Agricultural relief aid must improve, says study

The efficacy of agricultural relief programmes run in response to recurring drought and food shortages in Zimbabwe could be greatly improved, says a report by the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). The report titled 'The Distribution of Relief Seed and Fertiliser in Zimbabwe: Lessons Derived from the 2003/04 Season', highlighted the need for improved targeting and monitoring of agricultural relief programmes. "Despite the frequency of agricultural relief programmes, little is know about their efficacy. Seed distribution is assumed to contribute to an expansion of cropped area. But it is difficult to find independent data measuring such gains. Fertiliser is assumed to increase production levels and productivity. But most relief programmes simply assume these gains. Nonetheless, each year drought re-occurs, these programmes are simply started afresh," the report said. The authors noted that "while the relief seed and fertiliser [distributed in the country] were generally well used, there remain substantial opportunities for improving the effectiveness and impact of these input distribution programmes". One key area they identified was the importance of draught power for improved crop yields. Zimbabwe experiences recurring droughts, and in intervening years, parts of the country are periodically affected by floods. As a result the country frequently benefits from relief programmes aimed at assisting the recovery of smallholder agriculture. "The most common programmes, involving the distribution of seed and fertiliser, have been implemented in one or another part of the country during at least 10 of the 24 years since the country achieved its independence in 1980," the study said. The country experienced drought again during the 2001/02 and 2002/03 cropping seasons, "the impact of these recent droughts was measurably worsened by a rise in unemployment, high (100-500 percent) rates of inflation, a decline in gross domestic product, and an estimated 26 percent rate of HIV/AIDS incidence among adults". Maize import and price controls contributed to severe shortages of grain on both urban and rural markets. BENEFITS MEASURED The study, based on the results of three major farm surveys designed to assess the distribution of seed and fertiliser inputs during the 2003/04 cropping season, reveals that while relief seed and fertiliser were generally well used, the targeting of households destined to receive relief needs improvement. "While many of the NGOs distributing inputs identified explicit criteria for the selection of needy households, these lists were difficult to implement in practice. In consequence, there was little difference in the poverty levels of households that received relief inputs compared with those that did not receive these inputs. Many NGOs tried to target households affected by HIV/AIDS. Yet households with orphans, or female-headed families were just as likely to have received relief inputs as male-headed households or those without orphans," the report noted. Almost 15 percent of households received input packages from more than one NGO and "in some districts, more than 25 percent of households received similar packages or relief inputs from multiple NGOs," the report said. The authors argued that targeting of relief inputs could be improved through better information sharing on needs and the relief activities of NGOs. They also pointed out that the distribution of seed did not appear to have resulted in a significant expansion of the area cropped during the 2003/04 season. "Instead, much of the relief seed appears to have replaced stocks available on local markets. This includes seed saved by many households from their previous harvest. Despite shortages of grain on the local market, and despite two consecutive years of drought, many households were still able to retain seed stocks," the study said. Farmers, however, appear to have benefited from the distribution of new, improved varieties of seed. "This was the first season in more than two decades that relief agencies were allowed to distribute open pollinated maize varieties. While virtually all smallholders had adopted hybrid maize, the rising costs of this seed in recent years had led many to replant seed derived from their previous season's grain production. This was contributing to a decline in average maize yields. The delivery of open pollinated varieties offered farmers a cheaper, more sustainable, alternative," the study found. However, in some cases there were problems with the quality of relief seed. During the 2003/04 season, much of the seed distributed, especially for crops other than maize, was of questionable origin. "In at least two cases, seed of poorly adapted varieties was imported and distributed to farmers. This produced limited yields late in the production season (which fortunately was prolonged by late rains). In these cases, the recipients of relief seed would have been better off planting seed available on local markets. These problems were worsened by poor and incomplete seed labelling, and in some cases, wrong labelling," the report said. Beyond the impact of seed deliveries, the study revealed that substantial gains in production and productivity were derived from the targeted application of small quantities of chemical fertiliser. "In effect, small doses of nitrogen-based fertiliser appear to offer much higher returns than the delivery of seed – particularly if this seed is of uncertain origin," the report noted. IMPORTANCE OF DRAUGHT POWER The report found that "the major determinant of the area planted by poorer households was not the availability of relief seed, but access to draught power". It said families owning cattle or donkeys planted 60 percent more land than those without. This was linked with an 80 percent average increase in grain harvests. "A key inference to be drawn from this data is that efforts to expand area planted following a drought should concentrate less on distributing seed and more on improving access to draught power. "NGOs could provide vouchers encouraging the sharing of available animals, perhaps in exchange for supplementary feed and veterinary care. Alternatively, relief programmes should concentrate more effort on improving the stability and productivity of production on a smaller area," the report said. Larger gains could also be achieved by strengthening the technical assistance provided with agricultural relief programmes, as "less than one-quarter of the recipients of relief inputs received any kind of extension advice. And the majority of these extension contacts occurred only once," the study found. Overall, the evidence strongly suggested that agricultural relief programmes need to move away from an emphasis on handouts to encompass the pursuit of more explicit development goals. "These programmes may still target subsidised assistance to poorer households most severely affected by poor rains or socio-economic constraints. Yet many of these households are likely to remain chronically poor unless they are more methodically assisted with improved varieties, better extension advice or strengthened markets," the report concluded. Larger, more sustained gains could be achieved by improving the quality of agricultural relief assistance, "rather than concentrating ... on the numbers of households assisted, and the numbers of input packages delivered". For the full report go to: www.sarpn.org.za