, cabbage, tomatoes, onions,

lettuce and okra, among others. Poultry farming is one which specifically involves rearing of

chickens, ducks, guinea fowl etc, while horticultural farming is typically about growing citrus

fruits like oranges, lemons, pawpaw, pineapples among others. MOA aims to be a committed,

focused and proactive institution that provides quality agricultural goods and services that in

turn assure increased income and contribute to poverty reduction. Mofya et al (2013) further

states that, in order to achieve the development of a sustainable, diversified and competitive

Agriculture, the Government introduced the Farmer Input Support Program (FISP) using

Electronic voucher system in the Agriculture sector with the aim to improve the distribution

2

of subsidized inputs to smallholder farmers. The Zambian Government introduced FISP in

the year 2002/2003 farming season with the main focus of ensuring food security and

increased income levels among the small scale Farmers. However due to various challenges

faced by the direct input supply system FISP E- Voucher initiative was implemented by the

Ministry of Agriculture during the 2015/2016 farming season and it opened a window of an

opportunity for smallholder farmers to diversify their farming enterprises (Resnick and

Mason, 2016). The electronic voucher system widened the choice of inputs for farmers

engaged in both crop production and livestock rearing. Before the Electronic Voucher

System the National Agriculture Marketing Board (NAMB) managed the distribution of the

inputs and determined the crop prices with the sole purpose of keeping input prices low

enough for small scale farmers (SCF) through subsidies as a way of promoting equity in

pricing for Agriculture farming inputs. During this time the state owned company Nitrogen

Chemicals of Zambia (NCZ) was charged with the responsibility of distributing the farming

inputs to small scale farmers.(Reich et al 2010). Having noticed numerous bottlenecks this

system had, the Ministry of Agriculture introduced the e-voucher system thereby enabling the

small-scale farmers access subsidized inputs in a more transparent and efficient manner

(Jayne and Rashid, 2013). The system obliges agro-dealers to have an electronic swiping

machine and this enables small scale farmers to easily access farm inputs, equipment,

herbicides, livestock feed and other curative drugs (Mofya-Mukuka et al, 2013). An Agro-

dealer can be a rural or urban shop owner who is trained in business skills, product

knowledge, safe handling and use of modern technology. An Agro dealer normally is

expected to serve as providers of basic extension services to farmers thereby creating a

valuable source of knowledge and advice to the farming community (Chinsinga, Blessings

2011).

3

Electronic Voucher System (e-voucher system)

Kuteya et al., (2016) has stated that the E-voucher system uses a mobile delivery and tracking

system to distribute subsidized agricultural inputs through agro-dealers and input suppliers to

targeted farmers. Each beneficiary farmer has an e-card which is linked to their specific name

and National Registration Card (NRC) number. On confirmation of the transaction, an e-

voucher allows instant electronic payment to agro-dealers/input supplier‟s online accounts for

the inputs redeemed by the farmer.

The e-voucher system in Zambia is in the process of reforming the Farmer Input Support

Programme (FISP) to implement the subsidy program through a flexible electronic voucher

system. Electronic voucher system (E-voucher) implementation has crowded in more private

sector participation in inputs distribution to rural farmers. Agro dealers are now able to stock

more diverse inputs in their shops. With the notable delays in e-cards activation, farmers have

access to inputs of their choice on time in nearby agro-shops. Despite these successes, the e-

voucher system is still faced with challenges that threaten the successful implementation of

the program. For example the late payment and backlog of pending payments to some agro-

dealers which has adversely affected their cash flow and consequently affected operations

leading to suspension of operations by many agro-dealers. The majority of over 5,800 Agro

dealers are in the Micro, Small Medium Enterprise (MSME) category that do not have

enough capital but are made to wait for months to receive payments. The other challenges the

program has been faced with include:

Delayed submission of beneficiaries lists to the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA)

Programme Coordinating Office resulting in delayed delivery and activation of e-cards;

4

Rising fertilizer prices due to the depreciation of the kwacha that nearly made the e-

voucher less attractive to the traditional Farmer Input Support Programme (FISP).

insurance and only 2000 is redeemable by the farmers

Deliberate derailment of program implementation by some MOA staff especially in

some e-voucher pilot districts although quick action by MOA to discipline such staff

solved the problem

Reported selective activation of e-cards, a problem that led to delayed access of inputs

by some farmers

Reported incidences of farmers surrendering their non-activated cards to agro-dealers to

access inputs in advance. This could have led to some farmers losing out as some agro-

dealers might have redeemed the cards in the absence of the farmers; and

The charging of a redemption fee of 7 kwacha by the banks affected some farmers as

they could not use the full value of the e-card

Previously the e-voucher redemption system did not have the capability of identifying

the type of inputs redeemed by farmers. This made it impossible to map the demand for

various inputs

Currently due to a lot of charges aimed at improving the E-Voucher system the

redemption system now shows the type of inputs a farmer got at redemption and it show

all the farmer details making it easy to map the demand for various inputs (IAPRI2012).

Problem statement

It has been observed by the researcher that for some time now the Ministry of Agriculture has

been trying to improve the financial muscle of the small-scale farmers in Zambia by

supporting these farmers using the Farmer Input Support Program. This is aimed at

improving their economic status and food security at household level. However, there seems

5

to be little economic deliverance seen according to the crop focus and livelihood surveys by

the Central Statistics Office (2015) survey report. Hence, the need to assess the Impact of the

FISP e-voucher system on the financial performance of the small-scale farmers in Zambia

specifically Njola camp in Monze Southern Province

Research Purpose.

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the Fertilizer Input Support

Programme on the financial performance of the small scale farmers under the Ministry of

Agriculture in Monze district Njola Camp.

Rationale of the Study

The implementation of FISP by the Ministry of Agriculture in Zambia has allowed the small

scale farmers to diversify their farming enterprises. The practical importance of this study

therefore will be to assess the Impact of the FISP e-voucher system on the financial

performance of the small-scale farmers in Zambia focusing on Njola Camp in Monze district.

It‟s believed that its findings would provide vital information that will act as a basis for

policy formulation by MOA. The study will also be used as a body of knowledge or rather

reference to other interested scholars. Further, the study is a partial fulfillment of the MBA-

Finance programme at Cavendish University.

Research Objectives.

Overall objectives

The main objective of the study was to assess the impact of the FISP e-voucher system on

the financial performance of the small-scale farmers at Njola camp of Monze district,

Southern Province

6

The specific objectives

To establish the financial stability of the small scale farmer as a result of FISP e- voucher

system

To examine the effectiveness of the program in uplifting the economic status of the small-

scale farmers

Examine the extent to which small scale farmers utilize the Farm Input given to them.

Research Hypothesis

The study sought to confirm or reject the following hypothesis:-

FISP E-voucher is necessary to uplift the economic status and food security levels of small

scale farmers.

FISP E-voucher is not necessary to uplift the economic status and food security levels of

small scale farmers.

Research Questions

1. Does Management support the small scale farmers on the Fertilize Input Support

Proramme?

2. Does FISP E- Voucher have the potential to uplift the economic status and food security

levels of the small-scale farmers?

3. To what extent does FISP E-voucher system benefit the targeted farmers in Zambia

4. What are the demographic characteristics of the FISP e-voucher beneficiaries in terms of

gender and age?

Significance of the Study

Jayne and Rashid, (2013) submit that, correct utilization of Farmer input support will accrue

definite benefit and improve the financial capacities of the small-scale farmers. The research

7

therefore, was premised on examining the benefits accrued through the FISP support to small

scale farmers, based mainly on the Ministry of Agriculture, Southern Province, in particular

Monze District, Njola Camp. It is hoped that the findings of the study will help the

government in the Ministry of Agriculture to analyze the relevance of FISP E-voucher system

on its intended goals. The research also provides guidance on necessary changes with regards

to the way the program should be handled. Furthermore, it has helped the researcher to

understand the operations of FISP in Ministry of Agriculture as well as to add information to

the existing knowledge. Decisions and conclusions will only be based on the views expressed

by respondents.

8

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

The study focused on the literature reviewed on the impact of the Fertilizer Input Support

Programme on the financial performance of the small scale farmers in terms of whether the

FISP E- Voucher have the potential to uplift the economic status and food security levels of

the small-scale farmers, management support to small scale farmers e-voucher system and the

correct utilization of the inputs FISP E-voucher system by the farmers.

Management support

Management is the organization and coordination of the activities of a business in order to

achieve the defined objectives. Management is often included as a factor of production along

with machines, materials and money. Management consists of the interlocking functions of

creating corporate policy and organization, planning, controlling and directing an

organization‟s resources in order to achieve the objectives of the policy (Golden and

Gruchalla 2005) The Ministry of agriculture management is charged with the responsibility to

manage the fertilizer input support program. In order to achieve this function the ministry of

agriculture charged the responsibility to the Programme Coordinating Office (PCO) which is

working in collaboration with both with the Provincial Agricultural Co-ordinating officer

(PACO) and the District Agricultural Coordinator‟s Office( DACO).At the district level there

is a committee that helps the coordination of Fisp and that is the District agricultural

Committee. The District Agricultural Committee (DAC) is the major focus for the

programming and implementation of ASIP activities. Membership of DAC consists of

thirteen (13) persons. These include three (3) persons from the farming community, four(4)

people from the M AL, one(1)person from the local authority, two (2) persons from the

NGOs, and two (2) from the agriculture oriented commercial sector, and (1)from the

9

traditional chiefs. DACO is the Secretary of the DAC, while the Chairman is elected from

the non GRZ members of the Committee. The Committee among others promotes agriculture

activities including FISP. At the District level the ministry has created a section of extension

workers that is coordinated by the District Agriculture Coordinator. These Agricultural

extension officers (AEO) are intermediaries between research and farmers. They operate as

facilitators and communicators, helping farmers in their decision-making and ensuring that

appropriate knowledge is implemented to obtain the best results with regard to sustainable

production and general rural development. The AEO encourage farmers to adopt new,

improved methods of farming, using a variety of methods to reach the farmers i.e. organizing

study groups for farmers, farmer days‟, demonstrations, lectures and literature, as well as

informing the media. The best method though, is through personal contact with farmers on

their farms. Sometimes AEO must re-plan a farm in conjunction with the farmer. All the

resources on the farm are then thoroughly investigated. They as well develop recovery

programmes for eroded soil, protect cultivated land against erosion and develop a new

pasture system. The crucial role of agricultural Extension (i.e. farmer education) in the social

and economic development of the nation cannot be over-emphasized. Never before in

Nigerian history has the necessity for educating and raising the productive capacity of our

farmers been of such importance as it is today. Increased agricultural productivity depends

primarily upon the acceptance of cultural and technological changes at the rural farm level.

Thus, for Nigerian agriculture to improve, our farmers have no alternative but to learn and

adopt recommended scientific farming techniques in place of their traditional practices

(Anaeto and friends 2012) This has been done with the general view that there is a perceived

wisdom that decentralization of government programs and services offers several information

and cost advantages compared to more centrally run alternatives. Reaching specific sub-

populations via targeting mechanisms can improve program performance while reducing

10

costs (Killic et al., 2013). In order for the farmers to be more productive and increase their

production, the programme is directed through cooperatives. It‟s through these Comparatives

that farmers receive their inputs. However the programme is made in such a way that farmers

contribute a four hundred kwacha in order for them to receive the additional one thousand six

hundred kwacha contribution by government to enable them obtain agriculture inputs. The

beneficiary farmers are drawn from pre selected cooperatives within the district. FISP

beneficiaries are then obliged to redeem inputs of their choice at approved agro-dealers using

a centralized Zambia Integrated Agriculture Management Information System (ZIAMIS)

which is the backbone mechanism for management of the programme. ZIAMIS was

developed to support the management of different Agriculture processes. Particularly, the

system has become critical in the Ministry of Agriculture in supporting management of the

Farmer Input Support Program (FISP). The system further serves as a backbone to an

ecosystem of solutions for the management of the Electronic Voucher (E-Voucher) System

under the FISP. From 2017/2018 agriculture season ZIAMIS has the following fundamental

activities:

Farmer Registration and FISP Beneficiaries Management

Input Supplier Registration and Input Catalogue Management

Agro-Dealers Registration and Input Redeeming Management

Farmer Contribution Management and FISP subsidy authorization management

Agro-Dealer invoicing for farmers without valid visa Cards

Monitoring and reporting for oversight

In order to support the farmers on FISP, the Government through Mayfair Insurance has

provided weather index insurance of K100 that goes towards the weather index insurance.

The two thousand kwacha is loaded in the FISP E-voucher which farmers use to swipe at any

Agro- dealership for their inputs.

11

Better management practices goes along with motivation of farmers to participate in the FISP

program. The success of FISP in Zambia depends on the District Agriculture Coordinators

„office to ensure that farmers are educated and assisted fully in the use of FISP. In supporting

the small scale farmers the government intervenes in maize marketing in various ways such

as setting up of minimum and maximum prices, banning of maize export. Government is

faced with difficulties in designing and implementing sustainable interventions as it often

increases price variability for maize sellers, buyers and traders ( Chapoto and Jayne, 2010).

The success of the FISP was largely described in terms of its technical superiority with regard

to design, implementation and management support to the programe (Chinsinga and Poulton.,

2014).

Farmer Economic Status

Zambia‟s agriculture sector provides the main support for the rural economy as forty nine

percent of the Zambian population depends on agriculture through smallholder production for

their livelihoods and employment (CSO, 2014).In 2015 the sector contributed 8.5 percent to

the GDP and approximately 9.6 percent of national export earnings (CSO, 2015; World Bank,

2016).With this information it‟s clear that agriculture in Zambia has the capacity to improve

the small scale farmers financial performance and increase their economic activities. Zambia

has the ideal makings of a robust farming community, but faces many challenges, even when

blessed with arable land, water, and abundant human resources. The small-scale farmers in

Zambia have been instrumental in food production countrywide and if supported adequately,

could contribute significantly to the national food basket and improve on their economic

status. Agriculture in Zambia has the potential of enhancing economic growth and reducing

poverty. A well performing agricultural sector translates into significant improvements in the

country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), contributes to employment generation, and

12

broadens the country's tax base. Poverty is a state or condition in which a person or

community lacks the financial resources and essentials to enjoy a minimum standard of life

and well-being that is considered acceptable in society (Pomeroy et al., 2011). Poverty a

status in the United States for example is assigned to people who don‟t meet a certain

threshold level set by the Department of Health and Human Services. The World Bank has

set an ambitious target of eradicating poverty by 2030. For this to be achieved, communities

are encouraged to work together to implement such strategies aimed at improving the living

conditions of the world‟s marginalized populations. Consideration needs to be given priories

that will provide basic human needs such as improved access to clean drinking water;

educating farmers how to produce more food; constructing shelter for the poor; building

schools to educate disadvantaged communities and providing enhanced access to better

health care services by building of medical clinics and hospitals. Poverty radiation is a

worldwide programme. The agricultural sector in Zambia is therefore a vehicle through

which development and poverty reduction can occur in the country. Documented literature

shows that agricultural growth reduces poverty by twice the rate of growth in non-agricultural

sectors (World Bank and GOM, 2013), the Government of the Republic of Zambia is

commitment to address the stubbornly high rural poverty levels through the Farmer Input

Support Programme (FISP) which is supposed to help farmers economically grow in terms of

household and national food security incomes. The programme is aimed at making it easy

and affordable to access the agricultural inputs by small scale farmers through a subsidy and

building the capacity of the private sector to participate in the supply of agricultural inputs”

(MACO2010). Poverty reduction is an implicit goal of the FISP program therefore the

government is advising farmers to cultivate several crop species so as to help smallholders to

manage price and product n risk (Chibwana et al, 2012) There is a lot of evidence that

agriculture can contribute to poverty reduction beyond a direct effect on farmer's incomes.

13

Agricultural development can stimulate economic development outside the agricultural

sector, and lead to higher job and growth creation. Increased productivity of agriculture raises

farm incomes, increases food supply, reduces food prices, and provides greater employment

opportunities in both rural and urban areas. Higher incomes can increase the consumer

demand for goods and services produced by sectors other than agriculture. Such linkages (or

the 'multiplier effect') between growth in the agricultural sector and the wider economy has

enabled developing countries to diversify to other sectors where growth is higher and wages

are better.

FISP E- Voucher target Group

FISP in Zambia is designed to target viable farmers with the capacity to grow at least 0.5

hectares of maize (MACO 2011). The policy synthesis food security research project in

Zambia excludes 15%-20% of households with the least access to land and poverty is well

established (Jayne et al 2008). In Malawi the program was imitated in the 2005/2006

agriculture season and there the program is called Agriculture input support programme

(AISP). In Malawi they also have target groups and the selected households receive two

coupons which can redeem four bags of maize seed, maize fertilizer or Tobacco fertilizer.

Chillwa (2010) has alluded that in Malawi AISP beneficiaries needed to own big pieces of

land for cultivation and priority was given to female headed households. However according

to Dolnard et el (2008) coupons in Malawi were disproportionally allocated to male headed

families and this made the AISP not to be effective. In Zambia in the similar manner FISP E-

voucher system targets the small scale farmers. For statistical purposes, the Ministry of

Agriculture in Zambia divides the agricultural sector into four main groups as follows

(Source: Ministry of Agriculture Planning Unit):

14

Table one

Small-scale - less than 5 ha

Emergent - 5 to 20 ha

Commercial - 20 + ha

Institutional - 20 + ha

It‟s clear from this statistics that a small scale farmer in Zambia is one with less than five

hectors of land. Small-scale agriculture is the production of crops and livestock on a small-

piece of land without using advanced and expensive technologies (Di Domenico and Miller

2012). This type of farming is usually characterized by intensive labour and in most cases,

animal traction, limited use of Agro-chemicals and supply to the local or surrounding

markets. Empirical evidence indicates that the households, such as those that are poor or

female-headed should be the FISP target because they are deemed to be under small scale

farming -Gilbert et al. 2011). A small-scale farmer is often equated with a backward, non-

productive, non-commercial, subsistence agriculture that we find in parts of the former

homeland areas. It is generally associated with black farmers. Johansen and friends (2012)

have alluded that the definition of the size of these farms is a source of debate, it can be

argued that farming on family pieces of land, on traditional lands and smallholdings on the

periphery of urban areas, fall in this category. As a result, fertilizer and maize seed e-voucher

have been divided among households of various socioeconomic statuses, rather than given

preferentially to small scale farmers (Holden and Lunduka, 2012). Unlike large-scale

commercial agriculture, it plays a dual role of being a source of household food security and

as well as income from sale of surplus agricultural produces. Although some claim small-

scale agriculture is less efficient in output as compared to commercial agriculture. From this

literature review it‟s evident that most researchers have talked about the management of

15

FISP, the type of beneficiaries and how FISP can contribute to the country‟s GDP. However

there is no significance explanation of the ultimate impact the program has on the financial

performance of the small scale farmers hence this research.

Research Variables

Research variables are those simplified portions of the complex phenomena that one intends

to study. The word variable is derived from the root word “vary”, meaning, changing in

amount, volume, number, form, nature or type. These variables should be measurable. The

dependent variable is the variable a researcher is interested in. An independent variable is a

variable believed to affect the dependent variable. In simple terms, a variable represents a

measurable attribute that changes or varies across the experiment whether comparing results

between multiple groups, multiple people or even when using a simple person in an

experience conducted over time (Katrina 2012). For this research the independent variables

considered are Farmer poverty alleviation, management support to famers and number of

FISP beneficiaries.

Conceptual Frame work

Table two

Independent Variables Dependant variables

The figure above is the conceptual model showing the relationship between dependent and

independent variables.

Farmer Poverty Alleviation

Management support

FISP Beneficiaries

Impact of the Fertilizer Input

Support Programme

16

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter deals with the research methodology that was used in this study. The research

design, population sample and sampling techniques, research instruments, data collection

procedures and methods of data analysis are discussed in this chapter. The research was done

at Njola Camp in Monze Southern Provincial, where respondents were drone from.

Research Approach

Since the study dealt with the fact findings on the impact of the FISP e-voucher system on the

financial performance of the small scale farmers in Zambia. The research design employed in

this study used both qualitative and quantitative data. The population under consideration was

drown from Njola Camp in Monze district Southern Province in which a total number of

4000 farmers are registered although only about 2000 farmers benefit from FISP E- voucher.

The primary source of data was used with the aid of a questionnaire which was divided into

three sections consisting of closed ended question.

Research strategy:

Survey method was used since individuals were a target and the cooperatives. The

questionnaire was be administered by the researcher himself.

Sampling frame

Njola camp consists of six zones and the population of the study consists of 2000 farmers

from the 6 zones. A sample size of 60 was drawn from the following agricultural zones:

Table three

17

Zone Population

Kasaka 380

Choombwa 429

Mwanza 237

Bbwantu 358

Njola Mwiila 310

Nabukuyu 2,000

Total

Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

The sampling method used was probability sampling procedure known as the stratified

sampling. The strata was drawn from all the six zones as follows (1) Kasaka 11 respondents,

(2) Choombwa 13 respondents,(3) Mwanza 7 respondents , (4) Bbwantu11 respondents, (5)

Njola 9 respondents and (6) Nabukuyu 9 respondents bringing the total to 60 respondents. To

select the respondents from the different Zones the researcher used the simple random

sampling method from each Zone so as to avoid biasness, this is because the researcher was

interested in getting views from all levels of farmers Yates et al (2008) defined simple

random sampling as a subset of individuals (a sample) chosen from a larger set (a

population). Each individual in the study was randomly chosen and entirely by chance, such

that each individual had the same probability of being chosen at all stages during the

sampling process. Hence 60 farmers were sampled out of the population of the 2000 small

scale farmers.

18

Data Collection Technique

One type of instrument that was used to collect data is the admission of a questionnaire;

Questionnaire: A structured questionnaire was administered to the small scale farmers who

were be part of the sample population in order to find out the impact of FISP on the

beneficiaries. A questionnaire was defined by Churchill (1995) as a series of questions, each

one providing a number of alternative answers, to which respondents are required to answer.

His definition deals with a structured questionnaire which the researcher used in this study.

The questionnaire was divided into two sections; section one dealt with the demographic

characteristics while section two dealt with the utilization of FISP e-voucher system

Data analysis methods

The data collected was coded according to the nature and purpose. Since the type of the study

is descriptive the data was be coded and analyzed using the statistical tool, graphs and tables

with Statistical Package for Study of Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16. Sixty questionnaires

were be administered for this purpose and one questionnaire was used for each and available

sampled farmers.

19

CHAPTER FOUR

Presentation of Findings

Introduction

This chapter presents and discusses in detail the findings obtained from the observations of

the FISP beneficiaries scripts from the questionnaires in close reference to the research

questions. The research was statically analysed using the SPSS soft were program in order to

answer the research questions. The answers were presented to the research questions on the

demographic characteristics of the small scale farmers and their opinion on the effectives of

FISIP E-voucher system on the financial performance of the small scale farmers in Monze at

Njola camp

Presentation of qualitative or quantitative finding

Demography

What are the demographic characteristics of the Fisp beneficiaries in terms of age, gender,

marital status and education levels?

AGE: Age has been defined by William and Harper Collins (2009) as “a period of life that a

person, plant animal has lived.” We can therefore conclude that age deals with numbers since

it refers to the period that has elapsed beginning with the individual‟s birth extending to any

given point in time. Age is used in research as a measure to group individuals and it provides

a means to roughly assure equivalence of such factors as physical experience, social

interaction, learning and acculturation among others.

20

TABLE 4

AGE

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid 19 - 29

YEARS

17 28.3 28.3 28.3

30 - 39

YEARS

26 43.3 43.3 71.7

40 and above 17 28.3 28.3 100.0

Total 60 100.0 100.0

Table 3 above shows the distribution of the respondents according to their age. The table

shows that 17 (28.3%) of the respondents were between the age of 19 to 29, while 26 (43.3%)

were between the age of 30 to 39 and 17 (28.3%) were above the age of 40. No respondent

was below the age of the majority which means Fisip is targeting people with the age of the

majority

Table 5: Distribution of respondents by gender

Table 4

GENDER

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Male 32 53.3 53.3 53.3

Female 28 46.7 46.7 100.0

Total 60 100.0 100.0

21

Gender relations are the ways in which a culture or society defines rights, responsibilities,

and the identities of men and women in relation to one another (Bravo-Baumann, 2000).we

can therefore say that gender refers to the construction of male and female identity. It

includes the ways in which these differences whether real or perceived, have been valued,

used and relied upon to classify women and men and assign roles and experience of them.

The ministry of women affairs (2 the lives and ex 010) in New Zealand outline that the

significance of gender is that the lives and experience of men and women are of differing

social and cultural expectations. The table above revealed that 32 (53.3%) of the sample were

males while 28 (46.7%) where females. This shows that the ration male to female is very

close. This could mean that the Ministry of Agriculture is gender sensitive in their operations

Table 6: Distribution of respondents their Marital Status

Table 6

MARITAL STATUS

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid SINGLE 12 20.0 20.0 20.0

MARRIED 34 56.7 56.7 76.7

DIVORCE

D

10 16.7 16.7 93.3

WIDOW 4 6.7 6.7 100.0

Total 60 100.0 100.0

22

Table 6 above shows the distribution of the respondents according to their marital status. The

table shows that 12(20%) of the respondents were single, while 34 (56.7%) were married and

10 (16.7%) were divorced while 4(6.7) were widows. This could mean that regardless of the

marital status one has, he/she is eligible to benefit from Fisip E-voucher in the ministry of

agriculture.

Table 7: Distribution of respondents by Education Standards

Table 7

EDUCATION LEVEL

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid GRADE 1-7 12 20.0 20.0 20.0

GRADE 8-9 22 36.7 36.7 56.7

GRADE 10- 12 13 21.7 21.7 78.3

TERTIARY

EDUCATION

13 21.7 21.7 100.0

Total 60 100.0 100.0

Table 7 above shows the distribution of the respondents according to their education levels.

The table shows that 12 (20%) of the respondents were between grade 1 and7, whereas

22(36.7%) where between grade 8 and 9. Grades 10-12 had 13 respondents representing

21.7% while tertiary education in the same manner recoded 13 representing 21.7%.

23

FISIP BENEFICIARIES

In order to understand whether FISP E-Voucher benefits the rightful farmers, four questions

were asked and respondents gave out their views as follows:

Have you been benefiting from Fisp since inception?

Table 8

Have you been benefiting from FISP since its inception

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid NEUTRAL 1 1.7 1.7 1.7

AGREES 51 85.0 85.0 86.7

STRONGLY

AGREES

8 13.3 13.3 100.0

Total 60 100.0 100.0

The figure above shows how the farmers are benefiting from the Fisp E-Voucher system. The

figure shows that 1(1.7%) respondent was neutral, 51(85%) received farming inputs from

inception and 8(13.3%) were very sure of receiving the inputs from the Fisp E-voucher

programme. This therefore shows that farmers receive or rather benefit from the system in the

area for there no one responded denied from receiving the inputs.

24

Figure 1 Enough inputs benefit from FISIP

The figure above shows how respondents answered the question as to whether they receive

enough inputs from the program. The pie chart shows that 7 representing 11.7% strongly

never agreed, 27(45%) did not agreed that they get enough inputs while 17(28.3%) were

neural and 9 representing 15% Agreed receiving enough inputs. The high percentage of not

agreeing is an indication that Fisp beneficiaries do not get enough input especially when

strongly disagrees and disagrees percentages are added together the disagreeing percentage

rises to 56.7% which is above half of the respondents.

Figure 2 Receiving of inputs in time

25

The bar chart above shows that the majority of the famers do not receive farming inputs on

time for the majority of 55% denied,21% strongly disagrees. When the two percentages re put

together the numbers increase to 76.7% and only 13% of the respondents were neutral. The

number of those agreed was 10% divided into 5% agreed and 5% strongly agreed this means

that even when the majority of the famers disagreed a few farmers feel they receive the inputs

on time

Table 9

Do you think you have at least five hectares of land

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid DISAGREE 29 48.3 48.3 48.3

NEUTRAL 7 11.7 11.7 60.0

AGREE 17 28.3 28.3 88.3

STRONGLY

AGREE

7 11.7 11.7 100.0

Total 60 100.0 100.0

A total of 29(48%) disagreed that they have at least five hectors of land out numbering those

who agreed. Only 17(28.3) agreed and 7(11.7%) were neutral which means they were not

sure. However this means that Fisp in Monze at Njola camp is benefiting the right group of

farmers.

26

Figure 3Farmer management interaction

Figure 4 CAMP OFFICERS

This area sought to understand the help respondents have from their interaction with the

Camp officers and therefore a question was paused which highlighted that 42.7% were

positive of the camp officer farmer relationship, 13.22% were neutral and 3.5% were negative

where as 2.3% were strongly positive. This shows that camp officers are there to see to it that

farmers utilize the farming impute correctly.

Ago- Dealers

Agro- Dealers are intermediate between the government and farmers. Therefore they play a

vital role to ensure that farmers have the required inputs, herbicide and implements.

27

Therefore a question was asked to find out where agro dealers play their role as instrument of

Fisp success.

Figure 5AGRO DEALERS

The figure above shows that 58.33% are positive that agro dealers have a good interaction

with the farmers, 33.33% were very positive while 15% were negative.

Camp Agriculture Committee

The figure below shows that 5% of the respondents were extremely negative in regard to their

interaction with the camp agriculture committee while 8.33% were negative bring the total of

negativity to 13.33%. The bigger number of the respondent was positive represented by 60%

while 5% was strongly positive bringing the number of positivity to 65%. This means that

camp agriculture committee exhibits it efforts to ensure the success of the fisp program.

However 21.67% of the respondents were neutral of their working relation with the CAC

28

Figure 6 Camp Agriculture Committee

Figure 7Figure Farmer Group

In the quench to understand the relation between the farmer and the farmer group a question

was paused, how do you rate your interaction with the farmer group? The chart above shows

how the respondents rate the work of the farmer group. The figure shows that 40(67%) were

positive,(11)18 % were neutral and 4(7%) were strongly positive. were neutral and 2(3%)

were negative 3(3(5%) were extremely negative. This shows that the farmer group is an

instrument of success on Fisp

29

Poverty alleviation

In order to understand how poverty has been alleviated from fisp leading to economic

freedom of the beneficiaries a number of questions were asked such as to what extent has

your family benefited through your access to fisp E-voucher

The beneficiaries of fisp have their different observation of the fisp E- voucher system

regarding poverty alleviation. 53% of the respondents believe that to some extent fisp E-

Voucher has improved their clop yield. 25% feel that the programme has to a great extent

improved their yield while 21.7% feel Fisp E-voucher has not benefited them as such.

30

Table 8 HOSE HOLD INCOME

The idea of fisp is that farmers are supposed to graduate from the program and new farmers

recruited after 3years. The purpose of the question in connection with the house hold income

was to examine as to whether the respondents have increased their income for the period they

benefited from asp E-Voucher. 32 respondents representing 53.3% attested that to a certain

extent Fisp E-voucher has improved the house hold income. Whereas 21.67% said to the

great extent fisp increased the house hold income of the respondents. However a small

number represented by 25% said not at all meaning to them the house hold income has not

improved at all.

31

Table 9Child education

The figure above shows that 55% of the respondents indicated that to some extent the

programme has managed them to educate their children,25%of the respondent indicated that

to a great extent Fisip has made them mange to educate their children . However a few of

them represented by 2% did not have a positive response to the issue indicated not at all

Figure 10 Ability to access health services

The table above shows the respondents ability to access health services due to their Fisp E-

voucher benefits.51% of the respondents totally did not agree , 33.33% said to some extent

while 15% said Fisip evoucher has help the access health service to a great extent. However

32

the high number of those who do not accept that fisp has helped them to access health

services is high which could mean that the majority are not able to access the health services

from fisp proceeds

Figure 11 INVESTMENT ABILITY

In order to understand whether Fisp E-voucher gave the respondents ability to serve a

question was posed. With access to E-voucher do you have the ability to invest? The figure

above shows t shows that 36(60%) of the respondents did not agree that the Voucher has the

capacity to make them invest.20 (33.33%) have agreed to some extent where as 4(6.67%)

agreed that fisp has the capacity to make farmers invest.

33

Chapter five

Analysis of Data

Analysis of overall findings

This chapter presents and discusses the results obtained from the observations of the

respondents scripts in close reference to the research questions. The answers were presented

to the research questions on the demographic characteristics of the of farmers and their

opinion on the operations of FISP

What are the demographic characteristics of the fisp beneficiaries in terms of age,

gendereducation levels and marital status?

Age deals with biological numbers. It refers to the period that has elapsed beginning with the

individuals‟ birth extending to any given point in time used as a measure to group individuals

Nissen (1999).It provides means to roughly assure the equivalence of such factors as physical

experience, social interaction, learning and acculturation among others. Age may not

necessarily be a predictor of individuals at ages of development as the rate of which

individual‟s progress may be identified. Therefore individuals of the same age may have

almost similar perception of fisp e-voucher. This study has reviewed that the majority of the

respondents were between the age of 19 to 29 and no one was below 19 which could mean

that the there was no minor found to have been benefiting from the e-voucher system. This

could also mean that the ministry of Agriculture is considering the age of the majority when

allocating inputs to farmers.

Distribution of respondents by gender: gender refers to the social construction of male and

female identity. It includes the ways in which these differences whether real or perceived,

have been valued, used and relied upon to classify women and men and assign roles and

34

expectation of them. The ministry of women Affairs (2010) in New Zealand outlined that the

significance of gender is that the lives and experiences of men and women are of differing

social and cultural expectations. However the ministry of agriculture is gender sensitive this

was noticed because the number of men benefiting is no where far from the number of

women beneficiaries that‟s 53.3 % against 46.7%.

Have you been benefiting from FISP since its inception?

The initial design of the programme intended that beneficiaries graduate every two years and

allow others to join and move. In order to achieve this goal the Government of the republic of

Zambia is spending millions of Kwacha on the procurement and distribution of the subsidized

seed and fertilizer (Jayne 2014).This means that every after two new farmers are supposed to

be recruited as the first ones graduate from the system. Upon close observation it was found

out that Njola camp has 4000 eligible farmers but only 2000 so far benefit from the program

and all respondents confirmed that they have been benefiting from the system since inception.

This has defeated the concept of spawning more farmers countrywide because the same

people have been benefitting from FISP time to time

Do you think you have been receiving enough farming inputs from fisp?

Farmers under fisp e-voucher are eligible to a pack of the faming inputs. A pack comprises of

2X50KGs of basal dressing (compound D), 2X50 KGs of urea and a bag of seed. The reach

findings reviewed that famers do not get enough to enable the have food year round and save

for other purposes. One famer reviewed that:

The government is supposed to increase the number of fertilizer bags in one pack to at

least 8X50kgs of fertilizer that’s 4 basal dressing and 4X50kgs urea. He further said that

number of seed maize has to increase to 2X10kgs.

35

Another farmer alluded that it’s important for the government to increase the amount

in a voucher from 2000 to at least 6000 so that farmers could be able to access farming

implement on top of the fertilizer we receive.

The Millennium Development goal which was closely related to the concept of food security

(GRZ and UN 2005) was aimed at eradicating extreme poverty and hunger among the low

income people. However the inadequacy of the farming inputs to the small scale farmers

makes it difficult for the small scale farmers to meet their needs. It has also been found out

that some farmers fail to raise the K400 farmer contribution which has lead to famers

merging to access one pack which they could later share. This means a farmer is not able to

get a full park as designed by the government which led to even lower food security and

income of a farmer.

Do you receive your farming inputs on time?

The study reviewed that farmer generally do not receive their inputs on time. One famer

reviewed that:

The problem is that the government delays to load money in their voucher and also

agro dealers delay to release inputs for this reason.

The other farmer reviewed that:

Some agro dealers neither do nor stock enough inputs and once you enter their shops

they would swipe all the money in the voucher which meant that a farmer had to wait

for the inputs to come at the unknown date.

The rain paten in southern province the previous season was not good (Evans, 2019) and this

affected the harvest for the 2018/2019 season in Zambia. Also the rate delivery of inputs to

the farmers means poor harvest and this worsens poverty levels of the small scale farmer.

36

Do you think you have at least five hectors of land?

The study reviewed that most farmers do not have five hectors and above this means the fisp

is targeting the correct group of people. Fisp targets small scale farmers and small scale

farmers are defined as those farmers owning small-based plots of land on which they grow

subsistence crops and one or two cash crops relying almost exclusively on family labor

(Nagayets 2005) All respondents were eligible to the programme at the time of the study.

This is in line with other countries like Malawi with fisp targeted small holder farmers with

the necessary land, labor and skills to use the subsidized inputs, but without the financial

capital to purchase inputs at commercial prices ( Chirwa 2014).The idea is to uplift the

economic stadereds of the small scale farmers.

How do you rate your interaction with the Camp Officer?

The relationship between the famer and the camp officer in the study area was found to be

cordial. This was concluded when all respondent affirmed that their relationship with the

camp officer was good. The camp officer is there to help the farmers in his camp on fisp

matter. A camp comprises of many co-operatives and the camp office is one at the helm of

ensuring that eligible farmers receive the inputs and correctly utilizes them.

How do you rate your interaction with the Agro-Dealer?

The study reviewed that the relationship between the agro dealer and a farmer is fine. One

farmer reviewed that:

Agro dealer are able to give basic advice on the utilization of the farming inputs

which is useful information to a famer. He further argued that the work of the agro

dealers is only disturbed by the late release of funds by the Government.

The findings confirm the relevance of agro- dealers in this business. Agro dealers as middle

men between government and a farmer play a cardinal roll to ensure that farmers get the

37

right inputs and on time which supplements government efforts to alleviate the economical

problems of the farmers.

How do you rate your interaction with the Farmer group?

The study reviewed that the interaction of the farmer with the farmer group is of benefit to

the farmer. Farmers groups or cooperatives enable them to make a connection to consumers

and to the marketplace. Government forms farmer groups for a specific purpose and with the

aim of developing such groups to become self reliant. Such groups are also found in other

countries like Botswana where they are called dam groups and in Kenya they are called group

ranches (oxby1981)

With the access to FISP e-voucher to what extent did your family benefit from the

inputs you received:

Improved crop yield

The study reviewed that 5

3% of the respondents believe that to some extent fisp E- Voucher has improved their clop

yield and 25% feel that the programme has to a great extent improved their yield this brings

the total to 78% which means that the programme has increased the farmer crop yield. One

farmer confirmed that: From the time he started receiving inputs from fisp his crop

yield because at least he gets some fertilizer for his crop other than the way he was before

Fisp.

My crop yield has increased because am now able to get fertilizer and seed which I

never used to have.

Increased house hold income

53.3% attested that to a certain extent Fisp E-voucher has improved the house hold income.

Whereas 21.67% said to the great extent Fisp increased the house hold income of the

38

respondents this means the proper utilization of the Fisp is potential to increase income of the

beneficiaries. One farmer had this to say:

During 2017/2018 season we were able to harvest and at least as compared to

2018/2019 because of the drought during this season

A good number of the respondents attributed that none house hold food increase is due to the

late input delivery by agro dealers driven by the rate release of funds by the Government to

Agro-dealers. Another farmer had this to say:

Late funding if money from the government to agro dealers read to agro dealers

refuse to supply farming inputs to farmers on time which leads to late planting of the

seeds and thereafter leads to poor harvest.

Ability to send children to school

The study reviewed that 55% of the respondents indicated that to some extent the programme

has managed them to educate their children,25%of the respondent indicated that to a great

extent bring the total to 80% of the respondents. This is an indication that to some extent and

not fully able to take their children to school. One farmer had this to say:

We are still struggling to educate our children in with the coming of fisp because the

inputs are not enough and even the little we receive delays to come which is affecting

our crop yield making it difficult to take our children to decent schools

Ability to access health services

The study reviewed that the farmers of Njola camp are not able to access decent health

services due to inadequate funds derived from fisp e-voucher. The returns are not able to

cater for all their requirements and leave something for the purchase of inputs in the forth

coming season.

39

We are able to have food at least for the year round but we are unable to serve for other

activities like good health services for our families because inputs are not enough for any

planed servings.

Ability to invest

The study reviewed that some individual members were even unable to find their K400

contribution because they were not able to have extra income from the program. This shows

that farmers have no extra income gained from the e-voucher system and therefore unable to

invest. Farming does not only require fertilizer and seeds. It requires that a farmer should

have oxen and a plough. That‟s why it‟s important that farmers must have extra income to

help them attain farming requirements. Investment In an economic sense is the purchase of

goods that are not consumed today but are used in the future to create wealth. In finance,

an investment is a monetary asset purchased with the idea that the asset will provide income

in the future or will later be sold at a higher price for a profit (Galeza and Chan 2019). Some

farmers had this to say:

We are able to get some food from the fisp e-voucher system but the input is not

enough to enable us to invest. Most of us have not managed to buy even an ox as a

sign of increased income. We plead to the government to increase the voucher amount

to K6000.

We are able to get farming inputs through the e-voucher but we cannot buy using

cash because we do not have extra money from the e-voucher system.

40

Chapter Six

Conclusion and Recommendations

Conclusion

The findings from this study have reviled that the farmers of Njola camp‟s financial

performance is not good because they are unable to invest from the e-voucher system.

Farmers of Njola Camp have benefited from Fisp and have confirmed the increased food

security. However the income has not been increased because farmers feel they receive inputs

late and that the pack is not enough to enable them attain economical freedom. They are

attributing the late input delivery to the late release of the funds by the government to agro

dealers. The conclusion of this study therefore is that FISP only has the capacity to increase

the food security and not financial performance of the farmers at Njola camp in Monze the

Southern Province of Zambia.. Based on this, the study made some recommendations aimed

at improving the intact of Fisp E-Voucher on the financial performance of the small scale

farmer at Njola Camp in Monze.

Recommendations

I recommend that the government should release the funds to agro dealers on time and as well

load the money in the famers voucher on time so as to enable the famer to have enough time

to prepare and plant early. Further more if Fisp is to improve the economical status of the

farmers it‟s important for the government to think of increasing the value of the voucher from

the current K2000 to at least 4000 to enable farmer access also farming implements and

increase the their income from the farming proceeds. However the governance structure has

proved vital and should be maintained for fisp to continue attaining its goals. Moreover it‟s

also important for the government to intensify the training to farmers on the aims of fisp e-

voucher because the study shows that farmers are reluctant to start investing because they

think they will be benefiting from the programme throughout their life. If this is not taken

41

serious after graduation and recruitment of other farmers the first farmers will be more

destitute than ever. It‟s also very important for the government to encourage farmer groups

because farmer groups help uplifting the economical status of farmers because from these

groups farmers are able to assist one another to attain their goals. For example help can be

driven through knowledge exchange and experience.

42

REFERENCE

1. Burke, W. J., Jayne, T. S., & Sitko, N. J. 2012. Can the FISP more effectively achieve

food production and poverty reduction goals? (No. 123208). Michigan State University,

Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.

2. Mason, N. M., & Tembo, S. (2015). Do Input Subsidy Programs Raise Incomes and

Reduce Poverty Among Smallholder Farm Households?: Evidence from Zambia. Indaba

Agricultural Policy Research Institute.

3. Mason, N. M., Jayne, T. S., & Mofya‐Mukuka, R. 2013. Zambia's input subsidy

programs. Agricultural Economics, 44(6), 613-628.

4. Mofya-Mukuka, R., Mason, N. M., Kuteya, A., & Kabwe, S. (2013). How Can the

Zambian Government Improve the Targeting of the Farmer Input Support Program.

5. Jayne, T. S., & Rashid, S. 2013. Input subsidy programs in sub‐Saharan Africa: a

synthesis of recent evidence. Agricultural economics, 44(6), 547-562.

6. Johansen, C., Haque, M.E., Bell, R.W., Thierfelder, C. and Esdaile, R.J., 2012.

Conservation agriculture for small holder rain fed farming: Opportunities and constraints

of new mechanized seeding systems. Field Crops Research, 132, pp.18-32.

7. Daw, T., Brown, K., Rosendo, S. and Pomeroy, R., 2011. Applying the ecosystem

services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-

being. Environmental Conservation, 38(4), pp.370-379.

8. Holden, S., and Lunduka, R.2012. “Who benefit from Malawi‟s targeted farm input

subsidy program?” Forum for Development Studies, 39.3, pp. 290-314.

9. Ricker‐Gilbert, J., Mason, N. M., Darko, F. A., & Tembo, S. T. (2013). What are the

effects of input subsidy programs on maize prices? Evidence from Malawi and Zambia.

Agricultural Economics, 44(6), 671-686.

43

10. Chapoto, A., Jayne, T. S., 2010, „Maize price instability in Eastern and Southern Africa:

the impact of trade barriers and market interventions‟, Comesa Policy Seminar on

„Variation in Staple Food Prices: Causes, Consequence, and Policy Options.

11. Kuteya N. Auckland, Lukama Chinyama, Chapoto Antony, and Malata Vincent

(2016). Lessons Learnt from the Implementation of the E-voucher Pilot. Indaba

Agricultural Policy Research Institute POLICY BRIEF PER (PRSP)

12. Kilic. T., Whitney. E., and winters. P. (2013) Decentralized Beneficiary Targeting in

Large-Scale Development Programs

13. Di Domenico M, Miller G 2012. Farming and tourism enterprise: Experiential

authenticity in the diversification of independent small-scale family farming. Tourism

Management.

14. Ketrina 2012 practicing research in writing studies reflexive and ethically responsible

research

15. Chibwana, C., Fisher, M. and Shively, G., 2012. Cropland allocation effects of

agricultural input subsidies in Malawi. World Development, 40(1), pp.124-133.

16. Chinsinga, B. and Poulton, C., 2014. Beyond technocratic debates: the significance and

transience of political incentives in the malawi farm input subsidy programme

(FISP). Development Policy Review, 32(s2).

17. Chinsinga, Blessings, (2011) Agro-dealers, Subsidies and Rural Market Development in

Malawi: A Political Economy Enquiry, FAC Working Paper 31, Brighton: Future

Agricultures Consortium

18. Nissenbaum, H., 1999. The meaning of anonymity in an information age. The

Information Society, 15(2), pp.141-144.

19. Ricker-Gilbert, J., Lunduka, R., Shively, G. and Jayne, T., 2014. Comparing FISP to

Alternative Programs (No. 1092-2016-87615).

44

20. Waldman, K.B., Vergopolan, N., Attari, S.Z., Sheffield, J., Estes, L.D., Caylor, K.K. and

Evans, T.P., 2019. Cognitive biases about climate variability in smallholder farming

systems in Zambia. Weather, Climate, and Society, 11(2), pp.369-383.

21. Nagayets, O., 2005. Small farms: current status and key trends. The future of small farms,

p.355.

22. The community development journal, volume 18 issued, January1983 page 50-59

23. Sampson, H.A., Muñoz-Furlong, A., Bock, S.A., Schmitt, C., Bass, R., Chowdhury, B.A.,

Decker, W.W., Furlong, T.J., Galli, S.J., Golden, D.B. and Gruchalla, R.S., 2005.

Symposium on the definition and management of anaphylaxis: summary report. Journal

of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 115(3), pp.584-591.

24 Anaeto, F.C., Asiabaka, C.C., Nnadi, F.N., Ajaero, J.O., Aja, O.O., Ugwoke, F.O.,

Ukpongson, M.U. and Onweagba, A.E., 2012. The role of extension officers and extension

services in the development of agriculture in Nigeria. Journal of agricultural Research, 1(6),

pp.180-185.

45

APPENDICES

QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear respondents,

The purpose of this questionnaire is purely for academic purposes and all the information

contained herein will be treated confidential as much as possible. You are therefore requested

to help in ensuring that this study is a success by responding honestly to the contents of the

questionnaire.

Prepared by

Dennis Mapiki

MBA-finance

Student MBA 008-580

46

PART 1

Personal Information

Instructions: Tick where applicable.

1. Sex Male [ ] Female [ ]

2. Age below 18 [ ] 19- 29 [ ] 30 – 39 [ ] 40 and above [ ]

3. What is your current marital Status? Single [ ] Married [ ] Divorced [ ] Widowed []

4. What is the highest level of education that you attained? Grade 1-7 [ ] Grade 8-9

grade 10-12 Tertiary Education [ ]

PART TWO

Instructions: Tick where applicable.

1 Strongly disagrees 2 Disagrees 3 Neutral 4 Agrees 5 Strongly Agrees

FISP Beneficiaries

1. Have you been benefiting from FISP Since its

inception?______________

2. Do you think you have been getting enough inputs from

FISP?___________

3. Do you receive your faming inputs on

time?_______________________

4. Do you think you have at least five hectors of

land?__________________

PART THREE

Farmer – FISP structure interaction

1a. Overall, how would you rate your experiences with:

1 2 3 4 5

47

District Agriculture Committee: Extremely positive Positive Neutral Negative

Extremely Negative

Camp Officers: Extremely positive Positive Neutral Negative Extremely Negative

Agro dealers: extremely positive Positive Neutral Negative Extremely Negative

Farmer group: Extremely positive Positive Neutral Negative Extremely Negative

1b.During the farming season in which you benefited, did you encounter any difficult?

Yes No

If yes, please indicate the difficult you encountered and how it was resolved

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

Poverty alleviation

1a.In your own opinion, has FISP improved your family‟s standard of living? Yes No.

1b. If yes pleas provide examples

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………..

2. With access to FISP e-voucher, do you have the ability to :

Improved your crop yield Not at all To a certain extent To a great extent

Increased your household income Not at all To a certain extent To a great extent

Send children to school Not at all To a certain extent To a great extent

Access health services Not at all To a certain extent To a great extent

Invest Not at all To a certain extent To a great extent

48

3 What do you think should be done to improve the impact of fertilizer input support

programme on the financial performance of the small scale farmers:

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..