The Sunday Mail
Tau Tawengwa
It is also worth mentioning that local manufacturers and distributors of Command Agriculture-related inputs such as fertilisers and seed are secondary beneficiaries of the policy.
A few months ago, an anti-land reform colleague of mine sent me an email attachment of a 1975 United Nations report on the state of food productivity in various parts of the world.
The highlighted section of the report spoke of Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) and its agricultural output at the time.
It stated that in 1975, Rhodesia had the second highest yields per hectare in the world in terms of maize, wheat, soya beans and groundnuts, and the third highest yields per hectare in the world for cotton.
For the combined ranking for all these crops, Rhodesia ranked first in the world.
Presumably, my colleague was trying to highlight that prior to Zimbabwe’s land reform exercise; the country was a breadbasket and a net-exporter of food.
This is true.
I responded to him by pinpointing three pieces of pre-colonial legislation — the Land Apportionment Act of 1930, the Native Land Husbandry Act of 1951 and the Tribal Trust Lands Act of 1965.
In a nutshell, these laws collectively called for the confiscation of land and livestock belonging to indigenous Zimbabweans. Furthermore, indigenous Zimbabwean communities were relocated and forced to live in barely fertile and crowded Tribal Trust Lands.
These historical heists were corrected around 2000 through the Land Reform Programme. Nevertheless, a conspicuous lack of agricultural productivity in the country since that year, due to droughts and other factors, has given ammunition to land reform critics, who at every turn seek to dismiss the programme as an outright failure.
It is for this reason that the Command Agriculture policy is both timely and strategic.
Command Agriculture is a Government initiative that aims to increase national maize production to two million tonnes per annum. Through the programme, the 2016/17 agricultural season should see maize planted on 400 000 hectares of arable land with Government support.
Some 20 000 hectares should either be fully or partially irrigated.
Furthermore, the Command Agriculture initiative has seen Government source US$500 million worth of inputs in the form of maize seed, lime, basal and top-dressing fertilisers, herbicides and diesel.
Government has also hired out close to 1 000 tractors across Zimbabwe.
Prior to the programme, 1 300 training centres were established across the country. In addition, 3 000 agricultural extension workers and 91 000 farmers were prepared on the programme and its desired outcomes before the season commenced.
At this point, we are halfway through the 2016/17 agricultural season, and the Command Agriculture initiative is showing potential.
In Mashonaland East, for instance, I have seen more cultivation of land this year than I have seen for over a decade.
It is undeniable that the prevailing cash crunch would have caused many commercial farmers to forgo the season without planting due to lack of resources to purchase farming inputs.
In this light, Government’s intervention through Command Agriculture is commendable.
It is also worth mentioning that local manufacturers and distributors of Command Agriculture-related inputs such as fertilisers and seed are secondary beneficiaries of the policy.
Put plainly, the US$500 million sourced by Government for the programme has been channelled to local processors and distributors of inputs. That is certainly a notable cash injection into local industry.
Traditionally, smallholder farmers have borne the brunt of maize production in the country. While the Presidential Well-Wishers Agricultural Inputs Scheme provides inputs for communal smallholder farmers, it is also true that smallholder farmers produce maize mainly for subsistence and, therefore, their yearly yields are inadequate to meet national demand.
Of course, the scheme’s objective is to ensure household food security, and the initiative also contributed to improved yield in 2013/14.
However, in the broader context, Command Agriculture serves as a useful incentive for commercial farmers to be productive.
Having said that, there is one reservation I have with respect to the initiative, and this has to do with yields.
According to research, at best farmers in neighbouring Zambia and South Africa can achieve approximately 20-30 tonnes of maize per hectare, while, at best, Zimbabwean farmers achieve approximately 13 tonnes of maize per hectare.
These statistics apply to commercial producers who irrigate their crops.
The Zambian national average yield of producers without irrigation is around 2,5 tonnes per hectare, while statistics for Zimbabwe released in 2015 indicate that the national average yield is around one tonne per hectare.
One reason for this statistical disparity could be that South Africa and Zambia generally have more expansive and fertile farming regions.
Another reason could be that farmers in those countries have access to funding and, consequently, considerable farming technology. In addition, Zimbabwe’s calculation of national yield per hectare combines the output of communal farmers with the output of commercial farmers.
However, since Command Agriculture is aimed solely at commercial farmers and does not include communal farmers, the policy’s targeted yield of five tonnes per hectare could be on the low side. The rains have been favourable, and the crop is looking promising in many areas.
The country should achieve a bumper harvest this year.
Ultimately, the Command Agricultural initiative is a sound policy framework, and its architects must be commended.
Tau Tawengwa is a doctoral candidate and farmer
