NO E-VOUCHER
THERE is something shy about the campaign by some so-called stakeholders in the agricultural sector agitating for Government to retain the e-voucher programme for farmers.
A gathering describing itself as a consortium of core interest groups has expressed its support for the electronic e-voucher programme which empowers farmers to diversify their produce.
This gathering has been held under the Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute (IAPRI), which ostensibly appears to have been hijacked.
IAPRI was set up in 2011 as a non-pro t Zambian company limited by guarantee which collaboratively works with public and private stakeholders in the agricultural sector. It is led by a local Board of Directors drawn from various state and private sector stakeholders.
The consortium claim that the e-voucher programme has created employment through the delivery channel and reduced government expenditure.
But the e-voucher programme for all its initial promise has turned out to be a nightmare for the majority small-scale farmers for whom it was intended for.
Not only have farmers been unable to access agricultural inputs, there were also cases of agricultural dealers not honouring their side of the bargain. e main complaint though is that some farmers are still to access their farming inputs for the last farming season even when they had deposited the mandatory K400. The small-scale farmers, who produce the bulk of the country’s maize crop instead want the government to revert to the traditional Farmer Input Support Programme (FISP).
On this, they have the support of the in uential Zambia National Farmers Union (ZNFU) which has no kind words for the e-voucher system.
The ZNFU has been categorical in its proposal urging the government to revert to direct distribution of the inputs for this season and dismantling arrears owed to agro dealers. e bottom line is that the e-voucher programme has a lot of aws, chief among them the late acquisition of inputs which ultimately a ects the agricultural yield.
From our perspective, the government must pick which system to use – the one favoured by farmers which guarantees a good harvest and the problematic e-voucher which could result in lower yields.
Under the FISP programme, farmers were guaranteed the inputs on time and complaints were few. But the same cannot be said about the e-voucher.
We believe that the e-voucher is open to manipulation which would work against the government’s policy of ensuring that farmers have easy access to agricultural inputs. What boggles the mind is why the sudden urgency to compel the government to continue with a system that could spell doom for the agricultural sector vis-àvis the small-scale farmers?
It is mischievous to urge government to continue with a system that has left many dealers in debt as they are owed by the state.
Government is facing nancial constraints that have led to agro dealers not being paid on time, a situation that has a ripple e ect as the farmers are also a ected.
We do not see these nancial constraints easing anytime soon or for as long as austerity measures are in place.
It would be bene cial for small-scale farmers to get inputs on time and not be boggled down by the same song of delayed payments to agro dealers.
The suggestion that for this season government uses another system until its nancial status is improved, should be welcomed by all who want the agricultural sector to ourish.
Government must not be forced to continue with a system that would bring about chaos in the agricultural sector. Such schemes must be dismissed outright.