A Fertilizer Strategy for Zimbabwe

A FERTILIZER STRATEGYFOR ZIMBABWE

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

AFRICAN CENTRE FOR FERTILIZERDEVELOPMENT

A FERTILIZER STRATEGYFOR ZIMBABWE

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONSROME 1999

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in aretrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical photocopying or otherwise, with the prior permission of the copyrightowner. Applications for such permission, with a statement of the purpose andextent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Director, InformationDivision, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delleTerme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy.

FAO 1999

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do notimply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory,city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers orboundaries.

A fertilizer strategy for Zimbabwe iii

Summary

With a view to developing a fertilizer strategy, this study examines the cumulative effect ofrelevant factors on future fertilizer use in Zimbabwe. A specific objective is to provide anestimate of the fertilizer needed to support agricultural crop production for 2020.

In Zimbabwe, 62 percent of households are poor or very poor and several macro-economicindicators are negative. However, Zimbabwe is undergoing a process of market reform andstructural adjustment. Projections indicate annual income increases of 1.1 percent for the period1995-2007 (with a 20 percent increase in per caput caloric food intake by the end of 2007) and3.8 percent for the period 2007-2020.

Agriculture employs one-third of the total workforce, provides 60 percent of all raw materials forthe manufacturing industry, and accounts for more than 40 percent of total exports. However,annual agricultural output growth at 1.4 percent has been below the population growth rate(3 percent). The major crops are maize, wheat, cotton, tobacco and sugar cane. Despitederegulation, oligopolies are the norm for most commodities.

The agriculture sector is dual in structure with both commercial farming and subsistence orientedsmallholder activities. Between 1983 and 1993, crop production value in the smallholder sectorincreased twice as fast as that in the commercial sector. However, smallholder yields aresignificantly lower.

Projections for the agriculture sector indicate gross output growth of 5 percent per year, therebycontributing over 21 percent to GDP in the short to medium term. Irrigated crop productionaccounts for almost half of the total value of all crops marketed and its area could double.

Out of 19 million ha of arable land, about 2.7 million ha are under cultivation (60 percent of itunder rainfed maize). The demand for maize will increase to about 4.5 million t by 2020, with thesmallholder sector bringing another 2.8 million ha into maize production. Wheat is mainly alarge-scale commercial farming operation, with current production of about 190 000 t meetingtwo-thirds of total demand, projected to be 842 000 t by 2020. The smallholder sector producesthe bulk of cotton, an important foreign exchange earner. Projections are for cotton production tofall 64 percent to 56 000 t in 2020. Tobacco is the country’s major export crop. The crop area inthe smallholder sector should increase by 2.6 percent per year, so doubling the area under thecrop by 2020. Sugar cane production should grow from 3.2 million t in 1995 to 4.2 million t in2020, but smallholder production is negligible. There is ample margin for improving land useefficiency in the large-scale farming sector and for achieving greater land productivity amongsmallholders. Zimbabwe’s major crops enjoy a strong comparative advantage and export prospectsappear good.

Large-scale commercial farmers purchase about 350 000 t of fertilizer a year; smallholderfarmers about 100 000 t. Total fertilizer demand is projected to grow at 3 percent per year,mostly because of more intensive fertilizer use by smallholders. Zimbabwe used an amount of

iv

fertilizer equivalent to 186 000 t of N, P, K1 and S nutrients (1995). Analysis of productionprojections and expanded land use for the five major crops2 in 2020 show an overall nutrientrequirement of 403 000 t nutrients (N 256 000 t of P 86 000 t and 61 000 t of K) to supportfuture crop yields.

The coefficients of elasticity for the five main crops show that the own-price elasticity of the demandfor fertilizer applied on these crops are high for both farming sectors. The cross-price elasticity for thedemand for fertilizers with respect to the cotton and maize prices in the smallholder sector is highlyinelastic. There is an important need to monitor the improvement of the efficiency in fertilizer use,particularly on measures that aim to improve the productivity of the capital invested in fertilizerby farmers. A continued effort is required to collect data from farmers on fertilizer use per crop.This information, fertilizer costs and produce prices at the farm gate as well as farm householdincome establishes fertilizer profitability and the farmers’ ability to pay for fertilisers. Theprocess of production commercialization requires smallholders to attain and maintainsubstantially higher levels of crop productivity through the adoption of new technologies andmanagement practices. This process calls for balanced and efficient fertilizer use.

In the smallholder sector, cash income accounts for nearly 53 percent of total income, with cropscontributing nearly 73 percent of total cash income in rural households. A policy that promotesincreased crop production should improve smallholder incomes.

Income is the key to farmers’ ability to adopt more effective and sustainable productiontechnologies. Smallholders will adopt production intensification when risks and constraints arereduced. Without policy measures that ensure adequate farm income, it may be difficult toincrease smallholder fertilizer consumption.

Almost 70 percent of smallholders use fertilizers, though many purchase less than one bag peryear. Farmers indicate that their cash position is the most important factor affecting the amountthey apply. Credit facilities for rural traders and farmers are insignificant.

The commercialization of public services and the use of revolving funds should partiallycompensate for the lack of public financing, and introduce a different approach in servicingfarmers. Research and support services need the capacity to support the smallholder sectoreffectively and efficiently. They should focus more on a farm management approach and ondisseminating IPNS. More participatory programmes involving farmers' unions and producers'associations would enhance the sustainability of research programmes.

Zimbabwe’s fertilizer industry is undergoing restructuring. Domestic ammonium nitrateproduction of 250 000 t meets over 90 percent of the country's total requirements. Domesticproduction of nitrogenous fertilizer may become unfeasible when energy cost increase. Zimbabweproduces about 150 000 t of phosphate rock concentrate and has an annual production capacityof 200 000 t of single superphosphate and 60 000 t of triple superphosphate. The total annualproduction capacity of Zimbabwe’s fertilizer granulation plants is 300 000 t.

Among the key parameters for future economic success are an open economy, smallholder accessto markets and inputs, and measures to increase land use efficiency and productivity. Increasedsmallholder production and fertilizer use will depend on high producer prices and affordablefertilizer. Achieving the latter requires improvements in access, financing, infrastructure,marketing, training, and research and extension services.

1 Figures throughout the report relate to P and K, not to P2O5 and K2O.2 Maize, tobacco, cotton, wheat, and sugar cane.

A fertilizer strategy for Zimbabwe v

Contents

page

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 THE MACRO-ECONOMIC SETTING AND AGRICULTURE POLICY 3

The macro-economy 3Agriculture policy 4

3 NATURAL REGIONS AND AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONES 7

Climate 7Land suitability 7Nutrient balance 11

4 THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR 13

Role in the economy 13Agricultural production 14

Maize 14Wheat 16Cotton 16Tobacco 17Sugar cane 17

Irrigated agriculture 17Marketing 18Trends 19Comparative advantage and export prospects 19

5 FERTILIZER DEMAND 23

Fertilizer consumption by crop 23Maize 24Wheat 24Cotton 24Tobacco 27Sugar cane 27

Profitability 25Procurement 31

6 FERTILIZER SUPPLY 33

7 THE SMALLHOLDER FARMING SECTOR 35

Smallholder income 35Smallholder fertilizer consumption 36Constraints and developments 38

Fertilizer use 38Access 38Infrastructure and logistics 39Developments 39

vi

8 INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS 41

Regulations 41Research and extension 41Farmers’ organizations 44

9 CONCLUSIONS 45

BIBLIOGRAPHY 49

Annex 1 Fertilizer Adoption and Use 55

MAP OF THE NATURAL REGIONS OF ZIMBABWE 96

List of tables

1. Agro-ecological zones: climate, physiography and soils 82. Cultivated land, 1995, and potential for expansion 93. Land suitability for rainfed maize production 104. Crop yield (t/ha) and area change (%) per annum by farming sector 155. Demand and supply utilization account, 1994/96, 2007 and 2020 206. Indicators of comparative advantage for Zimbabwe 217. International price projections for agricultural export commodities

(constant real prices) 218. Crop fertilizer requirements, t nutrients 249 Maize fertilizer requirements by region and sector, t nutrients 2410. Wheat fertilizer requirements by region and sector, t nutrients 2611. Cotton fertilizer requirements by region and sector, t nutrients 2712. Tobacco fertilizer requirements by region and sector, t nutrients 2813. Sugar cane fertilizer requirements by region and sector, t nutrients 2914. Proportion of fertilizer value in household cash income 35

A fertilizer strategy for Zimbabwe vii

GLOSSARY

ACFD - African Centre for Fertilizer Development

AEZ - Agro-Ecological Zones

AFC - Agricultural Finance Corporation

AGRITEX - Agricultural Technical and Extension Services

ASIP - Agricultural Sector Investment Programme

CFC - Crop Fertilizer Consumption

DRC - Domestic Resource Cost

DRSS - Department of Research and Specialist Services

FN - Fertilizer Nutrient Application

GMB - Grains Marketing Board

IPNS - Integrated Plant Nutrition Systems

LSC - Large-scale Commercial Sector

MOA - Ministry of Agriculture

NEPC - National Economic Planning Commission

NGO - Non-governmental Organization

NR - Natural Region

SH - Smallholder Sector

SISP - Smallholder Irrigation Support Programme

SSP - Single Superphosphate

TCA - Total Crop Area

TFC - Total Fertilizer Consumption

ZAPF - Zimbabwe Agricultural Policy Framework

ZIMACE - Zimbabwe Agricultural Commodity Exchange

viii

A fertilizer strategy for Zimbabwe 1

Chapter 1Introduction

Fertilizer use derives from the demand for agricultural commodities. In Zimbabwe, populationgrowth and rising per caput incomes will require more intensive crop production. The fooddemand projections made use population and income growth projections from the NationalEconomic Planning Commission for the periods 1995-2007 and 2007-2020 and FAO estimatesfor the income elasticity of the demand for food. The demand for food augmented by the demandfor industrial raw material, feed, seed, and losses provide the estimated final demand foragricultural commodities. The estimates indicate that 90 percent of the increase in cereal demandwill be due to population growth and the remainder primarily to income growth.

On the supply side, future commodity imports and exports have been constrained byimposing limits whereby imports and exports will not exceed historic levels. The final demandand the commodity trade balance provide commodity production projections for 2020.

Analysis of land suitability for crop production in 18 agro-ecological zones in the fiveNatural Regions of Zimbabwe and the irrigated areas provided the basis to assess the feasibilityfor cropped area expansion and yield projections. Yield projections were constrained by imposinga yield growth limit that did not exceed historically observed yield growth. Sensitivity analysis ofthis assumption for maize yields shows that there is sufficient scope for arable land expansion.Adequate land is available in Natural Regions II and III that receives at least 500 mm of rainfallat 70 percent probability to achieve production projections without exceeding imposed yieldgrowth limits.

Higher yields will increase the demand for agricultural inputs. Furthermore, future croppingpatterns will reflect changes in diets as income increases. Greater opportunities for agriculturaltrade may also lead to changes in crop production. There will probably also be economic andenvironmental incentives to improve the efficiency of fertilizer use, especially for internationallytraded commodities. The overall goal of this study is to examine, with a view to developing afertilizer strategy, the cumulative effect that these forces may have on fertilizer use in Zimbabwe.

A specific objective of this study is to provide an estimate of the amount of fertilizerneeded to support the projections of agricultural commodity production for 2020. This studyprojects the major crop area, yield and fertilizer use to 2020. It also examines the conditions inwhich farmers, particularly smallholders, may adopt and expand fertilizer use.

Though cropland and yields largely determine crop supply, crop prices and agriculturalpolicies can accelerate or retard changes in acreage. For Zimbabwe, cropland expansion isfeasible. Converting rainfed cropland to irrigated land or multiple cropping can increase yields, ascan the improved use and management of agricultural inputs. In the longer run, investment inresearch may influence yield growth. Thus, increases in future crop production will result fromboth higher yields and expansion in land use.

Chapter 2 provides an overview of recent developments in the Zimbabwe’s economy andtheir impact on the agriculture sector. Chapter 3 breaks down the territory into agro-ecologicalzones and assesses land suitability and nutrient status. Chapter 4 analyses the present andprojected production of major crops in terms of the large-scale commercial and smallholderfarming sectors. Chapter 5 examines present and projected yields and fertilizer demand, overall

2 Introduction

and by crop, while Chapter 6 considers fertilizer supply. Given the importance of smallholderfarming to the development of Zimbabwe’s agriculture and economy, Chapter 7 examines indetail the factors affecting this sector’s crop production and fertilizer use. Chapter 8 presents areview of institutional aspects pertinent to enhancing fertilizer use and agricultural production.Finally, Chapter 9 presents the overall conclusions and makes recommendations concerning thedevelopment of a fertilizer strategy for Zimbabwe.


Chapter 2The macro-economic setting and

agriculture policy

THE MACRO-ECONOMY

The National Economic Planning Commission (NEPC) expects Zimbabwe’s population toincrease from 11.5 million in 1995 to 21.4 million by 2020.

In Zimbabwe, 62 percent of households are defined as poor (unable to buy a basket ofbasic food and non-food needs) or very poor (unable to buy even the basket of food needs). Therural areas contain the highest concentrations of poverty.

Though per caput income, in constant 1990 prices, has averaged Z$2 000 for the pastdecade, the NEPC projects annual income increases of 1.1 percent for the period 1995-2007 and3.8 percent for the period 2007-2020.

The main economic activities are public and private services (with 62 percent of GDP),manufacturing (19 percent), agriculture (15 percent) and mining (4 percent).

The exchange rate declined from US$1 = Z$9.31 in 1995 to US$1 = Z$36 at the end of1998. Though this devaluation has favoured exports, the trade balance and balance of paymentshave worsened.

With inflation at an estimated 31.5 percent in 1998, the Government increased the price ofseveral basic services and products, such as electricity and fuel. It has also adopted measures toreduce money supply growth and liquidity. However, these measures could slow growth. Inflationis detrimental to various aspects of agricultural activities, such as credit costs, input prices, andinventory costs for manufacturers/dealers, such as in the fertilizer industry.

Public expenditure accounted for 35 percent of GDP in 1997. The budget deficit droppedfrom 9.4 percent of GDP in 1995/96 to 6.5 percent in 1996/97, still above the figure of 5 percentset for fiscal year 1994/95. For 1997/98, the target was 7.6 percent.

Since 1991, the economy has been adjusting to deregulation and market liberalization. Thelatest phase of this wide ranging reform process targets average annual GDP and per caputconsumption growth rates of 6 and 3-4 percent respectively.

The reform programme has established a more favourable context for economic growth,and producer prices for most agricultural crops have increased in real terms during the 1990s.

However, the introduction of these economic reforms in 1991/92 coincided with the onsetof the most severe drought of the century, and GDP per caput fell from 1991 to 1995 in realterms, before picking up again in 1997.

The Government adopted assistance measures, including distributions of seeds andfertilizers to smallholders at subsidized prices. Though abandoned gradually, these measuresweighed heavily on budget expenditure and ran counter to the market liberalization process.

4 The macro-economic setting and agriculture policy

AGRICULTURE POLICY

The basic policy aim is to promote and sustain a viable agriculture sector. This entails developingand managing resources through the provision of appropriate technical, administrative andadvisory services. In this way the agriculture sector can optimize productivity and contribute tothe equitable and sustainable social and economic development of Zimbabwe.

Based on the assumption of good agricultural seasons with a possibility of at least one droughtseason every four years, projections indicate the gross output of the sector growing at an annualaverage rate of 5 percent. Thus, the sector will contribute over 21 percent to GDP in the short tomedium term as the economy undergoes structural transformation. This level of output will enableexport earnings to increase the current growth rate of 7 percent per year. The sector will remain one ofthe largest employers of labour.

In 1996, the government launched the Zimbabwe Agricultural Policy Framework, 1995-2020(ZAPF), which subjects the agriculture sector to the principles of financial and economicviability. A stable macro-economic environment and public sector-financed supportinginfrastructure are to facilitate private sector investment and so achieve growth in agriculturaloutput. The ZAPF recognizes that incomes generated in the smallholder sector and related rural-basedindustry are important for eradicating poverty, hunger, malnutrition and underemployment. Its mainaims are:

• commercialization of smallholder agriculture;• a long-term increase in agricultural output which exceeds population growth;• a cost effective expansion of infrastructure to cover all rural areas; and• the reversal of environmental degradation through the adoption of sustainable farming systems.

More specifically, the objectives pertinent to fertilizer use are:

• to support pricing and marketing policies which promote diversification into new varieties of cropsand breeds of livestock;

• to expand and diversify exports of agricultural products by making the sector more pricecompetitive and export oriented;

• to expand irrigation facilities with emphasis on high value crops;

• to establish secure tenure in the smallholder farming areas particularly in the communal andresettlement areas;

• to ensure environmental impact assessment of all water development projects;

• to promote mechanization in the smallholder farming sector;

• to encourage private sector participation in the distribution of inputs to the smallholder farmers;and

• to make inputs readily accessible and affordable to the smallholder farmers in order to increaseutilization of improved inputs.

One precise target is the doubling of grain yields in the smallholder sector; another is toincrease its irrigated area from 10 000 to 50 000 ha. The ZAPF also stresses the importance ofaccess to credit facilities, highlighting the need:

• to ensure that adequate credit facilities are available for input supply;

• to provide financial support to smallholders; and

• to encourage private sector investment in the rural areas, to complement government efforts.


The smallholder sector lies at the heart of future agricultural developments and input supplyis a basic determinant of future prospects.

Specific objectives on fertilizer supply highlight the fertilizer industry’s need:

• to revamp plants in order to increase production, cut costs and be competitive with imports;

• to expand and service the smallholder sector more effectively;

• to break the monopolistic structure and facilitate other decentralized players; and

• to diversify fertilizer formulation in order to meet the needs of a diverse market.

In order to achieve the planned increase in agricultural production, government, the private sectorand other stakeholders need to invest in agricultural infrastructure. Indeed, the main objective of theAgricultural Sector Investment Programme (ASIP) is to enable the achievement of the policy goals inthe effective utilization of national resources. The ASIP targets are:

• smallholder irrigation development;

• the upgrading the level of agricultural education and the training facilities to cater for specializedaspects of agriculture;

• investment in input supply, marketing and distribution facilities; and

• investment in programmes that support and strengthen agricultural research and extensionservices.

6 The macro-economic setting and agriculture policy


Chapter 3 Natural regions and agro-ecological zones

CLIMATE

Based on rainfall, Zimbabwe divides into five natural regions (NRs):

Natural region Annual rainfall (mm)I > 1 000II 750-1 000III 650-800IV 450-650V < 650

Table 1 further subdivides these natural regions into 18 agro-ecological zones (AEZs) byincluding information on soils and detailed information on the probability of rainfall exceeding500 mm (see map 1of the natural regions of Zimbabwe, page 96).

Temperatures closely relate to altitude with the mean annual temperature ranging from25°C in the Zambezi Valley to below 15°C in the Eastern Highlands. Mean temperatures arehighest in summer just before the onset of the rains (October-November), except in the EasternHighlands where the highest temperatures are in mid-summer.

LAND SUITABILITY

The figures in this section do not take into account fallow land and land used for pasture or anyform of livestock production. Approximately 2.7 million ha are under cultivation. In NRs I, IIand III 16-19 percent of the arable land is under cultivation, in NRs IV and V the figures are 12and 9 percent, respectively. Thus, expansion of cropped land should be feasible in NRs I, II andIII even at the present level of crop production technology.

This study considers as arable land all designated agricultural land, minus land forinfrastructure and land unsuitable for cultivation (Table 2). This definition gives a figure forarable land of 19 million ha. NRs IV and V contain 60 percent of all arable land (11.4 millionha).

All arable land is assumed suitable for rainfed maize production if there is a probability of70 percent or more that rainfall is at least 500 mm in the period October-April. Table 1 showsthat all areas of NRs I, II and III reach this value, while most areas of NRs IV and V are belowthis value. Thus, approximately 8.5 million ha are suitable for rainfed maize production(Table 3). Most of this suitable land is in the large-scale commercial farming sector of NR II(2.4 million ha) and in the smallholder sector of NR III (2.5 million ha).

As nearly 60 percent of all cultivated land is currently under rainfed maize, the landsuitability for maize can serve as an overall indication of land suitability for rainfed cropping.Although areas considered unsuitable for maize (NRs IV and V) could increase growing droughtresistant crops, they will be of limited significance in terms of total national crop production.

8 Natural regions and agro-economic zones




Activities in NRs I, II, and III consist mainly of crop production and livestock enterprises. NRs IVand V are home to more than two-thirds of the country's population. The major crops in these tworegions are maize, millet, sorghum, rapoko, groundnuts, sunflower, and cotton.

NUTRIENT BALANCE

Virgin soils in Zimbabwe are infertile with low levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur,though under natural vegetation most have a good topsoil structure and surface cover of growingvegetation and litter. Conventional tillage practices (mould-board or disk plough) lead to soilstructure deterioration, loss of nutrients and erosion.

Commercial farmers usually try to maintain or improve nutrient levels through theapplication of fertilizer and may incorporate some of the crop residues into the soil. Traditionalfarmers may apply manure or small amounts of fertilizer, or may harvest so little that cropproduce removal hardly affects nutrient levels. Although conservation tillage and other improvedfarming practices can help restore the organic matter content and topsoil structure, soil lossthrough erosion is basically an irreversible process.

Over the past 30 years, cultivated land in Africa has lost an average of 660 kg N/ha, 75 kgP/ha and 450 kg K/ha. This contrasts with average net positive nutrient balances for temperatezones of about 2 000 kg N/ha, 700 kg P/ha and 1 000 kg K/ha for the same period. Zimbabwe isno exception to the nutrient depletion trend. The soils are characterized by low cation exchangecapacity and high acidity. Available soil N on cultivated land is usually < 30 ppm (45 kg/ha).

In the smallholder sector, continuous nutrient mining with little or no mineral or organicfertilizer application and the disappearance of shifting cultivation with its long periods of fallowhas exacerbated soil fertility decline. Most soils cropped in this sector have low organic mattercontent with ranges of 0.3-0.5 percent compared to 1.0-1.2 percent in virgin soils. The large-scalecommercial sector practises better soil fertility management and applies relatively large amountsof fertilizers.



Chapter 4 The agriculture sector

ROLE IN THE ECONOMY

Zimbabwe has a total land area of over 39.5 million ha, of which 33.3 million ha are for agriculturalpurposes, with the remainder reserved for national parks, wildlife and urban settlements. Theagriculture sector accounts for 15 percent of GDP and plays a major role in the economy ofZimbabwe. About 70 percent of the population live in rural areas, and the agriculture industryemploys about a third of the total workforce. An estimated 60 percent of all raw materials for themanufacturing industry come from agriculture. Agriculture is the single largest earner of foreignexchange (more than 40 percent of total exports), with tobacco contributing about 30 percent oftotal exports.

From 1980 to 1994, agricultural output grew at about 1.4 percent per year, below the annualpopulation growth rate of about 3 percent for the same period. The economy grew by an average of3.7 percent per year from 1980 to 1990, compared to 2.2 percent per year for agriculture. With therecord drought of 1991/92, agricultural output fell by 5 and 18 percent in 1991 and 1992, respectively,before recovering in 1993 and in 1994. The rest of the economy contracted by 5 percent in 1993 andgrew by over 8 percent in 1994, an indication of the dependence of the general economy ondevelopments in the agriculture sector.

The agricultural economy is dual in structure with both commercial farming and subsistenceoriented smallholder activities. The country is continuing its land redistribution programme, and in1997 commercial farms occupied about 12 million ha, communal farmers 16 million ha, resettlementfarmers 3.6 million ha, small-scale commercial farmers 1.4 million ha and state farms 0.1 million ha.By virtue of their low productivity, the communal, resettlement and small-scale commercial farmers allform the group of smallholder farmers.

There are 4 835 large-scale commercial farmers planting 475 000 ha of crops and1.2 million smallholders planting some 2.2 million ha.

Between 1983 and 1993, crop production value in the smallholder sector increased twice asfast as that in the commercial sector, and its contribution to total agricultural output increasedfrom 18.2 to 31.2 percent.

Three crops contributed about 72 percent to the value of smallholder crop production in theperiod 1982-1993, namely maize (45.7 percent), cotton (18.8 percent) and groundnuts(7.5 percent). This highlights the need for diversification into high value crops by thesmallholders, provided they have suitable land and ready access to other resources. Thecommercial sector is highly diversified with tobacco (46.2 percent of crop production value in1993), cereals (28.8 percent), industrial crops (14.8 percent), vegetable and garden crops(4.4 percent), seed crops (4 percent) and fruits (1.7 percent). Although the value of horticulturalcrops is small in relative terms, it increased about ninefold in value between 1983 and 1993. Asubstantial amount of the horticultural crops sold by the commercial sector comes fromsmallholder outgrower schemes.

14 The agriculture sector

From 1981 to 1990, gross capital formation for agriculture and forestry averaged 9.8 percent ofannual national capital formation. Since 1991, there has been considerable investment in horticulture,tobacco curing barns and related facilities. However, most of this investment has been in thecommercial sector and the situation in the smallholder sector remains unsatisfactory.

Although the allocation of government recurrent expenditure has increased marginally in nominalterms, there has been a marked reduction in real terms. Therefore, public sector investment inagriculture has been lower than necessary to meet the needs of developing a largely agricultural basedeconomy.

The deteriorating budgetary allocations have constrained the work of technical departmentsservicing the agriculture sector.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

Zimbabwean agriculture is highly diversified, with a balanced distribution between staple andcash crops for export.

Maize is the main staple for the majority of Zimbabweans. All five NRs cultivate this crop,with NRs II and III accounting for about 84 percent of total maize production. Though NR IVhas the largest area under maize, its yields are lower than those in NRs II and III. In terms ofcrop area for domestic consumption, maize ranks first ahead of groundnuts, beans, sorghum,wheat, sunflowers and barley. The major cash crop is tobacco, followed by cotton, soybeans,sugar cane, tea and coffee.

To provide a fair appreciation of production trends, this study considers the large-scalecommercial and the smallholder farming sectors separately. The smallholder sector figures are amean value of the small-scale commercial sector (with title deeds to the land) and the communaland resettlement farming sectors (these two holding no title deeds to the land). Changes in cropyields and areas cultivated between 1995 and 2020 by farming sector and natural region arepresented in Table 4.

Maize

Between 1995 and 2020, the area under maize in the large-scale commercial farming sector isexpected to contract by an average of 1.0 percent per year as farmers move into more lucrativecrops. On the other hand, the yield per hectare should increase by at least 1.0 percent per year,mainly because of improved management and fertilizer use efficiency. The net decrease by 2020in this sector’s total maize production should be negligible.

The contribution of the smallholder sector to maize production increased from about40 percent in 1980 to 71.4 percent in 1988, but fell to about 32 percent in the 1991/92 drought.The increase in smallholder maize production is mainly due to substantial increases in croppedarea although yield has also increased. However, yields are less than one-third of those in thecommercial sector, even in good years.

With the expected population increase, the demand for maize will also increase to about4.5 million t by 2020. Zimbabwe produced about 1.7 million t of maize in 1995. Given the staticproduction level of the large-scale commercial sector, either smallholder production or importswill have to increase. An expected expansion in area of up to 4.2 percent per year should bringanother 2.5 million ha into maize production in the smallholder sector by 2020. Approximatelytwo-thirds of the production growth will originate from area expansion, the remainder fromhigher yields.



The rainfall probability for a minimum precipitation of 500 mm per year was calculated; 500 mmis considered the minimum to raise a short duration maize crop. The probability to receive thisminimum rainfall varies between over 90% in region I to 70% in region III. The probabilitiesdecrease to below 50% in regions IV and V. Regions IV and V consequently do not qualify formaize production expansion at current level of production technology. Production projectionswere allocated over agro-ecological regions I, II and III where rainfall probability exceeds 500mm, a prerequisite for economic fertilizer use.

If assisted by strengthened research and support institutions, the smallholder sector mightincrease the average national yield by at least 1.0 percent per year from 0.72 t/ha in 1995 to 0.92t/ha in 2020.

Irrigated maize in the smallholder sector currently constitutes approximately 0.1 percent ofthe total area under maize and 0.3 percent of total maize production. The projected expansion ofirrigated maize in the sector requires a corresponding expansion in targeted irrigationdevelopment. The smallholder sector accounts for only about 6 percent of all irrigated land.

With the expected increases in land area under maize (in the smallholder sector) and yields(in both sectors), the country may export about 400 000 t of maize by 2020.

Assuming present yields and all suitable land under maize cultivation, the large-scalecommercial farmers could potentially produce 18 million t and the smallholders 5 million t. NR IIhas the highest production potential, 12 million t in the large-scale commercial sector and2 million t in the smallholder sector.

In four of the last 16 years Zimbabwe has exported a maize surplus.

Wheat

Wheat is mainly a large-scale commercial farming operation. The average yield in the smallholdersector is currently 26 percent lower than that of the large-scale commercial sector, mainlybecause of economies of scale in the use of inputs and in management. Yield levels vary acrossthe NRs, with the lowest for both sectors being in NR I.

The current production level of about 190 000 t satisfies two-thirds of total demand. Importsof wheat amount to Z$700 million annually. Increased yields through improved crop managementpractices and some expansion in land area can raise production. With an area expansion of3.3 percent per year, the area available for wheat production in the large-scale commercial sectorshould increase from 35 000 to 78 000 ha. However, due to the high capital costs of irrigationinfrastructure, farmers are switching to more attractive crops. Even with an envisaged annual growthrate of 5.3 percent, the total area under wheat in the smallholder sector will remain small withoutan accelerated development of irrigated facilities.

With a projected annual yield growth of 2.8 percent in both sectors, total wheat productionshould increase to about 842 000 t by 2020, leaving a 23 percent shortfall requiring imports of248 000 t.

Cotton

Zimbabwe cultivates cotton for its lint. After delinting, the oil pressed from the seed is a valuableby-product. The cotton industry employs more than half a million people. NRs II, III and IVproduce 92 percent of this drought tolerant crop. Cotton is Zimbabwe’s second largestagricultural foreign exchange earner. The smallholder sector produces the bulk of this crop. Since1991, cotton production in Zimbabwe has fallen as farmers have reduced the area planted to thecrop. The high labour requirements and the increased labour bill in relation to the returns per


hectare will precipitate a further decline in area, estimated at 7 and 5 percent per year in thelarge-scale and smallholder sectors, respectively. On the other hand, improved management andavailability of better varieties on the market should enable annual yield growth of 0.5 percent inthe large-scale commercial sector and 1.9 percent in the smallholder sector. The net outcomeshould be a 64 percent fall in production from 159 000 t in 1995 to 56 000 t in 2020.

Tobacco

NR II produces over 95 percent of the tobacco crop. As 99 percent of the tobacco produced goesfor export, the availability of suitable markets is a key motivating factor in production. In 1995,176 000 ha were under this crop.

Tobacco production is both labour and capital intensive. As the labour bill increases, thelarge-scale commercial sector will probably reduce the area planted to this crop. However, thearea in the smallholder sector should increase by 2.6 percent per year, so doubling the currentland under the crop by 2020. The growth in total land area under tobacco in this sector will bedue mainly to an increase in the number of farmers producing the crop.

The tobacco industry is self-sustaining and well supported by its own research and serviceinstitutions. Well-established training institutions ensure continuous capacity building for bothlarge-scale commercial and smallholder farmers. With continuous improvement in managementtechniques and varietal development, tobacco yields in the smallholder sector should grow at0.1 percent per year.

Sugar cane

NR V accounts for 99.8 percent of total sugar cane production. The majority of producers arelarge-scale commercial farmers who depend on irrigation for production. Smallholder productionis negligible. Domestic sugar cane production has grown about 5 percent per year in recent years,partly due to the price controls applied in the recent past. Production should grow from 3.2 million tin 1995 to 4.3 million t in 2020.

Irrigated agriculture

The following table presents a breakdown of the area under irrigation in Zimbabwe in 1998.

Sector ha

Smallholder schemes 10 000Large-scale commercial 130 000Agricultural and Rural Development Authority 15 000Total 155 000

The greatest potential in irrigation development may well lie in the large-scale commercialareas located in the rich river systems and catchment areas. By contrast, most soils in thesmallholder sector have limited irrigation potential.

Irrigated crop production in Zimbabwe now accounts for almost half of the total value of allcrops marketed. In the 1995/96 season, crops grown under full or supplementary irrigationcontributed over 70 percent to the total production of the large-scale farming sector. Theproduction of a number of important crops is reliant on irrigation. These crops include sugarcane, wheat, tobacco, cotton, soybeans, groundnuts and, more recently, horticultural crops.

Smallholder irrigators produce a variety of crops, ranging from field crops such as maize, cotton,beans and wheat, to higher value crops (green maize, tomatoes, rape, okra, paprika, onions, squashesand baby corn). Double cropping brings the total annual irrigated area to some 17 000 ha for thesmallholder sector.


A more efficient use of water in existing schemes and the development of present or newresources could double the area under irrigation.

Assuming a maximum area under irrigation of 300 000 ha and double cropping of maizewith a total annual yield of 15 t/ha, irrigated maize production could rise to 4.5 million t. This isnearly 20 percent of the maize production theoretically achievable using all suitable land in thecountry for rainfed cropping.

Though irrigation development may initially target providing water for food production inthe smallholder sector, the need to generate income to improve living standards will seesmallholders also irrigating high value field crops such as tobacco. Therefore, the area underirrigated tobacco should expand by up to about 29 percent per year.

The Smallholder Irrigation Support Programme (SISP) envisages the further expansion ofirrigation, with increased income from irrigated crops improving the living standards of farmers inotherwise dry areas.

MARKETING

The reform programme has led to the deregulation of the agriculture markets. However, becauseof the traditional features of the Zimbabwean economy and the limited size of each commoditymarket, there are not enough buyers to ensure strong competition. For most commodities, barringstaple crops, oligopolies are the norm.

Maize marketing was deregulated during 1993-95. The Grains Marketing Board (GMB) isthe only public marketing board left with marketing prerogatives, as a residual buyer of maize.The GMB controls exports and imports of maize. In good years, Zimbabwe is usually self-sufficient in maize, but it imports some quantities in drought years. Farmers can sell maizedirectly to the GMB or to private traders or local millers. Since deregulation, producer priceshave tended to improve in nominal value but have been falling in real terms. In 1997/98, theGMB established a floor price to producers of Z$2 400/t and bought 1.6 million t (includingquantities for the strategic grains reserve) on the market. Given the retail price set by theGovernment, the GMB could not sell above its cost price; GMB losses were Z$183 million forthe 1996/97 marketing season. In view of the price situation, private buyers had to withdrawfrom the market. Nonetheless, there are enough buyers to ensure competition.

Though deregulated in 1994, the wheat market has seen demand continue to outstrip localproduction. Zimbabwe blends local varieties of wheat with imported ones. Import (and export)operations require permits. An advisory council provides marketing recommendations, and hasbeen instrumental in establishing new product specifications.

Cotton production has traditionally been integrated with the processing industry, whichsupplies inputs to farmers and crop pre-financing. With the privatization process sine 1994 andthe entry of new buyers, this practice might change. Prices have strengthened recently. With thesmallholder sector accounting for more than 50 percent of cotton production, marketingdevelopments should generate widespread benefits.

Because of the predominance of cotton/soybean oil, local market prices for sunflower arelow. However, volumes of sunflower are too small for export. Substantial trading in grains andoilseeds takes place at the Zimbabwe Agricultural Commodity Exchange (ZIMACE). Localenterprises process the bulk of the oilseeds. Zimbabwe is almost self-sufficient in soybeans andseveral buyers are active in the market. The same holds for groundnuts. An oilseeds advisorycouncil, comprising manufacturers, dealers and producers, makes recommendations togovernment. Though producer prices at the ZIMACE generally reflect market values, it is not


readily accessible to smallholder farmers. Input suppliers and traders now recognize the potentialof the smallholder sector and are developing ways to improve matters.

All tobacco is sold at local auctions on the free market; it is then processed internally beforeexport. The market has experienced price fluctuations recently, reflecting world trade trends. TheTobacco Industry Marketing Board monitors exports in order to ensure orderly trade patterns. Italso regulates quality aspects, but does not interfere in the market.

The sugar market is almost totally export oriented. Exports have fluctuated in recent years.

For all other crops, the domestic and export markets are totally free and under no specialregulatory mechanisms.

TRENDS

The rate of population growth, the changing distribution of incomes, changes in consumer tastesand the international competitiveness of local industries that depend on agricultural raw materialswill determine the demand for food and agricultural raw materials. Though Zimbabwe'spopulation growth should slow to about 2.1 percent over the next 20 years, urban populationgrowth could remain closer to the current rate of about 4.5 percent. This continued populationshift could change consumption patterns with greater emphasis on convenience foods. The urbanpopulation enjoys higher incomes. Thus, the demand for goods with a higher income elasticity ofdemand such as meat, dairy, oilseed and horticultural products should rise much faster than thedemand for food grain products, particularly the staple grains.

While remaining the preferred staple food, the aggregate demand for maize is expected to lagbehind the rate of population growth. The current per caput consumption of maize of about 118 kg perperson should rise to 149 kg by 2020. This is because of the low-income elasticity of demand for maizeand maize-based products (0.1) and the need to raise the current low levels of caloric intake. Fooddemand projections envisage an increase in the per caput caloric daily food intake of 20 percentby the end of 2007.

Increasing numbers of smaller mills are now carrying out hammer and small-scale millingoperations obtaining extraction rates of about 98 percent as against 75 percent in the large-scaleindustrial mills. This efficiency gain should lead to an overall slow growth in the consumption ofmaize-based products in the next 20 years.

Per caput consumption of wheat should rise from the current 26 to 48 kg by 2020. Given thatZimbabwe can grow wheat as a winter crop, there is scope for import substitution if producers canproduce at below import parity level. Prospects for exports to neighbouring countries are alsopromising. Prospects for increased production of red sorghum and barley are also good because ofbreweries’ steadily growing demand for them.

Sugar consumption should continue to grow before levelling off at 26 kg per caput by 2020.Textile firms have made significant investments in recent years and the steady increase in demand forcotton lint should continue.

Final demand projections for agricultural commodities in 2007 and 2020 are presented in Table 5.The projections are based on population and income projections of the National Economic PlanningCommission. The supply utilization account provides an indication for the required future agriculturalproduction.

COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE AND EXPORT PROSPECTS

Domestic resource cost (DRC) is a standard way of measuring national profitability in thecontext of import substitution or export gain. This is the ratio of domestic factor costs to value



added, both measured at national opportunity cost. The lower the DRC, then the lower is thedomestic cost of earning or saving a unit of foreign exchange, and the greater is the comparativeadvantage that activity or crop enjoys under that farming system.

With the exception of millet, sorghum, and sunflower, all Zimbabwe’s major crops enjoy DRCsaround or below 0.67 (Table 6). This implies that all these crops enjoy a strong comparative advantageunder the different farming systems.

TABLE 6Indicators of comparative advantage for Zimbabwe

Crop Farming Type DRC

Maize Smallholder Low Intensity

Smallholder High Intensity

Large Commercial Farms

0.52

0.53

0.63

Cotton Smallholder High Intensity


0.72

0.43

Wheat Large Commercial Farms 0.65

Groundnuts Smallholder Low Intensity

Smallholder High Intensity


0.52

0.89

0.42

Sorghum Smallholder Low Intensity 2.63

Millet Smallholder Low Intensity 1.20

Soybeans Large Commercial Farms 0.48

Sunflower Smallholder Low Intensity 1.06

DRC = Domestic Resource CostSource: W.A. Masters. Government and Agriculture in Zimbabwe, 1995.

Zimbabwe exports a wide range of agricultural products, the most important being tobacco,cotton and sugar. Exports of vegetables, fruits and flowers have increased rapidly over the pastten years. In addition, coffee, maize (in good years), meat, barley, dairy products, animal feedsand teas are important foreign exchange earners.

Zimbabwe has made important long-term investments in orchards, packinghouses, andtransport infrastructure in recent years. Exports of citrus fruits have shown strong growth despitea price fall in 1998/99. Zimbabwe’s new orchards should be well placed to take advantage of theexpanding world orange market. Zimbabwe has made inroads into the EU and other Europeanmarkets for cut flowers, vegetables, and fruits. With the devaluation of the Zimbabwean dollar,exports rose sharply in 1998, and this trend should continue, at least until a review of EUarrangements.

Table 7 provides World Bank international price projections for commodities that areimportant to Zimbabwe. The projections for tobacco are not promising. However, prices shouldimprove in real terms for beef, cotton, and sugar. In addition, the fact that domestic inflationaryprice increases less than offset the depreciation of its currency should favour Zimbabweanagricultural exports. Zimbabwe's low production costs and reputation for high quality couldfurther enhance its competitiveness.


TABLE 7International price projections for agricultural export commodities (constant real prices)

Commodity Unit 1998 2005 2010

Tobacco US$/t 3 034.0 2 614.0 2 347.0

Cotton c/kg 144.1 157.6 147.2

Sugar c/kg 18.39 21.71 21.33

Beef c/kg 166.9 177.9 170.4

Maize US$/t 102.4 105.9 98.5

Oranges US$/t 398.2 455.2 430.9

Soybeans US$/t 229.5 251.7 243.2

Soy meal US$/t 161.2 203.5 194.1

Wheat US$/t 121.4 138.2 126.5

Source: World Bank Commodity Price Outlook, November 1998


Chapter 5 Fertilizer demand

In developing a fertilizer strategy, it is important to relate total fertilizer consumed in the countryto its distribution and use within the agricultural system. By world standards, the averagefertilizer application rates in the large-scale commercial sector are already high, with large-scalecommercial farmers applying about six times more fertilizer per hectare than do smallholders.Large-scale commercial farmers purchase about 350 000 t of fertilizer a year; smallholderfarmers about 100 000 t. Total fertilizer demand is projected to grow at 3 percent per year,mainly because of more intensive fertilizer use by smallholder farmers.

Zimbabwe used an amount of fertilizer equivalent to 186 000 t of N, P, K, and S nutrients in1995. Maize, tobacco, wheat, cotton, sugar cane and soybeans account for 80 percent of totalfertilizer consumption in the large-scale commercial sector.

FERTILIZER CONSUMPTION BY CROP

To estimate average fertilizer application in kilograms per hectare for each crop in each sector,the following formula was used:

((CFC percent x TFC)/TCA) x 1 000

where CFC percent = crop fertilizer consumption, i.e. percent fertilizer consumed by a crop; TFC= total fertilizer consumption; TCA = total crop area.

Fertilizer projections were based on the main type of fertilizer used on each crop, the areaand the yield.

After estimating the average current (base year 1995, an average of 1994/95 – 1996/97)fertilizer application rate for each crop in each NR using current area and average yields, theproportion of each type of fertilizer applied to a crop was determined. Calculations of totalamounts of N, P or K contained in the fertilizer application took into account the percentage ofnutrient in each type of fertilizer. The total amount of N, P or K required by each crop in eachNR was then estimated using the formula:

((P/Y) x FN)/1 000

where P = projected volume of production in 2020; Y = projected yield in 2020; FN = fertilizernutrient application rate (N, P and K) required to support projected yields.

The projections indicate an overall requirement of 255 800 t of N, 86 000 t of P and 61 000 t of K for all crops by 2020. The five major fertilizer-consuming crops are estimated toaccount for 256 000 t fertilizer nutrients (Table 8).

24 Fertilizer demand

TABLE 8Crop fertilizer requirements, t nutrients

1994-96 (480,945 t fertilizer) 2020

N P K Total N P K Total

maize 47 128 6 875 6 432 60 435 154 294 15 124 14 148 183 566wheat 7 100 1 534 1 435 10 069 31 458 6 796 6 357 44 611cotton 3 371 674 708 4 753 954 191 200 1 345tobacco 2 001 3 752 6 254 12 007 2 166 4 061 6 769 12 996sugar 7 476 636 2 032 10 144 9 963 848 2 707 13 518total 67 076 13 471 16 860 97 408 198 834 27 020 30 182 256 036other* 19 231 29 332 17 159 65 722 57 007 58 831 30 718 146 555

Total 86 307 42 803 34 019 163 130 255 841 85 851 60 900 402 591

* Coffee, soybeans, horticulture, miscellaneous

Maize

Compound D and ammonium nitrate are the most commonly used fertilizers on maize. Farmersoccasionally use other fertilizers such as single superphosphate and muriate of potash. CompoundZ contains also Zn and is recommended every fourth season. Maize consumes the bulk offertilizer in Zimbabwe accounting for 33 percent of the fertilizer applied in the large-scalecommercial sector and 90 percent of that applied in the smallholder farming sectors. Nationalfertilizer application rates average 639 and 101 kg/ha in the large-scale commercial andsmallholder sectors, respectively. Policies to stimulate fertilizer use can raise the smallholderapplication rate significantly. With the fertilizer use growth rate on maize projected at 1.0 percentper year in the smallholder sector, the national sector average is expected to be 129 kgfertilizer/ha by 2020. Farmers in the large-scale commercial sector already apply optimum ratesand should concentrate on improving fertilizer use efficiency.

On maize, the proportion of compound D to ammonium nitrate is approximately 1:1. NR IIhas the highest application rates with 381 kg/ha each of compound D and of ammonium nitrate.Projections for 2020 indicate that maize production will require 154 294, 15 124 and 14 148 t ofN, P and K, respectively, the bulk of it in NR II (Table 9).

Wheat

The most popular fertilizers for wheat are compound D and ammonium nitrate. Wheat is mainlygrown under irrigated conditions. As the crop is largely grown in the large-scale commercialsector, where there is reliable irrigation infrastructure, fertilizer projections concerned this sector.The fertilizer application rates on wheat are already high and no major upward change isexpected. Rather, fertilizer use efficiency should be the main focus in soil fertility management.Where wheat rotates with soybeans, residual N from the latter benefits the subsequent wheatcrop.

Overall, wheat will require 31 458, 6 796 and 6 357 t of N, P and K by 2020 (Table 10).The bulk is again in NR II.

Cotton

On cotton the most commonly used fertilizers are compound L and ammonium nitrate. Fertilizerapplication rates for rainfed cotton are expected to increase by 0.5 and 1.5 percent per year in thelarge-scale commercial and smallholder sectors, respectively. Smallholders apply


TABLE 9Maize fertilizer requirements by region and sector, t nutrients

Nutrient applicationrate***(kg/ha)

Nutrient requirement (t)Fertilizer productivity/haLSC=5.9 and SH=9.8

(national average1988-97)

Area*(ha)

Yield*(t/ha)

Produc-tion*(t)

Apparentfertilizer

applicationrate**kg/ha

N P K N P K

NRI: 1994-96 LSC 1623 3.9 6381 662 141 21 19 228 33 31SH 32689 0.7 23243 73 15 2 2 506 74 69Tot 34312 29624 734 107 100

2020 LSC 1275 5.0 6363 840 178 26 24 228 33 31SH 91878 0.9 82949 92 20 3 3 1805 263 246Tot 93154 89312 2032 296 277

NRII: 1994-96 LSC 132968 4.5 602099 762 162 24 22 21530 3141 2938SH 313689 1.3 394965 129 27 4 4 8592 1253 1173Tot 446657 997064 30122 4394 4111

2020 LSC 104470 5.7 600656 967 206 30 28 21478 3133 2931SH 881681 1.6 1409561 164 35 5 5 30665 4473 4185Tot 986150 2010217 52143 7607 7116

NRIII: 1994-96 LSC 25684 3.2 82794 542 115 17 16 2961 432 404SH 422869 0.8 358707 87 18 3 3 7804 1138 1065Tot 448554 441502 10764 1570 1469

2020 LSC 20180 4.1 82596 689 146 21 20 2953 431 403SH 1188552 1.1 1280163 110 23 3 3 27850 4063 3801Tot 1208732 1362759 30803 4494 4204

NRIV: 1994-96 LSC 3900 2.6 9998 431 92 13 13 358 52 49SH 501619 0.4 194137 40 8 1 1 4223 616 576Tot 505519 204135 4581 668 625

2020 LSC 3064 3.3 9974 548 116 17 16 357 52 49SH 1409892 0.5 692840 50 11 2 1 15073 2199 2057Tot 1412957 702815 15429 2251 2106

NRV: 1994-96 LSC 222 2.0 444 337 72 10 10 16 2 2SH 130406 0.3 36026 28 6 1 1 784 114 107Tot 130627 36470 800 117 109

2020 LSC 174 2.5 443 428 91 13 12 16 2 2SH 366529 0.4 128572 36 8 1 1 2797 408 382Tot 366703 129014 2813 410 384

Total: 1994-96 LSC 164397 4.3 701716 718 153 22 21 25092 3660 3424SH 1402903 0.7 1012922 74 16 2 2 22036 3215 3007tot 1567300 1714639 47128 6875 6432

2020 LSC 129163 5.4 700031 912 194 28 26 25032 3652 3416SH 3943117 0.9 3614939 94 33 3 3 129262 11473 10732tot 4072280 4314970 154294 15124 14148

* Table 4

** Fertilizer application rates are based on yield elasticity and historic national fertilizer productivity by sector; i.e. fertilizeruse efficiency improvements are excluded

*** Compound D and Ammonium Nitrate in the proportion 1:1 and converted into N:P:KSource: Central Statistical Office (CSO), 1996, 1997 & 1998. Agriculture and Livestock Survey in Communal Lands;Agricultural Production on small-scale commercial farms; Crop Production on large-scale commercial farms (for area - ha,yield - t/ha and production - (t)).


TABLE 10Wheat fertilizer requirements by region and sector, t nutrients


Nutrient requirement (t)Fertilizer productivity/haLSC=4.8 (national

average1988-97)

Area*(ha)

Yield*(t/ha)

Produc-tion*(t)

Apparentfertilizer


N P K N P K

NRI: 1994-96 LSC 107 3.8 402 793 142 31 29 15 3 3SH 8 0.5 4 109Tot 115 407 15 3 3

2020 LSC 238 7.5 1,783 1575 283 61 57 67 15 14SH 30 1.0 31 217Tot 268 1,814 67 15 14

NRII: 1994-96 LSC 26,649 5.7 151,207 1193 214 46 43 5703 1232 1153SH 84 3.3 278 697Tot 26,733 151,485 5703 1232 1153

2020 LSC 59,452 11.3 669,935 2369 425 92 86 25269 5459 5107SH 301 6.6 1,980 1382Tot 59,753 671,915 25269 5459 5107

NRIII: 1994-96 LSC 1,654 5.4 8,899 1132 203 44 41 336 73 68SH 6 0.9 6 199Tot 1,660 8,905 336 73 68

2020 LSC 3,689 10.7 39,429 2247 403 87 81 1487 321 301SH 23 1.9 43 396Tot 3,712 39,472 1487 321 301

NRIV: 1994-96 LSC 613 4.8 2,935 1007 181 39 37 111 24 22SH 24 1.3 30 270Tot 636 2,966 111 24 22

2020 LSC 1,367 9.5 13,005 2001 359 78 73 491 106 99SH 86 2.5 218 535Tot 1,452 13,223 491 106 99

NRV: 1994-96 LSC 5,901 4.2 24,797 884 158 34 32 935 202 189SH 134 5.8 775 1216Tot 6,035 25,571 935 202 189

2020 LSC 13,165 8.3 109,864 1755 315 68 64 4144 895 837SH 484 11.5 5,561 2414Tot 13,649 115,425 4144 895 837

Total: 1994-96 LSC 34,923 5.4 188,240 1133 203 44 41 7100 1534 1435SH 256 4.3 1,094 897Tot 35,179 189,334 7100 1534 1435

2020 LSC 77,911 10.7 834,016 2251 404 87 82 31458 6796 6357SH 924 8.5 7,833 1782Tot 78,835 841,849 31458 6796 6357

* Table 4** Fertilizer application rates are based on yield elasticity and historic national fertilizer productivity by sector; I.e. fertilizer use

efficiency improvements are excluded*** Compound D and Ammonium Nitrate in the proportion 5:3 and converted into N:P:K

Source: Central Statistical Office (CSO), 1996, 1997 & 1998. Agriculture and Livestock Survey in Communal Lands;Agricultural Production on small-scale commercial farms; Crop Production on large-scale commercial farms (for area - ha,yield - t/ha and production - (t)).


8 percent of their fertilizer on cotton. Changes in smallholder fertilizer rates for irrigated cottoncan be up to 3 percent per year.

The ratio of compound L to ammonium nitrate on cotton is approximately 1:1. The amountsof fertilizer applied to cotton are not as high as those for maize or tobacco. Because of theprojected decline in area under cotton, the volume of production will also drop, and with it theamount of fertilizer required. If in 1995 the country required 3 371 t of N, 674 t of P and 708 t ofK, these figures should fall to 954, 191 and 200 t of N, P and K by 2020 (Table 11).

Tobacco

Several types of fertilizers are used, including compounds A, B and C. The P and K content inthe three fertilizers is the same. Compound V with the same NPK content as compound B, butwith a different level of sulphur, is also used. Here, fertilizer (NPK) estimations are based on thenutrient content of compounds B and V. Current national application rates in the large-scalecommercial sector average 764 kg/ha. Smallholders apply 1 percent of their fertilizer on tobacco.In the smallholder sector, projected annual increases of 0.5 percent (for dryland) and 1.0 percent(for irrigated tobacco) would see the national averages rise from 254 to 286 kg/ha (dryland) and322 kg/ha (irrigated) by 2020. The projected national average yield is envisaged to grow from1.10 to 1.24 t/ha.

By 2020, tobacco will require 2 166, 4 061 and 6 769 t of N, P and K, respectively, mainlyfor use in NR II (Table 12).

Sugar cane

The main fertilizers for sugar cane are ammonium nitrate (which accounts for 65 percent of thefertilizers used on the crop), single superphosphate (SSP) (20 percent), muriate of potash(9 percent), compounds D (4 percent) and M (2 percent). Consequently, fertilizer requirementprojections considered these five in a ratio of 65:20:9:4:2.

Fertilizer application rates in NR V are quite high. This is the major region growing irrigatedsugar cane. With the projected increase in production, fertilizer requirements should increasefrom 7 466, 636 and 2 032 t N, P and K in 1995 to 9 963, 848 and 2 707 t, respectively by 2020(Table 13).

PROFITABILITY

The assumption is that if farmers find fertilizer use profitable, then they will continue with it.Two factors determine profitability: producer price and input cost.

Thus, other things being equal, the cost of fertilizer in the production of maize, cotton ortobacco will determine their profitability.

Analysis indicates that while it is profitable to use fertilizer on maize in the commercialsector, the smallholder sector enjoys benefits that are more pronounced. However, theGovernment has intervened several times to help smallholders. In 1992-97, the Crop PacksProgramme supplied, free of charge, most of the fertilizer used by smallholders.

Cotton has been a profitable crop, particularly for smallholders, mainly because of thecompetitive prices received. For the same reason, tobacco provides a good return on fertilizer.There is some degree of profitability on wheat production if farmers produce the crop withoutusing expensive methods such as irrigation.


TABLE 11Cotton fertilizer requirements by region and sector, t nutrients




Area*(ha)

Yield*(t/ha)

Produc-tion*(t)

Apparentfertilizer


N P K N P K

NRI: 1994-96 LSC 125 1.8 219 373 74 15 15 9 2 2SH 1,336 0.3 419 16 3 1 1 4 1 1Tot 1,461 638 13 3 3

2020 LSC 21 2.0 41 420 83 17 17 2 0 0SH 371 0.5 187 26 5 1 1 2 0 0Tot 392 228 4 1 1

NRII: 1994-96 LSC 21,441 1.9 40,635 402 79 16 17 1701 340 357SH 28,627 0.7 20,671 37 7 1 2 207 41 43Tot 50,069 61,306 1908 382 401

2020 LSC 3,568 2.1 7,621 453 89 18 19 319 64 67SH 7,947 1.2 9,229 59 12 2 2 92 18 19Tot 11,514 16,851 411 82 86

NRIII: 1994-96 LSC 3,594 1.4 5,103 301 59 12 12 214 43 45SH 74,545 0.6 41,820 28 6 1 1 419 84 88Tot 78,139 46,923 632 126 133

2020 LSC 598 1.6 957 339 67 13 14 40 8 8SH 20,693 0.9 18,672 46 9 2 2 187 37 39Tot 21,291 19,629 227 45 48

NRIV: 1994-96 LSC 61 3.1 191 666 132 26 28 8 2 2SH 64,602 0.5 34,329 27 5 1 1 344 69 72Tot 64,663 34,520 352 70 74

2020 LSC 10 3.5 36 751 148 30 31 1 0 0SH 17,916 0.9 15,313 43 9 2 2 153 31 32Tot 17,926 15,349 155 31 33

NRV: 1994-96 LSC 4,778 2.0 9,787 434 86 17 18 410 82 86SH 10,161 0.5 5,169 26 5 1 1 52 10 11Tot 14,939 14,957 461 92 97

2020 LSC 795 2.3 1,836 489 97 19 20 77 15 16SH 2,821 0.8 2,308 41 8 2 2 23 5 5

Tot 3,616 4,144 100 20 21

Total: 1994-96 LSC 29,999 1.9 55,935 395 78 16 16 2341 468 492SH 179,211 0.6 102,218 29 6 1 1 1024 205 215Irrig-SH 332 1.8 602 92 18 4 4 6 1 1Tot 209,541 158,755 3371 674 708

2020 LSC 4,992 2.1 10,491 502 99 20 21 495 99 104SH 49,747 0.9 45,709 47 9 2 2 458 92 96Irrig-SH 63 1.8 114 92 18 4 4 1 0 0Tot 54,801 56,314 954 191 200


efficiency improvements are excluded*** Compound L and Ammonium Nitrate in the proportion 5:3 and converted into N:P:KSource: Central Statistical Office (CSO), 1996, 1997 & 1998. Agriculture and Livestock Survey in Communal Lands;Agricultural Production on small-scale commercial farms; Crop Production on large-scale commercial farms (for area - ha,yield - t/ha and production - (t)).


TABLE 12Tobacco fertilizer requirements by region and sector, t nutrients




Area*(ha)

Yield*(t/ha)

Produc-tion*(t)

Apparentfertilizer


N P K N P K

NRI: 1994-96 LSC 654 2.2 1452 633 25 47 79 17 31 52SH 15 0.5 8 123 5 9 15 0 0 0Tot 669 1460 17 31 52

2020 LSC 539 2.3 1227 648 26 49 81 14 26 44SH 28 0.5 16 126 5 9 16 0 0 0Tot 568 1242 14 26 44

NRII: 1994-96 LSC 64197 2.6 165587 735 29 55 92 1888 3540 5900SH 2151 1.0 2246 242 10 18 30 21 39 65Tot 66348 167833 1909 3579 5965

2020 LSC 52942 2.6 139870 753 30 56 94 1595 2990 4983SH 4077 1.1 4361 248 10 19 31 40 76 126Tot 57019 144231 1635 3066 5110

NRIII: 1994-96 LSC 2621 2.2 5745 625 25 47 78 66 123 205SH 553 1.3 698 292 12 22 37 6 12 20Tot 3174 6443 72 135 225

2020 LSC 2161 2.2 4853 640 26 48 80 55 104 173SH 1047 1.3 1355 299 12 22 37 13 24 39Tot 3209 6208 68 127 212

NRIV: 1994-96 LSC 24 1.9 44 534 21 40 67 1 1 2SH 19 1.7 32 401 16 30 50 0 1 1Tot 42 77 1 2 3

2020 LSC 20 1.9 37 547 22 41 68 0 1 1SH 35 1.8 63 411 16 31 51 1 1 2Tot 55 100 1 2 3

NRV: 1994-96 LSC 87 2.2 193 632 25 47 79 2 4 7SH 1 0.7 1 154 6 12 19 0 0 0Tot 88 194 2 4 7

2020 LSC 72 2.3 163 648 26 49 81 2 3 6SH 2 0.7 1 158 6 12 20 0 0 0Tot 74 164 2 4 6

Total: 1994-96 LSC 67583 2.6 173022 730 29 55 91 1973 3699 6165SH 2738 1.1 2985 252 10 19 32 28 52 86Irrig-SH 54 1.8 94 407 16 31 51 1 2 3Tot 70375 176101 2001 3752 6254

2020 LSC 55734 2.6 146150 747 30 56 93 1666 3124 5207SH 5190 1.1 5796 259 10 19 32 54 101 168Irrig-SH 25510 1.9 48163 437 17 33 55 446 836 1394Tot 86434 200109 2166 4061 6769


efficiency improvements are excluded*** Compound B converted into N:P:KSource: Central Statistical Office (CSO), 1996, 1997 & 1998. Agriculture and Livestock Survey in Communal Lands;Agricultural Production on small-scale commercial farms; Crop Production on large-scale commercial farms (for area - ha,yield - t/ha and production - (t)).


TABLE 13Sugar cane fertilizer requirements by region and sector, t nutrients


Nutrient requirement (t)Fertilizer productivity/haLSC=97.5

Area*(ha)

Yield*(t/ha)

Produc-tion*(t)

Apparentfertilizer


N P K N P K

NRI: 1994-96 LSC 1 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0SHTot

2020 LSC 1 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0SHTot

NRII: 1994-96 LSC 476 10 4781 103 24 2 6 11 1 3SHTot

2020 LSC 562 11 6371 116 27 2 7 15 1 4SHTot

NRIII: 1994-96 LSC 18 3 46 26 6 1 2 0 0 0SHTot

2020 LSC 21 3 61 29 7 1 2 0 0 0SHTot

NRIV: 1994-96 LSCSHTot

2020 LSCSHTot

NRV: 1994-96 LSC 32647 98 3186567 1001 229 19 62 7465 635 2029SHTot

2020 LSC 38597 110 4246351 1128 258 22 70 9948 847 2703SHTot

Total: 1994-96 LSC 33141 96 3191394 987 226 19 61 7476 636 2032SHTot 7476 636 2032

2020 LSC 39181 109 4252783 1113 254 22 69 9963 848 2707SHTot 9963 848 2707

* Table 4

** Fertilizer application rates are based on yield elasticity and historic national fertilizer productivity by sector; I.e. fertilizeruse efficiency improvements are excluded

*** Compounds M, D, and MOP, SSP and Ammonium Nitrate in the proportion 2:4:9:20:65 and converted into N:P:K

Source: Central Statistical Office (CSO), 1996, 1997 & 1998. Agriculture and Livestock Survey in Communal Lands;Agricultural Production on small-scale commercial farms; Crop Production on large-scale commercial farms (for area - ha,yield - t/ha and production - (t)).


The coefficients of elasticity for the five main crops show that the own-price elasticity offertilizer consumed by these crops is high for both farming sectors. However, the cross-priceelasticity for cotton and maize in the smallholder sector are highly inelastic.

The high profitability smallholders enjoy in the production of maize and cotton explains whythey are increasing their area under these crops. At the same time, commercial farmers arereducing their area under maize and cotton and expanding into production of more lucrativecrops, for example tobacco and horticultural crops.

PROCUREMENT

Optimal economic financing methods for fertilizer importation depend on suppliers and therelationship between fertilizer companies with their suppliers. Most exporters require a letter ofcredit before they dispatch products. Fertilizer companies buy raw materials through creditfacilities. However, the volatility of the Zimbabwean dollar increases uncertainty, complicates thepricing, and inventories management of imported fertilizers. Companies hedge forward to reducetheir foreign exchange exposure.

Fertilizer companies finance local raw material purchases and operations throughcommercial bank overdrafts. The seasonal nature of fertilizer demand makes it difficult forcompanies to generate sufficient cash flow from sales to finance operations, requiring them toobtain short-term credit from commercial banks. Because of high interest rates, firms are nowimporting and manufacturing fertilizers on demand in order to avoid over stocking and understocking. However, this presents logistical difficulties in ensuring a timely supply to smallholders.This is because smallholders only buy fertilizers after the start of the rainy season and there is aneed to hold inventories in stock for at least three months to meet that peak demand.

There is a need for cash discounts to compensate smallholders and agricultural input dealersaccessing short-term finance at high interest rates. More than 90 percent of large-scalecommercial farmers purchase fertilizers on credit, while rural traders and smallholders buy on acash basis. Currently, there are small increases in fertilizer prices in January, March, and Mayand then a large hike in August. Because most large-scale farmers buy fertilizer before August,they do not bear the increases in costs, which are passed on to smallholders. Fertilizer priceincreases in January-May would share the burden.

Encouraging the bartering of maize grain for fertilizer, especially between rural traders andsmallholders, could promote fertilizer sales and fertilizer use while simultaneously helping withoutput marketing.


Chapter 6 Fertilizer supply

Fertilizer prices in Zimbabwe have risen towards import parity since the lifting of productionsubsidies and price controls. Because of the recent increase in international ammonia and ureaprices due to an increase in oil prices, it is cheaper to import nitrogen in Zimbabwe than tomanufacture it.

Traditionally dominated by Zimbabwean-based companies, the fertilizer industry is nowundergoing a period of restructuring. Progressive deregulation culminated in the decontrolling ofall fertilizer prices in 1995.

However, to import fertilizers, companies have to obtain permits from the Ministry ofAgriculture (MOA), claim through customs and pay import duties on the border value ofproducts. The authorities require that all fertilizer products be registered with the Department ofResearch and Specialist Services (DRSS) before they will issue import permits. Customs officersare now requiring registration numbers to clear fertilizers, although contract sales of prescriptionblends are allowed and fertilizer regulations do not prohibit the importation and contract sale ofunregistered products unless they are for general sale. Fertilizer exporters require an exportpermit from the MOA, and the customs rules and regulations make exports difficult.Consequently, fertilizer registration, import and export procedures remain barriers to entry and tothe introduction of new products.

Only two new products were introduced in the period 1960-1990. Since then, privatecompanies have registered more than 262 new fertilizer products based on their research in othercountries. These new products have targeted large-scale commercial farmers and spin-offs tosmallholders have yet to occur. Farmers in Zimbabwe use in general rather low grade fertilizercompounds. However, there may be problems of sulphur and calcium deficiencies in smallholderareas if high grade fertilizers replace low grade ones.

Domestic production meets over 90 percent of the country's total ammonium nitraterequirements. The country’s ammonium nitrate plant has a capacity of 250 000 t, requiring115 000 t of ammonia, which exceeds the local ammonia plant’s capacity. Imports from SouthAfrica make good the annual shortfall of 40 000 t of ammonia. The ammonia plant importselectricity from Kariba. Though initially cheap, its price has escalated and the ammonia plantaccounts for about 9 percent of Zimbabwe's annual electricity consumption, thus making theprocess increasingly uneconomic. Because it lacks the manufacturing capacity, Zimbabweimports two other nitrogenous fertilizers: ammonium sulphate, for direct application on teaestates; and sodium nitrate (3 000 t per year) for tobacco. The horticulture industry has startedimporting calcium nitrate. In 1997, total nitrogenous fertilizer imports were 176 000 t (exportswere 200 t).

Of the three major phosphate rock deposits in Zimbabwe, the only operational one produced152 000 t of rock concentrate in 1995. This deposit is low grade (6 percent P2O5). Concentrationby flotation produces 36 percent phosphate rock concentrate. Transport to the superphosphateprocessing plant in Harare increases the raw material cost by 26 percent.

34 Fertilizer supply

About half the sulphuric acid required to manufacture single superphosphate comes fromimported elemental sulphur (Canada). The other half comes from locally obtained iron pyrites.Zimbabwe also manufactures triple superphosphate by using phosphoric acid and rockphosphate. Zimbabwe has an annual production capacity of 200 000 t of single superphosphateand 60 000 t of triple superphosphate, just sufficient to meet the country’s current phosphaterequirement. Therefore, if there is a significant increase in fertilizer consumption, phosphatedemand will exceed capacity, so necessitating imports. Zimbabwe currently lacks the capacity toproduce high-grade phosphate fertilizers such as monoammonium and diammonium phosphates.In 1997, phosphate fertilizer imports totalled 13 000 t (exports were negligible).

Zimbabwe imports the bulk of its potash from Israel. In 1997, potassic fertilizer importstotalled 98 000 t (exports 4 000 t). Zimbabwe imports micronutrients such as zinc (South Africa)and boron (Turkey). With the removal of trade barriers, imports of compound (NPK) fertilizersincreased from an annual average of 130 t for 1990-93 to 90 140 t for 1995-97. These are mainlyhigh-grade fertilizers for large-scale commercial farmers (20 percent of all fertilizers used by thissector).

The total annual production capacity of Zimbabwe’s fertilizer granulation plants is300 000 t. The two leading firms have recently installed bulk blenders with capacities of100 000 and 50 000 t respectively. Fertilizer firms export about 4 percent of their production(compound fertilizer exports were about 1 000 t in 1997), mostly to Zambia and Malawi.

Following agricultural market reforms, fertilizer firms have invested in plants andequipment. They have expanded their capacity and flexibility to supply adequate quantities tomeet demand from domestic production and imports. The industry has sufficient capacity to meetexpected growth in demand from domestic production because of four factors. First, the move tobulk blending enables companies to produce relatively quickly compared to granulation. Second,the establishment of bulk blending plants has provided additional capacity. Third, increased useof high-grade fertilizers reduces the quantity that has to be manufactured and applied in cropproduction. Finally, the local fertilizer market is opening up to international competition,particularly from South Africa. South African firms enjoy competitive advantages resulting fromexcess capacity, larger plants and economies of scale, economies of location to the Zimbabweanmarket, better production know-how, low-cost raw materials, more advanced technology andexport incentives. Zimbabwean fertilizer companies want tariff protection against what theyclaim is predatory pricing by South African firms. However, as South Africa applies no duty onfertilizer imports, Zimbabwean fertilizer companies should be able to sell their fertilizers in SouthAfrica though they have yet to do so.


Chapter 7 The smallholder farming sector

Farmers in the smallholder sector consist of:

• a high performance group (a small minority), which produces marketable surpluses underdiversified patterns and with rather high input/output ratios;

• a medium performance group (the overwhelming majority), which has adapted cropproduction technologies to varying extent, but whose performance is constrained by a lack ofmanagement skills and financial resources; and

• a low performance group, at subsistence level, which comprises the bulk of the rural poor.

The future development of Zimbabwean agriculture will rely on smallholders, andsmallholders will require greater access to free markets. In this context, price parity betweenproducer prices and input prices will be crucial.

For cash crops, comparatively well-developed markets exist. However, in the staple foodsector, uncertainty prevails, and risks are higher in terms of producer prices. A farmer who is notconfident about good returns will tend to stay at subsistence level, limit risk and be unwilling topay out cash for inputs in anticipation of production increases. Diversification may be the bestmeans of lowering risk in the absence of guarantees.

According to the Zimbabwe Farmers’ Union, the two main concerns of smallholders are:

• the limited technological options in dry areas; and

• the stagnation of yields in the small-scale sector.

Low soil fertility and erratic rainfall in the smallholder sector are the major reasons whyyields in this sector are so low. Declining soil fertility in smallholder areas could lead tounsustainable production levels.

SMALLHOLDER INCOME

In the smallholder sector, cash income accounts for nearly 53 percent of total income and incomein kind for 47 percent. This reflects the subsistence nature of agricultural production. Cropscontribute nearly 73 percent of total cash income in the rural household, while livestock provides10 percent, remittances 13 percent and non-farm activities 4.5 percent. Non-farm activitiesinclude panning for precious metals, brewing beer for sale, handicrafts, contract or full-timeemployment in the formal sector, building, selling vegetables and fruits produced by the large-scale commercial farmers. What smallholders sell depends on what they produce and how muchthey obtain for it. Agricultural income may also include those agricultural products retained forhome consumption.

Where grown, tobacco and soybeans (NR II), cotton (NRs II, III and IV) and sunflowers(NRs IV and V) are for sale. Maize, rapoko, sorghum and groundnuts are sold whenever thereare surpluses.

36 Institutional aspects

From 1983 to 1996, smallholders sold 30 percent of their gross crop production. In terms oftotal value of crop production, the most important crops in the smallholder sector are maize (over45 percent of total value), cotton (20 percent) and groundnuts (5 percent).

The largest share of income from crops in the smallholder sector comes from NR II(45 percent), followed by NR III (29 percent), NRs IV and V (11 percent each) and NR I(3 percent). NRs II and III produce about 84 percent of the maize crop.

Fruit sales contribute significantly to rural income in NRs I, II, III and IV. Livestock incomeis significant in NRs IV and V.

Income is of major importance to farmers’ ability to adopt more effective and sustainableproduction technologies. This is because the process involves more cash expenditures from alimited budget for the procurement of essential agricultural inputs. When the cost of fertilizerinputs falls to 5-6 percent of their total available cash income, farmers will be more able to repaycrop loans and augment savings for productive investments.

Profitability assessments show that the cost/benefit ratios are attractive for most crops, butthat smallholders will adopt production intensification when:

• risk perceptions are lowered; and• constraints are reduced (mostly cash and labour).

Farmers' perception of risks can be lowered through:

• improved input/farm-gate price parity;• improved water resources and soil moisture management;• enhanced crop and livestock diversification; and• improved farming systems and practices, which have a positive bearing on capitalization

processes.

Improving access to financial services, to markets and inputs, and technical support services canreduce constraints.

SMALLHOLDER FERTILIZER CONSUMPTION

Improved smallholder access to fertilizer is a stated short to medium-range goal. However, for theperiod 1983-1996, fertilizer costs were 16-62 percent of total cash income received bysmallholders, an unaffordable level (Table 14). The ability to pay for fertilizers is thus crucial totheir use by smallholders. The purchase of fertilizers depends largely on incomes and availablefinancial resources at the beginning of the cropping season. For this reason, to achieve the desiredintensification of production, appropriate financing possibilities are essential for enhancedfertilizer use.

The fertilizer bill for the smallholder sector rose from Z$19 million in 1982 to nearlyZ$500 million in 1996. This increase was mainly due to:

• a steady increase in fertilizer consumption due to various government initiatives to promoteconsumption in this sector;

• rising fertilizer prices, especially since deregulation; and• the Crop Packs Programme (designed initially to provide packages for 1 million farms, for at

least one hectare of maize and half a hectare of other crops).


TABLE 14Proportion of fertilizer value in household cash income

Year LivestockIncome (Z$)

Crop Income(Z$)

Off-farm (Z$) Total Income(Z$)

Fert Cost (Z$) Fert Cost as% of Income

1982 18081 66198 20063 104342 189121983 22321 46045 24304 92670 31610 30.31984 23653 104431 25637 153721 49113 53.01985 15676 224822 17661 258159 58709 38.21986 29642 221459 31628 282729 58449 22.61987 50942 84110 52929 187981 56373 19.91988 43203 301210 45191 389604 61445 32.71989 61209 294629 63198 419036 62407 16.01990 106809 226990 108799 442598 73963 17.71991 164741 287074 166732 618547 127846 28.91992 176647 27600 178639 382886 227382 36.81993 115177 1055205 117170 1287552 237403 62.01994 79824 1026040 81818 1187682 255915 19.91995 163277 281862 165272 610411 307620 25.9

Notes:1. From Agricultural Statistical Bulletin2. Estimates from Farm Management Data for Communal Areas and 1995 Poverty Assessment Survey

Study

Excluding the Crop Packs Programme, the actual cost of fertilizer to the smallholder farmerswas negligible. In 1997/98, a non-price support scheme to develop a network of agricultural inputdealers throughout smallholder areas replaced the Crop Packs Programme. Smallholder fertilizerpurchases are now trending down, back to their natural commercial levels. Without policymeasures to make fertilizer affordable, or research into crop varieties that use fertilizerefficiently, it may be difficult to increase smallholder fertilizer consumption.

With inflation, the price of fertilizer is high and rising in terms of the Zimbabwean dollarthough static in US dollar terms. Currently, informal price controls imposed by the governmenton maize flour and grain are reducing profitability and farmers’ ability to purchase fertilizer.

Almost 70 percent of smallholders use fertilizers. Farmers indicate that their cash position isthe most important factor affecting the amount they apply. The purchasing pattern ofsmallholders reveals that:

• nearly half purchase one bag or less of fertilizer per year (84.4 percent in NR V); and• the farmers purchasing large quantities of fertilizers (seven bags or more) are those located in

irrigated areas and those with larger holdings, 22.4 percent of the total (50.5 percent inNR II).

Although some 63 percent of farmers expect to increase their fertilizer use, four main factorswill condition this choice:

• price stability;• subsidies;• grain-fertilizer price parity; and• credit availability.


Smallholders hardly seem to change their fertilizer purchases from one year to another. In aperiod when producer prices for maize rose from Z$250 to 950/t, a 10-15 percent rise in hardcurrency terms, there was no corresponding increase in smallholder fertilizer purchases. Possibleexplanations are:

• smallholders do not perceive intensification as a means towards capitalization and/or higherincomes;

• the perception of risk among smallholders is very high and/or production constraints are toohigh; and

• capitalization processes are very slow and hampered by factors such as cost of livingincreases.

Fertilizer purchases by large-scale commercial farmers vary much more significantly. This isbecause they consider a combination of factors:

• expected prices of crops;• loan repayment situations;• rotation practices; and• the presence of residues of plant nutrients in the soil.

CONSTRAINTS AND DEVELOPMENTS

In addition to credit/financing problems, other factors relating to access, infrastructure, logisticsand fertilizer use hamper smallholder performance.

Fertilizer use

Most smallholders apply basal dressing after germination as a risk management strategy. Thisresults in inefficient fertilizer use as potash and phosphate are applied too late for the crop to useduring the year of application. They apply the limited quantities purchased from previous cropsales over large areas instead of applying the appropriate quantities on small areas. This resultsin inefficient application. Smallholders buy traditional low-grade compounds. This is becausethey have higher learning costs as their experience and knowledge of NPK nutrients is limited,blends are more difficult to apply by hand, and they lack the finance to make investments in high-grade fertilizer technologies. Commercial farmers are switching to high-grade fertilizers andspecial blends for high value crops. Up to 40 percent of the fertilizer sold to commercial farmersconsists of blends and concentrates.

Smallholders buy fertilizer during the cropping season and in small quantities as and whenthe rain comes. Large-scale commercial farmers can manage business risk, plan ahead, and buyfertilizers before the beginning of the rainy season and in bulk directly from factories, depots andlarge-scale consignment stockists in urban centres.

Access

Smallholders lack access to both local and international markets for their products and receivelow farm-gate prices as commodity traders need to make a profit for assembling, bulking, storing,and transporting farm products to urban markets. Many smallholders face problems in accessinginputs. They lack access to technical services such as soil tests and advice provided bygovernment and fertilizer companies because these services are centralized in Harare. Manysmallholders have no draught animals, and generally no access to mechanized alternatives, thusland preparation often delays planting.


Infrastructure and logistics

Investment in physical and social infrastructure in smallholder areas has lagged behind.Smallholders often receive fertilizer deliveries too late during the planting season because of thepoor condition of roads, shortage of transport vehicles (existing transport facilities result inbottlenecks during peak periods), and low profitability of servicing their needs. They pay higherfarm-gate prices for fertilizers because of poor marketing infrastructure and lack of competitionamong transporters and retail storeowners in communal areas. The effective price smallholderspay for fertilizers are 25 percent higher than ex-factory prices.

The logistics of supplying fertilizers to smallholders require a wide range of products to bemade available at affordable prices in small packs at outlets within walking distance at all timesduring the cropping season. Fertilizer manufacturers have not developed networks of rural depotsand traders as they have considered smallholder demand too small to justify the investment. Thus,about 60 percent of smallholders currently buy their fertilizers from rural traders and distributorswhich, in turn, are supplied by urban-based distributors. The remaining 40 percent buy directlyfrom factories in Harare.

Storage facilities are currently adequate for the quantity of fertilizers handled. Fertilizerfirms are placing on consignment with agricultural traders lots of about 10 t that can be stored ina room on the premises. However, if fertilizer use increases at the projected rate, there will be aneed to increase storage facilities, especially in smallholder areas.

The adoption of just-in-time methods can reduce storage time. Three problems needresolving for suppliers to use just-in-time programmes. First, there is a lack of goodcommunication, particularly telephones, to permit agricultural dealers in smallholder areas toorder just enough fertilizer for a specific sale or fertilizer firm to order just enough material for aspecific production run. Second, there is lack of timely availability of transport for immediatedeliveries. Third, there is congestion in offtake from fertilizer plants during peak periods,especially in October-December.

Developments

In recent years, small agro-dealers have thrived under the concept of agribusiness, and there arespecific training programmes to improve their activities.

The diversification of channels and distributors should foster competition, to the benefit offarmers. This, combined with the presence of more distribution points in the field, should reducedirect acquisition from urban centres. In 1997/98, the GMB introduced fertilizer sales through itsnetwork of deposits.

Commodity associations can be active in supplying services to farmers, but currently there isa perceived lack of general market information. Government authorities could promote theestablishment of market information systems to help farmers make decisions about croppingpatterns and input purchases. The involvement of farmers' unions and producers' associationswould enable such systems to be sustainable.

The logistics of managing packaging, materials handling, warehousing, inventory controland transportation of fertilizers are different for large-scale commercial and smallholder farmers.

With fertilizer output, imports, exports and prices no longer under government control, thereis pressure to change fertilizer logistics. Fertilizer companies have been experimenting to findmore timely and convenient ways of distributing fertilizer to smallholders in remote areas.

During the 1995/96 season, Care International and the African Centre for FertilizerDevelopment (ACFD) started to support the development of a network of community-based


agribusiness dealers in five districts. The project is expanding to establish a network of500 community-based agribusiness agents throughout smallholder areas around the country.However, the logistics channel is long because it involves shipping fertilizer to appointeddistributors, who in turn move fertilizer to traders to sell to farmers. Because differentintermediaries need to recover their costs, this distribution structure results in high prices forfertilizers. To cut out intermediaries and reduce farm-gate prices, fertilizer-manufacturing firmsare now exploring the possibility of establishing their own agricultural input dealers.

The capacity of the smallholder to satisfy demand will largely depend on national policiesthat stimulate production in this sector. In addition to the biophysical constraints, factors such asthe transport crisis and declining terms of trade have affected agricultural production inZimbabwe. Only major structural changes can reduce the impact of such factors, e.g.improvements in transport infrastructure. Additionally, agricultural research and support serviceinstitutions need to have the capacity to support the sector effectively and efficiently.

The on-going resettlement programme should make more productive land available to thesmallholder sector. A policy that promotes an increase in crop production should improvesmallholder incomes. The creation of employment opportunities through the setting up of ruralagro-processing industries will contribute significantly to incomes. As rural areas develop, moreincome should flow from non-farm activities that add value to agricultural produce.

The availability of affordable fertilizer and high producer prices will guarantee the futuresustainable utilization of fertilizer by smallholder farmers.


Chapter 8 Institutional aspects

REGULATIONS

The 1996 Fertilizers, Farm Feeds and Remedies Act provides the legislative framework for theregistration of fertilizers, farm feeds, sterilizing plants and remedies, as well as for the regulationand restriction of the importation and sale of the same.

The MOA undertakes the registration of fertilizers. Manufacturers and importers pay a feeto register a new compound/product.

Restrictions on or prohibitions of the sale of a fertilizer apply if:

• it is not registered properly;• it is not packed in the prescribed manner;• its container is not branded, labelled, marked and sealed in the prescribed manner; and• it is not of the composition, efficacy, fineness or purity specified in the application for its

registration.The MOA appoints inspectors who have the authority to make quality controls in the field.

The Chemistry and Soil Research Institute, a specialized institute of the DRSS, isresponsible for the laboratory for fertilizer and soil analysis. Farmers can also address complaintsabout fertilizers to the laboratory.

The Fertilizer Advisory Sub-Committee and the Fertilizer Advisory Committee reviewtechnical and regulatory matters relating to the fertilizer sector. The sub-committee is composedof technicians, and the committee takes decisions based on their recommendations.

Financial constraints have limited quality control implementation. Greater enforcement ofquality controls would encourage agro-dealers to be more quality conscious.

RESEARCH AND EXTENSION

The public agricultural research body in Zimbabwe is the DRSS of the MOA. The DRSSconsists of several different institutes which carry out applied research in specialized centres,each one of them being responsible for its area of research.

The Agricultural Research Council, composed of representatives from governmentauthorities, farmers' unions, universities and private research institutions/associations, is anadvisory body on all research matters, and is responsible for setting priorities and orientations inthis field.

The policy objectives for agricultural research and technology are:

• to develop technologies which will generate sustainable agricultural production systems withminimum adverse effects on the environment;


• to increase economic returns from cash crops through cultivar selection, soil management andirrigation methods, crop protection and post-harvest management technologies in such a wayas to maximize wealth creation for farmers and also for the nation;

• to develop animal production systems in terms of species and breeds, feeding strategies andoverall management so as to maximize their productivity; and

• to provide efficient technical and regulatory functions to the entire agricultural industry.

The Agricultural Technical and Extension Services (AGRITEX) Department of the MOA isin charge of public extension. Its role is:

• to assist farmers directly with specialized advisory services;• to organize field days on specific issues;• to carry out demonstration sessions; and• to organize agricultural shows on a regular basis.

Crop responses to fertilizers are not totally documented, and recommendations to smallholderfarmers on the use of fertilizers are scarce. Moreover, there is little knowledge about integratedplant nutrient systems (IPNS).

Budgetary constraints and a lack of capital investment have reduced considerably the extentand magnitude of the operations of the DRSS and AGRITEX.

In 1999, government authorities should set in motion, on a systematic basis, thecommercialization of public services and the use of revolving funds. Under this practice, formerlyfree public services will be charged for.

This self-financing practice should partially compensate for the lack of public financing andintroduce a different mentality in servicing farmers. However, the difficulty lies in drawing theline between services that the commercial sector can afford, and services needed by smallholders,where there is little possibility that they can or want to pay for them.

Public institutions should refocus their interventions, and incorporate opportunities for costrecovery in a new strategy, in order to reduce dependency on budget allocation. Most publicinstitutions have yet to initiate this reorientation process.

External financing supports some programmes. One such programme has undertaken a fullsoil and nutrient analysis on 2 000 farms so far. The area of influence covers 19 districts (withanother 9 projected for 1999) and the programme is based on 100-200 sample farms in eachdistrict. The programme makes recommendations on lime applications, the use of manure andmineral fertilizers, and updates a database for extension purposes. Though this programme canhave a beneficial effect on soil fertility management, it is totally dependent on foreign assistanceand has only a limited geographical scope.

The World Bank has contemplated the financing of an agricultural extension developmentfund.

Other private initiatives have links with farmers' unions and producers' associations.However, there should be closer, participatory links between research and extension institutions,universities, and producers. Though collaboration between government and private institutions onidentifying problems and orienting activities is adequate, articulations in the field are weak.

In a context of limited public resources, the active participation of the farming sector is thekey to greater sustainability. Currently, results are often not shared widely among farmers, whocould be more involved in on-farm experimentation.


Research and extension activities should focus more on a farm management approach. Thearticulation of plant nutrition policies based on long-term agricultural development strategies forthe balanced development of differently endowed ecological zones is also required, as is a moredecisive introduction of IPNS at farm level.

The ACFD undertakes applied research programmes to develop new farming systems, takinginto account crop diversification, soil fertility and water conservation options. Such pilot projectsshould receive greater dissemination.

Research and extension activities also need to include cost/benefit analysis of fertilizerapplication rates and farming practices for improved soil fertility.

Some networks exist to address the issue of soil fertility through the exchange of informationand experiences, e.g. the Soil Fertility Network and an FAO regional network. These initiativesshould generate interesting data, and enable some nutrient monitoring with a view to introducingcorrective measures. In order to generate practical effects beyond the mere recognition of specificproblems and solutions, it is important that these networks gradually gain importance and thatfarmers, through associations and/or their respective unions, participate actively in theseinitiatives.

One specific problem is the growing acidity of some soils. Lime is available in the country,but more promotion is needed to properly address the problem. The use of green manure alsowarrants promotion that is more intensive.

CREDIT AND FINANCING

The existence of financial services is key to capitalization processes in cash economies, and creditis a critical factor in development purposes. The limited resource base of smallholders is a majorconstraint on their ability to purchase fertilizers. They face problems accessing credit fromcommercial banks and the parastatal Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC) because they lackcapital assets such as title deeds to use as collateral and they also lack proven track records.

The structure of rural finance in Zimbabwe consists of three channels:

• private institutions, mainly commercial banks, traditionally serving the large-scalecommercial farmers;

• public institutions such as the AFC, which provides credit lines to smallholders fromgovernment sources, and the Small Enterprise Development Corporation; and

• micro-financial institutions, community banks, NGOs, savings and credit co-operativeunions.

The AFC has 53 offices throughout the country and extends loans to farmers at subsidizedrates in the form of individual or group lending. However, the AFC now plans to convert itsoperations into commercial banking activities in 1999, which means that public lending to ruralareas would disappear. Alternative financing has been developing in rural areas for about adecade, with primary financing coming from social development funds and NGOs. TheZimbabwe Association of Micro-Finance Institutions is an umbrella organization for non-formalfinancing and could serve as a reference for future regulatory purposes.

The Zimbabwe Fertilizer Company operates a scheme targeted at providing credit throughthe trade to rural traders through consignment stocks, which rural traders should pay for soonafter selling. Tight selection of honest traders based on their history and reputation is the mosteffective way of increasing the success of this approach. Experience shows that small traders whoearn most of their income through the input trade are the ones who take this activity seriously.


Large-scale commercial farmers purchase more than 90 percent of their fertilizer on thirty orsixty-day trade credit terms. By contrast, rural traders and smallholders buy fertilizer in cash.Credit facilities for rural traders and farmers are insignificant. This increases barriers to entryand results in high mark-ups by traders. Urban-based distributors enjoy profit margins of about8-10 percent while rural traders make 14-18 percent.

About 26 percent of households have used credit for their farm operations. The farmers whodo not use credit identify cumbersome loan procedures and other institutional constraints as themain obstacles they face. Some cite lack of knowledge about credit institutions, and high interestrates as constraints on their use of credit. Although private banks collect savings from ruralareas, credit activities for smallholders are risky unreliable and expensive, in part due to the lackof collateral. Short-term loans are needed to strengthen smallholders' operations for productionintensification. Medium to long-term loans for investment in irrigation could also be important.

Given smallholders’ limited cash resource capacity and their limited handling capacity, themarketing of fertilizers in 25-kg bags should be encouraged.

FARMERS’ ORGANIZATIONS

There are three generic farmers' unions in Zimbabwe:

• the Commercial Farmers' Union, representing large-scale commercial farmers;• the Indigenous Commercial Farmers' Union, representing mainly small-scale commercial

farmers; and• the Zimbabwe Farmers' Union, representing smallholders of all types of land tenure.

The Zimbabwe Farmers' Union is by far the largest union (165 000 affiliates), which reflectsthe relative importance of smallholders in the farming sector. Active in lobbying for theirrespective groups' interests and concerns, the farmers' unions are also very much involved inworking with research and extension institutions.

These unions could be instrumental in the dissemination of information about commodityprices. This would enable smallholders to take well-informed decisions about cropping patternsand marketing.

There are also a number of crop producer associations, proactive in promoting their productsand in dealing with specific problems regarding each commodity.


Chapter 9 Conclusions

Increases in population, urbanization and per caput income will require greater domestic foodproduction, more imports or both. The demand for agricultural exports will also play a role indetermining the future size and composition of Zimbabwe’s agricultural production. Zimbabwecan increase its agricultural production by increasing the area under agriculture and, moresignificantly, by increasing the productivity of that land. Thus, fertilizer has an important role toplay in the intensification of productivity and in meeting the broader economic and social goals ofthe country. Projections for the five major fertilizer consuming crops for 2020 indicate an overallrequirement of 256 000 t of N, 86 000 t of P and 61 000 t of K.

It is beyond the scope of this paper to analyse the macro-economic situation. However, noattempt at developing a fertilizer strategy can ignore the impact of a poor balance of paymentssituation, a deteriorating exchange rate, high inflation and the measures needed to rectify matters.For example, a deteriorating exchange rate favours exports but makes imported inputs moreexpensive. Together with inflation it creates greater uncertainty, so curbing domestic investments,particularly by smaller undertakings. The fiscal discipline and public expenditure controls neededto fight inflation also entail constraints on public support services such as research and extension.

Zimbabwe has pursued a programme of economic reform and trade liberalization since1991. This set of measures provides a favourable context for farmers' decisions and options, aswell as for the expansion of the agriculture sector. Orientations designed under the ZAPF will bestrengthened when the impact of more open market conditions translates into increases in farmers'incomes.

The commercialization of services and the introduction of revolving funds in publicinstitutions will help curb expenditure and promote self-financing practices. These should includeservices such as soil analysis or the allocation of water rights. The introduction of fees shouldhelp focus research and extension priorities, and pave the way for greater real farmerparticipation.

Because of unreliable rainfall, most of the land in NRs IV and V is unsuitable for thecommon medium-season varieties of maize. Research institutes should receive support in theirefforts to develop short-season and drought resistant varieties. It is important to develop andpromote conservation tillage systems for both the large-scale commercial and smallholder sectors.Soil erosion and soil acidity should continue to be serious concerns for extension activities.

Although the bulk of food production will come from rainfed cropping, there is scope fordeveloping Zimbabwe’s irrigation potential through improvements to existing dams, and bypromoting soil moisture conservation and water retention techniques among smallholders.Irrigation is vital to intensification and strongly correlates with increased fertilizer use. However,fertilizer use in irrigated areas can only bear fruit where the irrigation infrastructure receivesadequate maintenance. This also means controlling soil erosion in adjacent upland areas. Theextension service should educate farmers about IPNS. This should be a priority in the key maizegrowing areas. IPNS will enable farmers to accelerate crop production and enhance the futureproductive capacity of their land.

46 Conclusions

Though types of land tenure reflect different production intensification and croppingpatterns, there remains ample margin for improving land use efficiency in the large-scale farmingsector and for achieving greater land productivity among smallholders.

It is important to monitor improvements in fertilizer use efficiency, particularly withmeasures to improve the productivity of the capital invested in fertilizer. A continued effort isrequired to collect data from farmers on fertilizer use per crop. Such information and that onfertilizer costs, farm-gate produce prices and rural incomes indicate fertilizer profitability andfarmers’ ability to pay for fertilizers. The commercialization of agriculture requires improvedforecasting of fertilizer requirements. This includes assessing the feasibility of meeting futuredemand through domestic production or imports. Enhancement of the ACFD’s institutionalcapacity to provide such information services warrants consideration.

The articulation of support measures in plant nutrition management calls for the integrationof the capacity to mobilize resources with the development of technical, organizational andfinancial innovations. In evaluating improved fertilizer use, it is also essential to assess the impactof support measures, fiscal arrangements, and socially targeted incentives on crop productivityand international competitiveness.

The own-price elasticity of demand for fertilizer is rather inelastic. However, the priceelasticity of the demand for fertilizers with respect to maize is highly elastic. The marginal rate ofreturn in maize production in the smallholder sector is higher than in the large-scale commercialsector. This would suggest that commercial farmers’ fertilizer application rates are close to theeconomic optimum, and that smallholders’ application rates could rise significantly.

Currently, domestic production of fertilizers includes a wide range of NPK compounds andstraight fertilizers. The domestic production of nitrogenous fertilizer may become unfeasible asenergy costs increase. Given the size of the domestic market, meeting nitrogen fertilizer demandwill require considerable amounts of foreign exchange. The advantages of developing adequatedomestic manufacturing capacity lie in lower logistics costs and a reduced exposure tointernational price fluctuations.

The future of agricultural development depends on smallholders' capacity to intensifyproduction. The implementation of market liberalization measures has been of particularrelevance for the smallholder sector, where public sector intervention had long been of majorsignificance. Price support measures to augment rural income are no longer feasible in the contextof market liberalization policies. In the medium term, fiscal constraints will exacerbate thegovernment’s inability to extend direct support to the farming community.

The MOA has adopted a strategy that aims at achieving the commercialization ofagricultural production systems in the smallholder sector. The process of productioncommercialization requires smallholders to attain and maintain substantially higher levels of cropproductivity through the adoption of new technologies and management practices. The aim is todouble crop yields. For new technologies to be economically viable, balanced and efficientfertilizer use is essential.

It is of paramount importance for farmers to dedicate more cash to the procurement ofessential agricultural inputs. The scope for expanded fertilizer use by smallholders is limitedunless farmers obtain substantially higher yields. There is ample scope for achieving such yieldsin NRs II and III, where higher fertilizer nutrient use efficiencies can respond to fluctuating soilmoisture availability within the season.

The development of open markets, further expansion into export crops, and productionintensification will introduce more farmers into a cash economy. To be sustainable, this trend


requires the development of adequate rural financial services, including the collection of savingsand the allocation of loans adapted to farmers' needs. Alternative financial channels and schemesshould be promoted to service smallholders, including linkages between alternative intermediariesand banks. To this end, the authorities could develop a legal framework.

There is a need to develop farm systems, which are more appropriate to the economic, socialand resource environment of smallholders. Research should examine options for maximizingeconomic output and incomes in a sustainable fashion. It is important to develop a farmmanagement approach among smallholders. Financial documentation should be made extensive tonew farming practices and production patterns experimented in various programmes. This canhelp farmers evaluate risks and develop a more entrepreneurial attitude towards productionintensification.

Investments in infrastructure, especially in soil moisture conservation and irrigation waterresources mobilization, port facilities in Beira and rural roads, are necessary. Such investmentswill have a beneficial effect on farmers’ ability to adopt adequate plant nutrition managementpractices through lower risks, lower input costs and higher output prices. Given smallholders'needs and handling capacity, fertilizers should be more readily available in 25-kg bags.

The development of a market information system, with the participation of farmers' unionsand producers' associations, should help smallholders make better-informed decisions about cropallocations, input purchases and commodity marketing.

Many research programmes are dependent on external funding. More participatoryprogrammes with the direct involvement of farmers' unions and producers' associations wouldenhance sustainability.

The effective implementation of fertilizer regulations would encourage dealers to be morequality conscious.

In summary, the challenge facing Zimbabwe is to extend broad-based growth to all groupsof society, especially in the farming sector. Among the key parameters for economic success arean open economy, smallholder access to markets and inputs, and measures to increase land useefficiency and productivity. Given its diversification and land potential, the prospects forZimbabwean agriculture are promising. However, increases in productivity will require afavourable and stable environment if they are to be sustainable.

In particular, if smallholders are to meet the projected increased demand for agriculturalproduce, they will need to intensify production. This means increasing fertilizer use. The moreprofitable fertilizer use is, the more likely smallholders are to increase the amounts they use.Their profit margins will depend on producer prices and input (fertilizer) costs. Crops whichenjoy a significant comparative advantage, which are competitive in both domestic andinternational markets, and for which demand (and hence probably price) is trending upwardshould offer smallholders their best chance of obtaining stable, high producer prices. At the sametime, the public and private sectors should work together to improve: input, technology andmarket access; financing; infrastructure (particularly transport and storage); marketing, training,research and extension services. Such improvements would facilitate smallholder fertilizer useand enable the sector to play a full role in the developing market economy. Boosting smallholderincomes would have a considerable, positive effect on the general economy.

48 Bibliography


Bibliography

A. Mushaka, L. Tapfumaneyi and J. Nyakabau (eds.) Soil Fertility Improvement through Agroforestry inZimbabwe. Proceedings of the Second National Agroforestry Seminar, held at Kadoma Hotel andConference Centre, Kadoma, Zimbabwe, 9-10 October 1997. Joint publication of the NationalAgroforestry Steering Committee (NASCO) and Transactions of the Zimbabwe ScientificAssociation (In press).

ACFD (African Centre for Fertilizer Development) / University of Zimbabwe; Survey on fertilizeradoption and use; 1998.

Agricultural Marketing Authority (AMA). 1990. Cotton situation and outlook report 1989/90. Harare,Zimbabwe.

Agritex. 1989 Series of maps with information on various climatic parameters prepared by the EarlyWarning Unit for Food Security.

Anderson, I.P., P.J. Brinn, M. Moyo and B. Nyamwanza. 1993. Physical Resource Inventory of theCommunal Lands of Zimbabwe – An Overview. NRI Bulletin 60. Chatham, UK: Natural ResourcesInstitute.

Bernardi, M. & S.J. Madzudzo. 1990a. Crop Yield Estimates based on the Water RequirementsSatisfaction Index. Ministry of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resetttlement, Agritex, National EarlyWarning Unit for Food Security.

Bernardi, M. & S.J. Madzudzo. 1990b. Agro-Climatology Applied to Crop Production in Zimbabwe.Ministry of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement, Agritex, National Early Warning Unit.

Central Statistical Office (CSO); Statistical Yearbook 1995, 1996 and1997.

Central Statistical Office (CSO. 1997. Crop production on Large Scale Commercial farms. Harare,Zimbabwe.

Central Statistical Office. 1995. Agricultural Production on Communal Land Irrigation Schemes Farms1993.

Central Statistical Office. 1995. Crop Production on Large Scale Commercial Farms 1994.

Central Statistical Office. 1996. Agricultural Production on Communal Land Irrigation Schemes 1994.

Central Statistical Office. 1996. Agricultural Production on Resettlement Schemes 1994.

Central Statistical Office. 1996. Agricultural Production on Small Scale Commercial Farms 1994.

Central Statistical Office. 1996. Agriculture and Livestock Survey in Communal lands 1993/94.


Central Statistical Office. 1997. Agricultural Production on Communal Land Irrigation Schemes 1995.



Central Statistical Office. 1997. Agriculture and Livestock Survey in Communal lands 1994/95.


Central Statistical Office. 1998 (in prep.). Agriculture and Livestock Survey in Communal lands1995/96.

50 Bibliography



Central Statistical Office. 1998. ARDA Estates 1993 – 1997.

Chavunduka, D. M.1978. African attitudes to conservation. Rhodesia Agricultural Journal 75 (3): 61-63.

Chenje, M., L. Sola and D. Paleczny (eds). 1998. The State of Zimbabwe’s Environment 1998. Ministryof Mines, Environment and Tourism.

Chidzero, B. 1994. Macro-economic adjustment and trade liberalization. In Rukuni, M. and Eicher, C.K(eds.) Zimbabwe's Agricultural Revolution. University of Zimbabwe Publications. Harare,Zimbabwe. pp 277-288.

Chitsiko, R.J. 1995. Irrigation Development in Zimbabwe. Constraints and Opportunities. Paper.forConference “Water Development for Diversification within the Smallholder Farming Sector.”

CIMMYT / SOIL FERTILITY NETWORK; Soil Fertility Research for Maize-Based Farming Systems inMalawi and Zimbabwe. June 1998.

Cole Desiree L. and S. Cole. 1994. Tobacco research and development. In Rukuni, M. and Eicher, C.K(eds.) Zimbabwe's Agricultural Revolution. University of Zimbabwe Publications. Harare,Zimbabwe. pp 277-288.

DANIDA / WORLD BANK / MINISTRY OF LANDS AND AGRICULTURE; Rural Finance Study -Phase I : Status of Rural Finance in Zimbabwe. October 1998.

Department of Research and Specialist Services. 1979. Provisional Soil Map of Zimbabwe Rhodesia1:1 000 000.

Department of the Surveyor-General. 1998a. Zimbabwe 1:1 000 000, Land Classification Map.

Department of the Surveyor-General. 1998b. Zimbabwe 1:1 000 000, Natural Regions and ProvisionalFarming Areas Map.

FAO; Country Economic and Agricultural Sector Profile. Zimbabwe. January 1997.

FAO; Plant Nutrition for Sustainable Agricultural Development in Pakistan. Field document. 1998.

FAO; Plant Nutrition for Sustainable Agriculture - The Philippines. Technical report. 1996.

First Merchant Bank of Zimbabwe Ltd; Quarterly Guide of the Economy. October 1998.

Friedrich Ebert Stiftung / Zimbabwe Farmers Union; The Impact of ESAP on Comunal Areas ofZimbabwe. June 1997.

Government of Zimbabwe - Ministry of Agriculture; Agricultural Policy Framework 1995-2000.

Government of Zimbabwe; A Framework for Economic Reform - 1991/1995.

Government of Zimbabwe; Budget Estimates for the year ending December 31, 1999. October 1998.

Government of Zimbabwe; Budget Statement 1999 presented to the Parliament of Zimbabwe on October15, 1998 by the Minister of Finance.

Government of Zimbabwe; Zimbabwe Programme for Economic and Social Transformation 1996/2000[ZIMPREST].

Grant, P.M. 1981. The fertilization of sandy soils in peasant agriculture. Zimbabwe Agricultural Journal,Vol. 78 (5), pp 169-175.

Grant, P. M. 1970. Restoration of productivity of depleted sands. Rhodesia Agricultural Journal 67: 131-137.


Hikwa, D. and S.R. Waddington. (1998). Annual legumes for improving soil fertility in the smallholdermaize-based farming systems of Zimbabwe. In Hikwa, D., B. Maasdorp.

Hikwa, D., C. Chibudu, L. Mugwira, L. Mukurumbira, S. Mabasa, D. Dhliwayo and. T. Sithole. 1997.Soil fertility management options for maize-based cropping systems in the smallholder farmingsector areas of Zimbabwe. In Mphepo, M., S.R. Waddington, and H.S.K. Phombeya, (eds.)Dissemination of Soil Fertility technologies. Proceedings of a workshop held at Mangochi, Malawi,15-17 July 1996. A Soil Fert Net/Bunda College, University of Malawi Publication.Harare,CIMMYT-Zimbabwe.pp 13-24.

Ministry of Lands and Agriculture (MoLA). 1998. The agricultural sector of Zimbabwe. StatisticalBulletin, March 1998. Policy and Planning Division of MoLA, Harare, Zimbabwe.

Ministry of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement. 1986. Conceptual Framework for the CommunalLands Development Plan.

Mudhara, M., P. Anandajayasekeram, B. Kupfuma and E. Mazhangara. 1995. Impact assessment ofcotton research and the enabling environment in Zimbabwe, 1970-1995. SADC/SACCAR(Southern AfricanDevelopment community/Southern African Centre for Cooperation inAgricultural Research).

Owen, R. et al (ed). 1995. Dambo Farming in Zimbabwe: Water Management, Cropping and SoilPotentials for Smallholder Farming in the Wetlands. Conference Proceedings. University ofZimbabwe Publications, Harare.

Rukuni, M. 1991. An overview of smallholder irrigation in Zimbabwe. In Ruigu G. and M. Rukuni(eds.) Irrigation Policy in Kenya and Zimbabwe. University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.

Rukuni, M. and J. Makadho, 1994. Irrigation development. In Rukuni, M. and C.K Eicher (eds)Zimbabwe's Agricultural Revolution. University of Zimbabwe Publications, Harare Zimbabwe. pp277-288.

SADC - Southern African Development Community: The Micro-economic Impact of Drought; TheMacro-economic Impact of Drought; Draft Country Paper on Zimbabwe. High-Level RegionalDrought Policy Seminar. Gaborone, Botswana. November 1997.

Sanchez, P.A., K.D. Shepherd, M.J. Soule, F.M. Place, R.J. Buresh, A.N. Izac, A.U. Mokwunye, F.R.Kwesiga, C.G. Ndiritu and P.L. Woomer. 1997. Soil fertility replenishment in Africa: Aninvestment in natural resource capital. In Buresh R.L., P.A. Sanchez and F. Calhoun (eds.)Replenishing Soil Fertility in Africa. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication # 51,American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wisconsin, USA. pp. 1-46.

Saunder, D.H. and H.R. Metelerkamp. 1962. Use of anion exchange resin for determination of availablesoil phosphorus. International Society of Soil Science, New Zealand. pp. 2-4.

Smaling, E.M.A., S.M. Nandwa and B.H. Jansen. 993. Soil fertility in Africa is at stake. In BureshR.L., P.A. Sanchez and F. Calhoun (eds.) Replenishing Soil Fertility in Africa. Soil Science Societyof America Special Publication # 51, American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wisconsin, USA.pp. 47-61.

Standard Chartered Bank Zimbabwe Ltd; Business Trends Zimbabwe. November 1998.

Thompson, J.G. and W.D. Purves. 1978. A Guide to the Soils of Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe AgriculturalJournal. Technical Handbook No. 3. CSRI, DRSS.

University of Zimbabwe / Free University Amsterdam. Determinants of Rural Household Incomes andtheir Impact on Poverty and Food Security in Zimbabwe; Workshop on Rural Household Dynamics;Harare; Bill H. Kinsey; June 1998.

Vincent, V. and R.G. Thomas.1961. An agricultural survey of Southern Rhodesia. Part 1 – Agro-ecological survey. Government Printers, Salisbury.

52 Bibliography

Vowles, M. (ed). 1989. Conservation Tillage. A Handbook for Commercial Farmers in Zimbabwe.Commercial Grain Producers Association. Laser Print, Harare.

Whingwiri, E.E. et al (ed). 1992a. Small-Scale Agriculture in Zimbabwe. Book 1: Farming Systems,Policy and Infrastructural Development. Rockwood Publishers, Harare.

Whingwiri, E.E. et al (ed). 1992b. Small-Scale Agriculture in Zimbabwe. Book 2: Field Crop Production.Rockwood Publishers, Harare.

World Bank / Ministry af Lands, Agriculture and Water Development; Towards Sustainable SmallholderAgriculture. Vincent A. Ashworth. October 1993.

World Bank; Agriculture Sector Memorandum. Volume II: Main report. Volume III: Annexes. May1991.

World Bank; Zimbabwe - Achieving Shared Growth; Country Economic Memorandum. April 1995.

World Vision International. Promoting Food Security through Savings and Asset Creation. November1995.

Zimbabwe Fertilizer Company (ZFC). 1995. Fertilizer Price List (showing N, P2O5 and K2Ocomposition in various Zimbabwean fertilizers).

Zimbabwe Sugar Association (ZSA). 1999. Types of fertilizers used in sugarcane production and theiryearly fertilizer consumption.

ZTA (Zimbabwe Tobacco Association) / FDT (Farmers' Development Trust). Background documents.


Annex 1Fertilizer adoption and use survey:

ZimbabweSUMMARY

This annex concerns fertilizer use in Zimbabwe and presents the finding of a recently conductednation-wide survey into small-scale farming and fertilizer adoption and use.

Survey teams travelled around the country to interview a sample number of small-scale farmersin order to obtain information concerning their knowledge of fertilizer benefits, the reasonsunderlying their fertilizer allocation decisions, the factors they consider when deciding onfertilizer purchases, and the role of prices in determining fertilizer demand. In addition, the surveysought to develop a dialogue with farmers on the fertilizer market. The data were then processed,tabulated and analysed by experts in Zimbabwe.

From the survey it emerges that 69 percent of small-scale farmers use fertilizers, most of whom(76 percent) first learned about the benefits of doing so from Agritex. The number of farmersusing fertilizers has grown considerably since independence. Overall, though three-quarters of thefarmers interviewed knew about the general benefits of fertilizer use, their knowledge about howand when to apply fertilizer, which fertilizer provides which specific benefits, and what sort ofincremental value fertilizer use brings was not always correct and was sometimes mistaken.

In 1996-97 80.7 percent of the farmers interviewed had applied fertilizer to maize. This waseasily the top ranked crop in terms of fertilizer application with cotton second (13.6 percent). Thetwo types of fertilizer applied to maize by the farmers were Compound D (by 49.9 percent) andammonium nitrate (by 50.1 percent).

More than half of the farmers (56.5 percent) failed to obtain the desired results from usingfertilizers. In their view, these unsatisfactory results were due either to too much rain or to toolittle rain. Nonetheless, the overall trend in fertilizer consumption is upward.

The farmers indicated their cash position as the most important factor affecting the quantity offertilizer they apply, with 47.7 percent of them selling grain in order to obtain cash to be able todo so. Cash shortages and lack of credit were given as the major reasons for failing to apply therecommended quantities of fertilizer.

Of the various factors included in the survey as possible determinants of fertilizer adoption, thosethat the data showed significant were: age, sex and education, size of landholding, and access toan all-weather road. For fertilizer purchases, the significant factors were: age, sex, education,product knowledge, previous use, knowledge of incremental value, credit availability, priceinformation, distance from a sale point, fertilizer availability, and grain sales.

The probit estimation looked at critical levels of fertilizer application. The following variableswere significant for fertilizer adoption: natural region, grain sales, education and age. Forfertilizer demand the significant factors were product knowledge, previous use, credit availability,grain sales, fertilizer supplies and availability of extension services.

Some 63 percent of the farmers interviewed expected to increase their use of fertilizers. In theirview, the four main factors for encouraging increased fertilizer use which influence their decisionto buy fertilizers are price stability, government subsidies, and grain-fertilizer price parity andcredit availability.

Fertilizer adoption and use survey: Zimbabwe54

SURVEY OBJECTIVES

Objectives of the fertilizer adoption and market survey

The overall objective of the survey was to collect data and develop information for use by theGovernment of Zimbabwe, FAO, the African Centre for Fertilizer Development (ACFD) andother development agencies on actual and potential demand for fertilizer and current farmingpractices among smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe. Information developed by the survey will beused to develop and refine strategies for further liberalizing the fertilizer marketing anddistribution system in support of improved availability, increased aggregate demand and effectiveuse of fertilizers.

The specific objectives of the survey were:

• to measure the extent and depth of farmers’ knowledge of the usefulness of fertilizers;• to develop a procedure for identifying the reasoning behind farmers’ allocation of fertilizers to

different crops in different years in different areas of the country;• to develop a preliminary understanding and ranking of the factors which farmers take into

consideration when deciding to purchase fertilizers;• to develop an empirically based understanding of the role of pricing in fertilizer demand;• to open a dialogue with farmers on the structure and functioning of the fertilizer market.

Outline of the area covered

Zimbabwe is an important agricultural country located in southern Africa. The country has atotal area of 38 945 750 ha under cultivation. On the basis of rainfall, soil type and climaticfactors, Zimbabwe has been divided into five natural regions (NRs). The NRs have distinctfeatures relating to: rainfall (amount and distribution), population of small-scale farmers,agricultural production, level of agricultural development, and pattern of fertilizer use. In view ofthe fact that the regions were created, primarily, to plan and monitor the growth of agricultureand research and that the development of agriculture is planned on the basis of these NRs, it wasdecided to consider each of the five NRs as a survey zone.

Analysis of the determinant factors

The determinants of total fertilizer demand were grouped into the following three categories andanalysed to evaluate their impact:

• determinants of fertilizer adoption;• determinants of fertilizer purchase;• determinants of disruption in fertilizer use.

Although the various factors affecting total fertilizer demand may well be interrelated, eachfactor can play a significant role in the decision-making process. Therefore, efforts were made toidentify the factors, which have a greater influence on small-scale farmers in the adoption andinterruption of fertilizer use and the level of fertilizer purchases.

Defining the variables

As a farmer’s decision to adopt and use fertilizer is determined by several variables, a number offactors were included in the interview questionnaire. The responses received from the respondentswere analysed and grouped into the following six categories:


• personal attributes;• product knowledge and awareness;• resource endowment;• logistics and supply factors;• fertilizer and grain prices;• credit availability.

Survey results

The survey results are presented in the form of largely self-explanatory tables with briefcomments as necessary to highlight particular aspects.

DETAILS OF THE SURVEY APPROACH

Information required

The specific objectives of the survey necessitated the gathering of specific related information.The information required for each objective is given below.

Objective: To measure the extent and depth of farmers’ knowledge of the usefulness of fertilizers.

Information required: How many farmers know what fertilizers do (or can do) for them in termsof increased yield? How general or specific is this knowledge? Which farmers know the yielddifference (measured in kilograms per hectare) that can, in general, be attributed to the use of acertain amount of nitrogenous, phosphate or potash fertilizer (specific type(s) used) on specificcrops (maize, wheat, sorghum and pulses)?

Objective: To develop a procedure for identifying the reasoning behind farmers’ allocation offertilizers to different crops in different years in different areas of the country.

Information required: What level of fertilizers did farmers use on the various crops specifiedabove in the last three years and what yields were obtained? What levels of fertilizers are farmersplanning to use in 1997/98 and why? On what calculations/deliberations is this level based?

Objective: To develop a preliminary understanding and ranking of the factors which farmers takeinto consideration when deciding to purchase fertilizers.

Information required: What factors are involved in farmers’ decisions (a) to use differentamounts of fertilizers each year or (b) to use fertilizers at all in each of these years? These factorscould be availability of supply at the right time, in the right quantity and quality; cost offertilizers; understanding of cost-benefit ratio; credit availability; level of rainfall or irrigationwater; knowledge of probable local market crop; degree to which crops are marketed; level ofaccess to markets; and soil types being cultivated.

Objective: To develop an empirically based understanding of the role of pricing in fertilizerdemand.

Information required: How important is the price of fertilizers in the decision to use/not to use,or use moderate amounts on the crops cultivated compared to other factors (e.g. access,availability or lack of money, perception of credit risk, etc.)?


Objective: To open a dialogue with farmers on the structure and functioning of the fertilizermarket.

Information required: What are farmers’ views on the fertilizer supply and distribution system?Do farmers think that having private as well as public fertilizer retailers and wholesalers is agood idea? Is it important for the government to continue to set prices? What do farmers thinkshould be done to improve the system?

Survey design

For the purposes of the survey, Zimbabwe was divided into five survey zones corresponding tothe five natural regions (NRs) of the country.

Survey zone 1 (NR I)

NR I has a total area of 680 560 ha (2 percent of the total area of the country) and a populationof 58 755 small-scale farmers with 160 000 ha under cultivation. It has an average rainfall of900-1 700 mm per year and is known as the specialized and diversified farming area of thecountry. Maize, sorghum, finger millet, cotton, groundnuts and sunflower are the main cropsgrown by the small-scale farmers in this region. For interview purposes, the villages/farmingsettlements were selected randomly and in consultation with Agritex staff from the districts ofChimanimani, Chipinge, Marange, Mutasa, Nyanga and Mutare. A total of 85 samples wereplanned for this survey zone.

Survey zone 2 (NR II)

NR II has a cultivated area of 5 861 043 ha (15 percent of the total area of Zimbabwe) and213 000 cropping farmers. It has an annual rainfall of 750-1 000 mm and is known as theintensive farming area of the country. Livestock farming is also conducted on an intensive basisin this area. The major crops grown by the small-scale farmers are maize, finger millet, cotton,groundnuts, sunflower, sorghum and pearl millet. The villages/farming settlements from thedistricts of Chegutu, Chimanimani, Goromonzi, Hurungwe, Hwedza, Kadoma, Magunje,Marange, Marondera, Murehwa, Mutasa, Nyanga and Mutare were selected for sampling on arandom basis. A total of 600 samples were planned for this survey zone.

Survey zone 3 (NR III)

NR III has a total area of 7 292 367 ha (19 percent of the total area of the country). It receives anannual rainfall of 650-750 mm. A total number of 252 269 small-scale cropping farmers aresettled in this region. NR III is known as the semi-intensive farming zone of the country. Maize,the small-scale farmers grow tobacco, cotton, groundnuts, pearl millet, sunflower and rapoko.The sampling locations were randomly selected from the districts of Chikomba, Gokwe South,Guruve, Gweru, Hurungwe, Hwedza, Kadoma, Magunje, Masvingo, Muzarabani, Murehwa,Mutoko, Nyanga, Zaka, Zvishavane and Gokwe North. A total of 780 samples were planned forthis zone.

Survey zone 4 (NR IV)

NR IV has a total area of 15 515 887 ha (40 percent of the total area of Zimbabwe). The regionreceives an annual rainfall of 450-650 mm. It is known as the semi-extensive farming area of thecountry. There are 442 505 small-scale cropping farmers with a total cropped area of 844 256ha. Maize, pearl millet, finger millet, groundnuts and sunflower are cultivated in this zone.Farming settlements from the districts of Chipinge, Chivi, Esigodini, Gokwe south, Guruve,


Gutu, Gwanda, Gweru, Hurungwe, Kadoma, Kariba, Masvingo, Muzarabani, Mutoko,Zvishavane and Gokwe North were selected for interview purposes. A total of 860 samples wereplanned from this survey zone.

Survey zone 5 (NR V)

NR V has a cultivated area of 9 590 743 ha (24 percent of the total area of the country). It isknown as the extensive farming area of the country. There are 165 869 cropping farmers in thiszone. It receives less than 200 mm of rainfall per year and is primarily a dryland farming area ofZimbabwe. The main crops grown are maize, sorghum, pearl millet and groundnuts. Thesampling locations were selected from the districts of Buhera, Chipinge, Chimanimani, Chivi,Guruve, Gutu, Gwanda, Kariba, Mutoko, Nyanga and Mutare. A total of 700 samples wereplanned for this zone.

Note: Several districts are included in more than one NR and therefore appear to be repeated inthe survey zones.

Sample size

It was planed to interview a total of 3 025 individual farmers from all five NRs of the country.Table 1 presents the breakdown by NR of the population of small-scale cropping farmers and theplanned number of samples for each survey zone.

TABLE 1Breakdown of planned samples

Natural region Total no. of small-scalefarmers

No. of samples planned % of total population

IIIIIIIVV

58 755213 000252 269442 505165 869

85600780860700

0.150.200.350.200.43

TOTAL 1 132 398 3 025 0.26

In selecting the number of farmers from each survey zone to interview, the followingfactors were taken into consideration:

• population of small-scale farmers;• cropping pattern;• fertilizer consumption pattern in the region;• accessibility and mode of transportation, etc.

Each NR was subdivided into survey circles. Due to time constraints, the approaching rainyseason and rural transport problems, the actual number of samples had to be limited. However,efforts were made to make the survey as representative as possible.

Selection and training of survey staff

To carry out the survey, a team of 15 enumerators and 3 survey supervisors was recruitedthrough the Institute of Development Studies, University of Zimbabwe. Efforts were made toengage people with relevant knowledge of the natural regions and sufficient experience in similarwork. The survey team consisted of 15 men and 3 women.


A comprehensive five-day training workshop was organized to update the survey staff’sknowledge on fertilizer marketing and enhance their data collection skills. Experts in the relevantfields were invited from the University of Zimbabwe and ACFD to discuss various subjects withthe survey team. The training curriculum included the following subjects:

• product knowledge, use merits and methods of use of fertilizers;• fertilizer marketing scenario in Zimbabwe;• introduction to the five natural regions of Zimbabwe;• sampling techniques;• communication methods.

Development and pre-testing of the questionnaire

The training workshop devoted considerable time to the development of the questionnaire. Aquestionnaire provided by FAO was revised and modified to suit local conditions andrequirements. The purpose of each question was discussed in order to give the survey staff athorough understanding of all the questions. Two separate questionnaires were developed:

• a questionnaire for individual farmer interviews;.• a questionnaire for interviews of group of farmers, agro-dealers, Agritex representatives and

officials of the MOA and fertilizer industry.

At the end of the training session, the questionnaires were pre-tested by the survey team intwo nearby villages. The data collected were evaluated and the questionnaire was modified wherenecessary. The problems encountered by the survey team were suitably addressed. Thequestionnaires were then printed and copies provided to each member of the survey team.

Logistics planning

To ensure the efficient movement of the survey team, a logistics plan was formulated through aproper understanding of the topography of the survey area. To minimize travelling time, threevehicles were provided to the survey staff. The areas to be visited were earmarked and the surveystaff was grouped into three teams, each headed by a survey supervisor. Each team was providedwith a brief outline of the sampling area to be surveyed. This plan also facilitated the surveymanagement team in its visits to the enumerators to inspect the work and offer on-the-spot advicefor the efficient execution of the survey work.

Although the enumerators could communicate in English in most sampling areas, the helpof some local Agritex staff was needed in NR V in order to communicate effectively with thefarmers.

Method of data collection

Individual interviews

The enumerators visited the individual farmers at their homes/farms for face-to-face interviews.The survey teams were able to complete 2 969 questionnaires of the 3 025 planned (Table 2).


TABLE 2Planned and actual samples

NR No. of samples planned Actual samples Variation

IIIIIIIVV

85 600 780 860 700

76 586 766 847 694

-9-14-14-13- 6

TOTAL 3 025 2 969 -56

Group interviews

The survey supervisors and staff of the management team conducted fifty-five group interviews.Each group included 15-20 farmers, agro-dealers, and extension workers.

Non-structured interviews

The team leader and technical adviser had discussions with the farmers, Agritex staff, agro-dealers, and sales staff of the agri-input industry in order to obtain firsthand information and tocheck the flow of information being gathered by the field staff. Efforts were made to develop anup-to-date picture of the fertilizer adoption and marketing situation in the country frominformation provided by the senior officers involved in policy making, and of the production,marketing and promotion of fertilizers in the country.

Data analysis method

Experts of the University of Zimbabwe processed; tabulated and analysed the data collected usingthe SPSS statistical methods. Experts of the ACFD shaped the data analysis document preparedby the University of Zimbabwe into a survey report.

Variables and related hypotheses

The following six categories were included in the survey.

(i) Personal attributes

Personal attributes such as age, sex, education and family size are expected to have an impact onthe level of adoption and intensity of fertilizer use by small-scale farmers. These factors aredefined in terms of:

Age: Age is defined as the age of the head of the farming family. The hypothesis is that youngerfarmers are less risk averse than older farmers are. Age, therefore, was expected to have anegative coefficient, as older farmers should be less willing to adopt fertilizer use or apply higherdoses of fertilizers as compared to young farmers.

Sex: Sex refers to the head of the farming family being a male or a female. As families headed bywomen are generally poorer and more frequently have a subsistence level of farming, they areexpected to have less capacity to adopt fertilizer use and to apply less fertilizer than farmingfamilies headed by a male member. This factor, therefore, was expected to have a negativecoefficient.

Education: Education refers to the literacy level of the head of the farming family. Being moreexposed to information and written literature, literate farmers are expected to be more positively


disposed to the adoption of fertilizer and its optimum use as compared to illiterate farmers. Thisfactor was expected to be a positive coefficient.

(ii) Product knowledge and awareness

Farmers’ knowledge of the fertilizer products, their use benefits, incremental value and farmers’general awareness about agri-inputs and their contacts with Agritex staff are expected to have apositive impact on the decision to adopt and apply the optimum doses of fertilizers. The followingfactors were taken into consideration:

Personal experience: Personal experience refers to the farmer’s own experience of fertilizer useand the number of years a farmer has been using fertilizers. This factor is expected to have apositive correlation in the level of adoption and intensity of fertilizer consumption.

Product knowledge: This refers to the farmers’ knowledge about the use benefits of the specificfertilizer products. It is assumed that the better the knowledge of fertilizer products, the better isthe farmer’s selection of economical products, and this, therefore, results in a higher level ofadoption and intensity of fertilizer consumption.

Incremental value of fertilizer use: This relates to the farmers’ knowledge of the additionalquantity of crop obtained through investments in fertilizers. Correct knowledge about fertilizerincremental value is expected to have a positive influence on farmers’ decisions on the quantity offertilizer to be applied.

Fertilizer and grain prices: This variable relates to farmers who sell grain and correlate the grainand fertilizer sale prices when making decisions on fertilizer purchases. This variable is expectedto have a positive impact on a farmer’s decision to buy fertilizer and is, therefore, a positivecoefficient.

Knowledge about fertilizer recommendations: This refers to the farmers’ knowledge about thecorrect quantity and timing of fertilizer applications as recommended by Agritex. The optimumquantity of fertilizers applied at the proper time results in higher yields and is, therefore, apositive coefficient.

Improved seeds and fertilizer use: This refers to the use of improved seeds and the application offertilizers as a package. As improved (hybrid) seeds require higher doses of fertilizer, theircombination in proper quantity results in increased yields and, therefore, has a positivecorrelation.

Extension services: This variable relates to the farmers’ contacts with extension staff. The morecontact farmers have with extension staff, the more likely they are to adopt the scientific packageof farm practices, the result being higher crop yields. Therefore, this variable is expected to havea positive correlation.

(iii) Resource endowments

The agricultural resources of farmers are expected to have a direct bearing on their decisions onthe adoption and use of fertilizers and other inputs. The following factors were included in thiscategory:


Farm size: This refers to the area of the landholding. The hypothesis states that the larger thefarm, the lower is the average use level of fertilizers. This factor, therefore, is expected to be anegative coefficient.

Family size: Family size refers to the number of dependent members aged less than 10 years andabove 65 years. It is expected that the larger the family, the more a farmer is compelled to growcrops for home consumption, i.e. subsistence farming, and therefore the less likely is the adoptionof fertilizers. This factor is expected to be a negative coefficient.

(iv) Logistics and supply factors

The factors relating to farm location, such as the presence of an all-weather road, distance fromthe sale point, mode of transport available, and the availability of the right types of fertilizers inthe area are expected to influence greatly farmers’ decisions on the adoption of fertilizers and thedetermination of the quantity to be applied. The following factors relating to the logistics offertilizer supply were included in this category:

Access to all-weather road: The location of the farm villages on a good road that facilitates thetransportation of fertilizers and crop produce is a variable, which was expected to have a positivecorrelation.

Distance from sale point: This refers to the distance a farmer is required to travel to the nearestsale point to buy fertilizers and to sell the crop produce. Distance is expected to have a negativeinfluence on the purchase of inputs.

Supply position: This variable refers to the availability of desired fertilizer types at the salepoints at the time of purchase. The availability of the right type of fertilizer (and other inputs) atthe right place were expected to have a positive impact on the adoption and use of fertilizers.

(v) Fertilizer and grain prices

The sale price of fertilizers and other inputs as well as grain prices (crop produce) are factorswhich can have a great bearing on farmers’ decisions concerning both the level of adoption andthe intensity of fertilizer use. The information about fertilizer prices and farmers’ ownperceptions of the prices of fertilizer and grains are some of the variables included in thiscategory.

(vi) Credit availability

The availability of credit for the purchase of fertilizers, farmers’ perceptions about their capacityto repay the loan from increased crop production, and whether the farmer thinks it proper to buyfertilizers on credit, are some of the variables included in this category.

Quality control

The following measures were taken to ensure the good quality of the data:

• The questionnaire was properly designed, reviewed, discussed and pre-tested.

• The selection of the survey team was done through the experienced staff of the University ofZimbabwe.

• A comprehensive training programme was designed and executed with the help of experts ofthe ACFD and the University of Zimbabwe.


• A logistics and movement plan was prepared, followed up, supervised and checked by thesenior members of the management team.

• The survey findings were reviewed, cleaned and edited.• Experts of the University of Zimbabwe and the ACFD processed the data.

Problems encountered

Although no serious problems were encountered in conducting the survey, certain difficultieswere experienced which resulted in the delay of the preparation of the survey report. Some of theproblems faced were:

• The period of data collection (November-December 1997) coincided with the rainy seasonand therefore restricted the movements of the survey staff.

• In Matebeleland, language was a constraint on communication with the farmers.

• During the field survey, one enumerator fell ill and another left the team, so affecting theprogress of the data collection.

• The data analysis was unexpectedly delayed because of the closure of the University ofZimbabwe in June 1998.

STATUS OF ADOPTION OF FERTILIZERS AND OTHER INPUTS

Adoption of fertilizer by small-scalefarmers in Zimbabwe

Individual farmers

Table 3 presents the responses of 2 969individual small-scale farmers concerning theuse of inorganic fertilizers as an agriculturalinput.

Table 4 ranks the sources of learningabout the use benefits of fertilizers.

Table 5 presents the informationprovided by the 2 102 small-scale farmersusing fertilizers about when they started usingfertilizers.

Farmer groups

Table 6 presents information provided by the55 farmer groups contacted by the surveyteams on the length of fertilizer use incommunal areas.

TABLE 3Status of fertilizer adoption by small-scale farmers

Particulars No. % of totalFarmers using fertilizersFarmers who never usedfertilizers

2102 867

6931

TOTAL 2969 100

TABLE 4Source of first time learning about fertilizer use

Ranking Source No. %1234567

89

AgritexFamily membersNeighbours farmersCommercial farmersAgro dealersCoop societiesOthers (fertilizer salestaff etc)Development projectsResearch centres

1643 250 143 50 25 20 16

20 5

7612 7 2 1 1 1

1 0

TOTAL 2102 100


Fertilizer industry data confirmed thatonly about 25 000 t of fertilizers, i.e.6.25 percent of the total, were sold tocommunal farmers in the pre-independenceperiod. It was further reported that only afew farmers in the communal areas usedfertilizers in the pre-independence period. Itis evident that fertilizer adoption inZimbabwe has increased considerably sinceindependence and indeed approximately halfof the communal farmers using fertilizersadopted their use in the first decade afterindependence. A growth rate of 233 percentwas witnessed in the number of fertilizeruser farmers in this period.

Adoption of improved seeds and cropchemicals

Improved (hybrid) seeds

Table 7 presents information provided by 2 969farmers on the adoption of improved/ hybridseeds in the communal areas.

Agro-chemicals

Table 8 tabulates respondents’ knowledge of thebenefits of agro-chemicals (insecticides/fungicides/herbicides).

Farmers’ choice of fertilizer products

Table 9 presents the farmers responsesconcerning their preferences for the fertilizerproducts available.

Indicators used by farmers to identifyfertilizer products

Table 10 presents the characteristics small-scale farmers stated that they use as indicatorsto identify the fertilizer products.

Farmers’ knowledge of use benefits offertilizer products

Table 11 presents the extent of farmers’knowledge on the use benefits of fertilizers, ingeneral, and that of different fertilizerproducts in particular.

TABLE 5Length of fertilizer adoption (individual farmers)

Particulars No. of farmers % of total1970-19801980-19901990-1997

336841925

164044

TOTAL 2102 100

TABLE 6Estimated length of fertilizer use - (farmer groups)

Period % of farmersadopting fertilizer

use

growth rate(average)

1970-19801980-19901990-1997

18-20%42-45%40-42%

-233%95%

TABLE 7Crops using improved/hybrid seeds

Crop Number of farmers % of totalMaizeCottonSunflowerGroundnutsVegetablesPearl milletPaprika

284859923419813410150

96%20%8%7%5%3%2%

TABLE 8Knowledge about agro-chemicals

Farmer type No. %1 Farmers knowing the useadvantages of agro-chemicals2 Farmers not knowing the use

advantages of agro-chemicals

1312

1657

44

56

Total 2969 100

TABLE 9Choice of fertilizer products

Particulars No. % of totalDAP 0 0Compound D/L/C 1200 37SSP/TSP 22 1Ammonium Nitrate (A.N.) 1773 55Urea 17 1All fertilizers 88 3No difference what is used 94 3

TABLE 10Indicators to identify fertilizer products

Fertilizercharacteristics

No. offarmers

% of total

Color 838 33Label 1536 61Physical appearance 163 6Others 0 0


TABLE 11Farmers’ knowledge of use benefits of fertilizer products

Particulars No. offarmers

% of total

Farmers knowing the use benefits of fertilizers in general 2 226 75.0Farmers claiming to know the use benefits of specific fertilizers products:

DAPUreaCompounds C/D/LANSSP/TSPMOP

264

2 0112 038

555

0.13.1

97.498.62.60.2

Farmers indicating that basal fertilizers (Compound D) benefit the crops by:• boosting vegetative growth• increasing the number of tillers• assisting crop maturity

2 0681741

93.05.21.8

Farmers indicating that top dressing fertilizers (AN) benefit the crops by:• boosting vegetative growth• increasing the number of tillers• assisting crop maturity

1201 952

154

5.487.76.9

Though 75 percent of the farmers claimed to know the use benefits of inorganic fertilizers,25 percent of small-scale farmers could not say how fertilizers benefit the crops and what the specificadvantages of using fertilizers in crop cultivation are.

Regarding product knowledge and the merits of using a specific type of fertilizer, the vast majorityof farmers stated that they knew the use advantages of Compound D and ammonium nitrate fertilizers(marketed in Zimbabwe). A similar majority had no knowledge of fertilizer products such as DAP,urea and MOP, even though these products are very popular in the world market and are being used inthe neighbouring countries of Malawi andZambia.

Method and timing of fertilizerapplication

Timing of fertilizer application

Table 12 tabulates the responses of small-scale farmers concerning the timing offertilizer applications and the crop growthstage when they applied fertilizers.

On the common timing of applicationof top dressing fertilizers (AN), 78 percentof respondent farmers stated that theyapply AN at the tasselling stage (for maize,the tasselling stage occurs 70-80 days aftergermination). Farmers were of the viewthat this is the time when the plant needsmore energy and therefore more nutrition isneeded.

TABLE 12Time of fertilizer application


% oftotal

Basal fertilizers (Compound D)

Before sowingAt the time of sowingAfter germinationBefore rains/irrigationAfter rains/irrigationAnytime

Top dressing fertilizers (A/N)

Before sowingMix with seedAfter germinationBefore rains/irrigationAfter rains/irrigationAt tasselling stageAnytime

32011084404

12011

021

85121

286162564

165827166

014114784


Methods of fertilizer application

Table 13 presents the information providedby small-scale farmers on the commonmethods of fertilizer application.

The mixing of fertilizers and seeds, atthe time of planting, was the most commonmethod and timing of basal fertilizerapplication in the small-scale farmingareas. Most of the maize crop inZimbabwe is planted after the onset of therains. Therefore, the application offertilizers is per force linked to the rainfallperiod.

Farmers’ knowledge about incre-mental value of fertilizer use

The farmers were asked to indicate if theycould calculate the incremental value offertilizer use. Table 14 presents theresponses given by 2 969 individualfarmers and 55 farmer groups about thisquestion.

The majority (68.3 percent) of small-scale farmers said that they did notunderstand the real incremental value offertilizer use and therefore failed tocalculate the absolute benefits of fertilizerapplication. The 31.7 percent of small-scale farmers who claimed to know theincremental value, expressed differentviews on the additional yields they obtainfrom fertilizer use, with 42 percent of thembelieving that fertilizer use can increasecrop yields by 500 percent, i.e. 1 kg offertilizer material can give an extra yield of5 kg.

Views of farmer groups on incrementalvalue

Table 15 presents the responses of the 55 farmer groups when asked to give the yield estimate perhectare of maize with the use of inorganic fertilizers.

The views expressed by the farmer groups were similar to those of the individual farmers. Fifty-four percent of farmer groups considered the maize yield to be 250-750 kg/ha without the use offertilizers. With the use of fertilizers, 23.7 percent of farmer groups felt that the maize yield could beincreased to 4 000 kg/ha and above. This represents an incremental ratio of approximately 1:5 to 1:6.An almost equal percentage (23.6 percent) of farmer groups felt that crop yields could be increased byup to 1.7 t to above 3.0 t, representing an incremental value of 1:6.8 to 1:12.0. Some 14.5 percent of

TABLE 13Method of fertilizer application


%

Basal fertilizer (Compound D)

Incorporate in soil before sowingMix with seed at sowingBroadcast before sowingBroadcast after sowingSide dressingAny other method

Total

Top dressing fertilizers (AN)

Broadcast by handSide dressing in rowsAround the plants by handMechanical broadcasterAny other method

34192710016

525193

2 102

71758

1 2036

64

174551259

100

3375804

Total 2 102 100

TABLE 14Perceived incremental value of fertilizer use


% oftotal

1. Farmers claiming to knowabout the incremental value offertilizer use.

941 31.7

2. Farmers saying they do notknow about the incrementalvalue of fertilizer use

2 028 68.3

3. Estimated incremental value(as mentioned by farmers): 500% 450% 400% 350% 300% 250% 200% 150% 100%

396 40 11 67 30 98 72108119

42 4 2 7 311 81113


farmer groups did not know about the incrementalvalue of fertilizers and failed to calculate the economicsof fertilizer use.

Approximately half of the individual farmers, aswell as the farmer groups, considered the incrementalvalue as being less than 1:3. The data further revealthat only 45-50 percent of small-scale farmers thoughtthat they could achieve an incremental ratio of 1:5.

EXISTING LEVEL OF FERTILIZER APPLICATION

Crops fertilized by small-scale farmers

The small-scale farmers provided information about thecrops to which they generally apply fertilizers. Theranking of the crops has been determined on the basisof percentage of farmers using fertilizers for each crop.

As is evident from Table 16, maize is the crop towhich fertilizers are applied by the great majority ofsmall-scale farmers, followed by cotton and tobacco.

Rate of fertilizer application

As maize is the only major crop to which fertilizers areapplied by the majority of small-scale farmers, furtherinformation on the quantity of fertilizers applied waslimited to this crop only. Table 17 presents the fertilizerapplication rates in terms of kilograms per hectare (50kg = 1 bag).

It was further noted that small-scale farmers,when selecting fertilizers for application, considerCompound D and AN as substitutes for each other.

Fertilizer recommendations as understood byfarmers

Farmers’ knowledge about fertilizationrecommendations

Table 18 summarizes the information provided by thesmall-scale farmers about their knowledge on fertilizerrecommendations.

A large percentage of small-scale farmers(69 percent) said that they did not know the fertilizerrecommendations given by Agritex or the fertilizerindustry for maize or any other crop. Of the 31 percentof respondents, who claimed to know the fertilizerrecommendations, 39 percent of them stated that therecommended quantity of Compound D for maize was3-4 bags per hectare. Regarding AN, 44 percent of

TABLE 15Estimated crop yields using fertilizers(farmers groups)

Yield kg/ha No. ofgroups

%

< 1 0001 001-1 2501 251-1 5001 501-1 7501 751-2 0002 001- 25002 501-2 7502 751-3 0003 001-35003 501-4 0004 001& aboveNo responseTOTAL

6-4191652211855

10.9-

7.31.8

16.41.8

10.99.13.63.6

20.014.5

100.0

TABLE 16Crops fertilized by small-scale farmers,1996-97Crop Ranking No. of

farmers% of

farmersMaizeCottonTobaccoPaprikaSorghumVegetablesMhunga

1234567

1 85031152452462

80.713.62.32.01.00.30.1

TOTAL 2 290 100.0

TABLE 17Fertilizer application rates to maize

Quantity (kg/ha) No. offarmers

%

Compound D(basal fertilizer)51-100101-150151-200201-250251-300above 300Subtotal

Ammonium Nitrate(top dressing fertilizer)51-100101-150151-200201-250251-300above 300

16948

35023

26766

923

42147

320189328

9.12.6

18.91.2

14.43.5

49.9

22.82.5

17.31.05.01.5

SUBTOTAL 927 50.1TOTAL 1 850 100.0


respondents said that only 1-2 bags per hectarewere recommended.

Ratio of basal and top dressing fertilizerapplications

Table 19 presents the ratio that emergedbetween basal and top dressing fertilizerapplications in communal areas from thefertilizer recommendations as understood bythe farmers.

The table shows that small-scale farmersconsidered different quantities of basal(Compound D) and top dressing fertilizer(AN) as being recommended for maize. Forexample, while 18 percent of farmers thoughtthat 1-2 bags of Compound D wererecommended for one hectare of maize,44 percent of farmers thought that 1-2 bagswere recommended for AN.

Farmers applying the desired quantity offertilizers in the last three years

The respondent small-scale farmers wereasked to confirm if they had been able to usethe desired quantities of fertilizers in the lastthree years (1994-1997). The desired quantitywas based on farmers’ own estimations of thequantity of fertilizer, which they believed to besufficient to grow a good crop. Table 20shows that about one-third of the small-scalefarmers were able to apply the desired quantityof fertilizers during the period 1994-97. Thenumber of farmers who could afford to apply250-350 kg of fertilizer per hectare to themaize crop ranged from 5.4 to 9.8 percent. In other words, 94.6-91.2 percent of small-scale farmersfailed to apply the desired quantities of fertilizers.

Fertilizer use efficiency

Farmers obtaining desired results from fertilizer use

Table 21 presents the responses received from 2 102 farmers using fertilizers. The table evidences thefact that a majority of them are not satisfied with results they obtain from fertilizer use.

TABLE 19Ratio between basal and top dressing fertilizerapplication (maize crop)

Fertilizer applicationrate (kg/ha)

% of farmers

51-100101-150151-200201-250251-300

above 300

Compound D186392287

AN445362103

TABLE 18Knowledge about fertilizer recommendations

Particulars No. % oftotal

No. of farmers claiming to knowthe recommendationsNo. of farmers claiming not toknow the recommendations

Fertilizer application ratesmentioned by farmers asrecommendations for maize crop:Compound D (kg/ha)51-100101-150151-200201-250251-300above 300AN (kg/ha)51-100101-150151-200201-250251-300above 300

922

2 047

16555

36019

25865

40646

332189228

31

69

186392287

445362103


Reasons for unsatisfactory results fromfertilizer use

Table 22 presents the reasons given by the small-scale farmers who do not obtain the desired resultsfrom fertilizer use as being responsible for lowfertilizer use efficiency.

A large percentage of respondent farmers(45 percent) consider that excessive rains areresponsible for low use benefits with the appliedfertilizer being washed away or leached into thesoil. On the other hand, 35 percent of farmersbelieve that it is inadequate rainfall which causesthe low efficiency of the applied fertilizers.

Trend in fertilizer consumption in small-scalefarming

Table 23 presents the fertilizer application dataprovided by the farmers for the period 1994-1995to 1996-97 and the growth in fertilizerconsumption in the small-scale farming sector.

The data in Table 23 show a steady increasein the number of farmers using fertilizers, invarious quantities, during the period 1994/95 to1996/97.

Factors affecting the rate of fertilizerapplication

Farmers were asked to indicate the most importantfactors which influence them when determiningthe quantity of fertilizer to be applied to maize andother crops.

Table 24 shows that for 48.5 percent offarmers the cash position, i.e. the moneyavailable with the farmers at the time offertilizer purchase, was the most importantfactor in deciding the quantity of fertilizers theywould like to apply. Fertilizer price ranked fifthwith only 24.3 percent of farmers considering itas an important factor in their decisions on thequantity of fertilizer to apply. Credit availability ranked last with only 2.6 percent of farmersmentioning it as an important factor in their decision making.

TABLE 20Farmers able to apply desired quantity offertilizers

Quantity No. offarmers

% of fertilizeruser farmers

1996-97351-400301-350250-300

TOTAL

1995-96351-400301-350250-300

TOTAL

1994-95351-400301-350250-300

TOTAL

361122203

686

340129205

674

332114191

637

17.25.89.6

32.6

16.16.19.8

32.0

15.85.49.1

30.3

TABLE 21Fertilizer use efficiency


% oftotal

Farmers obtaining desiredresults from fertilizer useFarmers not obtainingdesired results fromfertilizer use

915

1 187

43.5

56.5TOTAL 2 102 100

TABLE 22Reasons for unsatisfactory results

Factors affectingfertilizer use

No. offarmers

% of Total

Not enough rainToo much rainPest damageExcessive weedsOther factors

415534717196

3545668

TOTAL 1 187 100


TABLE 24Factors affecting quantity of fertilizer applied

RankingFactor No. of

farmers

% offarmers

12345678

Farmers’ cash positionPast experienceType of crops plantedAdvice of extensionworkersFertilizer pricesFertilizer supply positionNeighboursCredit availability

1 02193260552751215412056

48.544.328.725.024.37.35.72.6

ANALYSIS OF THE PATTERN OF FERTILIZER ADOPTION AND PURCHASE

Analysis of the cropping pattern

Table 25 presents a breakdown of the crops planted by the small-scale farmers in the five naturalregions of the country and overall percentage breakdown of these crops by area.

TABLE 25Breakdown of crops by natural region and by area

Crop Natural regions (% of farmers) Total countryI II III IV V < 1.0 ha 1-2 ha

MaizeSorghumCottonTobaccoMilletsOilseedsBeans

13.075.033.3 0.088.979.475.0

79.625.066.7 0.011.120.625.0

11.758.324.436.481.861.871.4

64.341.762.863.718.238.228.6

56.233.4 3.6 0.013.818.3 5.4

17.469.736.194.474.772.188.5

64.330.342.6 5.625.327.911.5

Table 25 reveals, for example, that 94.4 percent of small-scale farmers grow tobacco on anarea of less than 1 ha and that 64.3 percent of small-scale farmers grow maize on 1-2 ha.Tobacco, primarily an export crop, is grown by only 5.6 percent of farmers on an area of 1-2 ha.Except for maize and cotton, more than 70 percent of the small-scale farmers in Zimbabwe plantall other crops on an area of less than one hectare.

Analysis of food grain (maize) sales and purchasing patterns

The pattern of the sale of food grains (maize) as shown in Table 26 reveals that in 1997 the greatmajority of farmers who actually sold maize (91 percent) sold 250 kg or more of it. However, thenumber of farmers and the quantity of grains sold varied widely from region to region. Asmall percentage of farmers in NR I (2.4 percent) and in NR V (2.2 percent) sold maize. On theother hand, in NRs II, III and IV almost one-third of farmers sold maize crop produce.

In the same year, 30.2 percent of farmers purchased maize for home consumption(Table 27). The quantity of grain purchased varied from region to region (Table 28). Themajority (82.4 percent) of farmers purchased more than 100 kg of grain. A wide variation isagain evident in the regional percentages of farmers who purchased food grains. Of the total

TABLE 23Fertilizer consumption, 1994-95 to 1996-97

No. of farmers/yearFertilizerapplication(kg/ha) 1994-

951995-

961996-

97

% growth(over

1994-95)

350 and more

300 and more

250 and more

332

114

191

340

129

205

361

132

208

8.7

7.0

6.2

637 764 701 7.6


number of farmers who purchased food grains (30.2 percent), the majority (52.0 percent) werelocated in NR IV.

The price of the grain purchased varied from Z$1.5 to 1.8/kg of maize. The farmers in NR Iappear to have paid a higher price than those in NRs III and V.

TABLE 26Distribution of farmers by quantity of maize sold in 1997

Natural regions (% of farmers)Quantity (kg) I II III IV V Total< 60 0 0 1.2 0.8 0 0.660-79 0 1.1 0.4 0.4 0 0.680-99 5.0 0.8 0.4 1.1 0 0.9100-149 5.0 1.1 3.6 1.9 0 2.2150-199 0 0.4 2.0 4.9 5.6 2.4200-249 0 3.1 0.8 3.0 5.6 2.3250 and more 90.0 93.5 91.7 88.0 88.9 91.0TOTAL 2.4 31.9 30.9 32.5 2.2 100.0

TABLE 27Distribution of farmers by purchase of maize grain in 1997

Purchased grain Natural regions (% of farmers) TotalI II III IV V

YES 26.4 18.4 20.9 36.4 58.8 30.2NO 73.6 81.6 79.1 63.6 41.2 69.8

TOTAL 2.0 22.8 24.2 42.7 8.4 100.0

TABLE 28Distribution of farmers by quantity of maize grain purchased in 1997

Natural regions (% of farmers)Quantity (kg) I II III IV V TOTAL< 25 7.7 0 0.8 2.0 0.8 1.426-50 15.4 3.9 4.6 2.8 1.7 3.351-75 0 1.9 0.8 1.8 1.7 1.676-100 7.7 4.9 10.8 12.1 10.0 10.5100 or more 69.2 89.3 81.5 80.3 85.8 82.4TOTAL 1.7 13.5 17.1 52.0 15.7 100.0Average price/kg (Z$) 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.6

Analysis of farmers’ fertilizer product knowledge

Use benefits of different fertilizer products

The data in Table 29 show that all the respondents failed to explain the benefits of DAP fertilizer.This highlights the lack of knowledge about this important fertilizer. By contrast, considerablequantities of DAP are being used in neighbouring countries such as Malawi and Zambia. In thecase of urea, all the respondents in NRs II, III and IV replied that urea assists in crop maturity.This reflects incorrect knowledge of this highly concentrated nitrogenous fertilizer. In NRs III andIV, 25 percent of respondents did not know that urea helps boost vegetative growth.

In spite of the fact that Compound D has been used by small-scale farmers for decades, thebelief held by a large majority of farmers that Compound D boosts the vegetative growth of theplants is not based on correct product knowledge, and 23.8 percent of farmers in NR IV and


15.4 percent of farmers in NR III did not know that Compound D helps increase crop yields.Similarly, 25 percent of farmers in NR II and 11.1 percent of farmers in NR IV did not know thatCompound D helps in crop maturity. The product knowledge of a significant number of farmersabout the use merits of AN also appears to be inaccurate. Although AN has been manufacturedand used in the country for more than two decades, 22.2 percent of farmers in NR III,18.7 percent of farmers in NR IV and 15.8 percent of farmers in NR II did not know the specificuse benefits of this nitrogenous fertilizer. Similarly, 20 percent of farmers in NR III, 19.2 percentof farmers in NR IV and 13.6 percent of farmers in NR II held the mistaken belief that AN helpsmainly in crop maturity. None of the farmers in NRs I, III, IV and V is aware that SSP helps incrop maturity. The fact that a large majority of farmers consider SSP as responsible forvegetative growth of the crop further demonstrates a very poor level of knowledge about thisproduct. The same holds for knowledge of MOP. All the respondents in NRs I and V said thatthey did not know the benefits of using MOP. None of the farmers considered MOP asresponsible for boosting the vegetative growth of the crop. No farmer in NRs I, III and V knewthat MOP assists in crop maturity.

TABLE 29Use benefits of fertilizers (as understood by farmers)

DAP (18:46:0)

• boosts vegetative growth• enhances yield• assists in maturity

NR 1

000

NR II

000

NR III

000

NR IV

000

NR V

000

TOTAL

000

UREA (46% N)


10000

94.7100100

75.0100100

75.0100100

10000

87.9100100

COMPOUND D


96.1100100

91.593.575

87.584.6100

77.476.288.9

87.2100100

85.787.092.3

AN (34% N)


10096.0

0

84.29.986.4

77.887.680.0

81.375.680.8

10075.4100

84.386.483.5

SSP (16-20% P2O5)


01000

85.785.7100

75.01000

91.700

10000

87.182.4

0MOP (60% K2O)


000

1000

100

10000

1000

100

000

1000

100

Timing and method of fertilizer application

The analysis of the timing and method of fertilizer application (Table 30) shows that a largenumber of small-scale farmers mix fertilizers (Compound D) with the seeds at the time of sowing.


This apparently indicates an incorrect method and timing of the application of basal fertilizers, asdoes the application of Compound D after crop germination by a considerable number of farmers(23.9 percent). Similarly, the method of application of side dressing is incorrect. Only about 15-16 percent of farmers appears to use the basal fertilizers at the right time and with the correctmethod of application, i.e. application before sowing by mixing the fertilizers in the soil. All theother methods used by 84-85 percent of farmers, therefore, indicate improper methods andincorrect timings for the application of Compound D.

There is a considerable variation among the number of farmers adopting different methodsand timings in each NR. While 81.1 percent of farmers applied Compound D at the time ofseeding the crop in NR V, only 38.5 percent of farmers followed this practice in NR II. Similarly,while 41.5 percent of farmers in NR II applied Compound D after germination as side dressing,only 8.1 percent of farmers in NR V appear to have used this method. While the mixing offertilizers with seed is a method followed by 81.1 percent of farmers in NR V, only 26.9 percentof farmers in NR II follow this method of fertilizer application.

TABLE 30Timing and method of Compound D application

Natural regions (% of farmers)A. Timing of application I II III IV V TotalBefore sowing 10.0 19.0 12.3 18.3 10.8 16.4With seed 74.0 38.5 70.8 65.8 81.1 58.6.After germination 16.0 41.5 16.5 13.8 8.1 23.9Before rains/irrigation 0.2 0.2 0.1After rains/irrigation 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.4B. Method of applicationMix with soil before sowing 30.0 17.6 14.8 14.8 2.7 15.9Mix with seed at sowing time 60.0 26.9 58.0 56.6 81.1 47.7Broadcast before sowing 4.6 3.1 7.5 8.1 5.0Broadcast after sowing 0.9 0.6 0.6 5.4 1.1Side dressing 10.0 44.1 21.6 19.0 2.7 27.7Any other method 4.9 1.9 1.5 2.7Total 3.0 34.0 29.0 31.8 2.2 100.0

Analysis of the fertilizer purchasing pattern

The data in Table 31 reveal that nearly half of the small-scale farmers in Zimbabwe purchase lessthan one bag of fertilizer per year while 22.4 percent of farmers stated that they purchased sevenbags or more in a year.

TABLE 31Pattern of fertilizer purchase by farmers, 1996-97

Quantity (kg) I II III IV V TOTAL

< 5051-100101-151151-200200-250251-300301-350351-above

11.113.09.313.014.85.65.627.8

15.15.94.38.94.87.43.350.5

32.111.210.010.14.76.42.622.9

65.58.34.04.52.04.41.210.1

84.42.70.42.21.81.30.96.2

46.48.15.36.83.55.32.122.4


Analysis at level of the natural regions of the purchasing pattern of fertilizers shows that84.4 percent of farmers in NR V buy less than one bag of fertilizers a year, while 50.5 percent offarmers in NR II reported purchasing seven bags or more in a year.

The significant information that emerges from the analysis of the purchasing pattern is that,aside from the 22.4 percent of farmers buying 350 kg or more of fertilizers, 87.6 percent ofsmall-scale farmers buy very little fertilizer. The farmers purchasing large quantities of fertilizer(seven bags or more) are those who are located in the irrigation schemes and those with largerareas of land.

Classification of farmers by quantity of fertilizer purchased

To obtain a clear idea of thepurchasing pattern, farmers weregrouped into three categories onthe basis of the quantity offertilizers purchased annually:high (A) - 6 bags or more;medium (B) - 2-5 bags; and low(C) - less than 1 bag of fertilizerper year.

Table 32 shows that50 percent of farmers in NR I buy2-5 bags of fertilizer per year and can therefore be placed in category B. In NR II, alarge percentage of farmers (61 percent) can be included in category A. In NR III, farmers belongto categories A, B and C in almost equal numbers. The situation is considerably different for NRsIV and V. In NR IV, 65.5 percent of farmers purchase less than one bag. Over 84 percent offarmers in NR V buy less than one bag of fertilizer per year.

Farmer preferences for fertilizer sale points

Choice of fertilizer sale point

Table 33 reveals that in 1996-97 75.6 percent of farmers purchased fertilizers from private agro-dealers (including commercial cooperatives). Co-operative societies were patronized as a sourceof purchase only by 7.7 percent of farmers. Though only 6.2 percent of farmers obtainedfertilizers from the government, its free pack programme is seen as a major source of fertilizer forfarmers in NRs IV and IV.

TABLE 33Preferred source of fertilizer purchase, 1996/1997

Natural regions (% of farmers)Source of purchase I II III IV V TotalAgro-dealer 92.0 82.6 76.9 65.2 76.2 75.6Co-operative 8.0 3.8 10.9 9.1 4.8 7.7GMB 0 3.2 2.3 1.5 0 2.2Cotton Co. 0 3.8 4.2 8.0 0 5.0AFC 0 5.2 2.1 0.6 0 2.5ZFU 0 1.3 0.6 0.6 0 0.8Government 0 0.2 2.9 15.0 19.0 6.2

TABLE 32Classification of farmers by fertilizer purchase

Naturalregion

No. of bags purchased per year (% of farmers)

6 and more 2-5 < 1NR (A) (B) (C)IIIIIIIVV

39.061.031.915.7 8.4

50.023.936.018.8 7.2

11.015.132.165.584.4

TOTAL 31.1 38.0 46.0


Reasons for sale point preferences

The availability of a wide range of products at a sale point was mentioned as a reason forpreference by 12.9 percent of farmers (Table 34). Only 6.4 percent of farmers stated that theyobtained credit from their supplier and another 5.8 percent of farmers considered farm deliveriesas a reason for preference. The NR values were broadly similar to one another except for NR Vwhere farmers say that they obtain no credit from agro-dealers. A large percentage of farmerspreferring farm deliveries indicate the supply of fertilizer under the government programme offree supplies, as no agro-dealer provides this facility in the communal areas in Zimbabwe.

TABLE 34Sale point preferences

Factors Natural regions (% of farmers) TotalI II III IV V

Lower prices 55.1 50.9 53.3 52.9 65.9 52.7Sells on credit 2.0 6.8 6.6 6.7 0 6.4Efficient and timely supplies 57.1 53.0 48.5 43.6 38.6 48.3Delivers at farm 6.1 7.0 6.0 4.3 9.1 5.8Trusted supplier 20.4 10.5 11.6 12.9 14.0 12.0Sells wide range 20.4 9.1 16.2 12.0 27.3 12.9

Farmers’ perceptions of fertilizer prices

The analysis of farmers’ perceptions about fertilizer prices shows that the vast majority offarmers (91.8 percent) in all the five regions of the country felt that the price of fertilizer in1996/97 was higher than they expected (Table 35). The farmers who found fertilizer prices lowerthan expected are located in NRs IV and V where fertilizer use is extremely low and farmersgenerally buy less than one bag of fertilizer a year. Although a similar pattern emerges for1995/96 and 1994/95, a lower percentage of farmers reported prices as being higher thanexpected. There is, therefore, an indication that small-scale farmers have become more critical ofthe increasing price of fertilizers and that the price increases have been greater than the farmershave expected.

TABLE 35Fertilizer price perceptions

Farmers’perception of price

Natural regions (% of farmers)

I II III IV V Total1996/97As expectedMore than expectedLess than expected

2.098.0

0

6.693.4

0

7.892.00.2

9.489.61.0

9.588.12.4

7.891.80.4

1995/96As expectedMore than expectedLess than expected

14.086.0

0

17.382.10.5

19.780.10.2

15.483.61.0

16.381.42.3

17.382.10.6

1994/95As expectedMore than expectedLess than expected

18.082.0

0

24.174.02.0

22.876.40.8

17.979.92.3

11.683.74.7

21.377.01.7


Pattern of credit and cash purchases

Fertilizer purchases on credit

Farmers who purchased fertilizers on credit in 1997 indicated different percentages of their totalrequirements, which they could purchase with the borrowed money. Table 36 shows that93.8 percent of farmers (who could obtain credit) could buy less than 20 percent of their fertilizerrequirements on credit, or that the amount of credit they obtained was sufficient to buy only20 percent of the quantity of fertilizers they wanted to buy. In NRs I and V, 100 percent offarmers purchased less than 20 percent of fertilizer on credit. The data for 1997 are considered asfully representative as there were no significant variations in the figures for 1995 and 1996.

TABLE 36Credit purchases in 1997

Percentage of purchaseson credit


I II III IV V Total< 20 100.0 91.9 94.8 93.8 100.0 93.821-40 - 0.5 0.4 - - 0.341-60 - 1.6 1.0 0.5 - 1.061-80 - 0.2 0.4 0.4 - 0.381-100 - 5.7 3.4 5.3 - 4.6Total 3.0 32.9 29.3 32.3 2.5 100.0

Cash purchases and sources of cash

The farmers who made cash purchases of fertilizers in 1997 present a considerable variation interms of source of credit. Table 37 shows that 47.7 percent of farmers indicated the sale of grains(reserved for purchasing fertilizers) as the source of their money. Such farmers were distributedalmost equally in all the NRs except in NR IV. An almost equal percentage of farmers(47.8 percent) gave income from non-farm work as the source of cash for the purchase offertilizers. Again, except in NR V, the farmers in the NRs are almost equally distributed.

TABLE 37Source of cash for fertilizer purchases

Source Natural regions (% of farmers)I II III IV V Total

Borrowed from neighbour 0 1.2 1.1 0.4 0 0.9Sale of grain held for this purpose 50.0 50.6 51.9 40.2 50.0 47.7Sale of grain held for consumption 4.0 5.1 6.7 6.2 4.5 5.9Sale of livestock 4.0 8.6 11.4 10.1 2.3 9.6Income from non-farm work 48.0 47.9 51.5 45.4 31.8 47.8Total 3.3 33.3 29.2 31.4 2.9 100.0

Credit repayment

An analysis of the position ofcredit repayment reveals that31.3 percent of farmers haveyet not paid for the credit theyobtained in past years(Table 38). The remainingrespondent farmers were of theopinion that the higher gross

TABLE 38Source of cash to repay fertilizer loan

Source of cash Natural regions (% of farmers)I II III IV V Total

Loan not yet repaid 0 30.0 66.7 0 0 31.3

Sale of livestock 0 70.0 33.3 33.3 0 56.3Sale of grain held forconsumption

0 0 0 66.7 0 12.5

Total 0 62.5 18.8 18.8 0 100.0


income they received from the application of fertilizers was not sufficient to repay the loan with56.3 percent of farmers saying that they sold livestock to repay the loan. Another 12.5 percent offarmers said that they sold grain reserved for home consumption to repay the loan they took forthe purchase of fertilizers.

Reasons for purchasing less fertilizer than recommended

Table 39 shows that a high percentage (92.5 percent) of farmers gave shortage of cash as thereason for not purchasing the recommended quantities of fertilizers. Such farmers were almostequally distributed in all five NRs. Transport difficulties were indicated by 97.4 percent offarmers as the major reason for purchasing less than the recommended quantities. The lack ofcredit was given as reason for limited purchases by 94.9 percent of the farmers.

TABLE 39Reasons for purchasing less than recommended quantity

Reasons Natural regions (% of farmers)I II III IV V Total

Supply shortages 5.6 7.1 4.9 18.4 10.5 10.6Cash shortages 97.2 95.4 93.8 89.0 84.2 92.5Credit availability 97.2 96.8 93.1 94.0 100 94.9Timely delivery 0 2.1 0 0 0 0.7Mistrust of Agritex 0 3.2 0.4 0.3 0 1.2Transport difficulties 100 97.5 95.9 97.9 100 97.4Inconvenient package 0 1.4 0.4 0.3 0 0.7

Reasons for interrupting fertilizer use

An analysis of the reasons for interrupting fertilizer use (Table 40) shows that 82.8 percent offarmers who suspended fertilizers use in the last three years gave high fertilizer prices as areason. Credit problems was indicated by 82.8 percent of farmers (100 percent of respondents inNR I). Agro-dealers asking for down payments for fertilizers were indicated by only 1.9 percentof farmers, most of whom were located in NRs II and III. The non-availability of the desired typeof fertilizers does not appear to be a major problem.

TABLE 40Reasons for interrupting fertilizer use

Reason I II III IV V TotalHigh prices 90.9 81.2 89.1 79.6 76.5 82.6Non-availability of credit 100.0 79.0 76.0 87.6 82.4 82.8High down payment 0 5.1 1.6 0.9 0 1.9Late delivery 0 0 0 1.5 0 0.7Supply problems 0 1.4 0.5 8.3 0 4.5No desired fertilizer 0 0.7 0 1.8 5.9 1.1

Reasons for non-implementation of the fertilizer use plan

Table 41 shows that of those farmers who planned to use a specific quantity of fertilizers butcould not implement the fertilizer use plan in 1996-97, 93.8 percent of them identified highfertilizer prices as the major reason for non-implementation of the fertilizer use plan. A further20.9 percent of respondents considered the marketing costs of fertilizers as very high (meaningthe price variation between Harare and the point of purchase). The farmers in NR I (near Harare)


did not consider the marketing costs high. Similarly, farmers in NR V did not mention themarketing costs as being high. Perhaps being located farthest away, they consider the marketingcosts as justified and do not think they can be reduced. The farmers in NR I, due to their nearnessto Harare, and those in NR V, because of the very low demand, did not consider supply aproblem. Transport difficulties were indicated by only 2.5 percent of farmers as a bottleneck inthe implementation of the fertilizer use plan.

TABLE 41Reasons for non-implementation of fertilizer use plan, 1996/97

Reasons Natural regions (% of farmers)I II III IV V Total

High prices 100.0 95.1 95.7 91.0 95.5 93.8High marketing costs 0 16.2 21.9 26.4 0 20.9Supply shortages 0 4.6 2.7 7.8 0 5.1Transport problems 0 3.0 2.7 2.4 4.5 2.5Low grain prices 0 6.4 9.0 2.8 0 5.4Unreliable rainfall 0 7.3 6.0 11.8 9.1 8.5

DETERMINANTS OF FERTILIZER ADOPTION

The determinants on the adoption of fertilizer in small-scale farming areas have been analysed tofind their level of significance. The significance level was divided into three categories: highlysignificant (p < 0.01), moderately significant (p < 0.05) and significant (p < 0.10).

Age

The analysis of age of farmers and the trend fertilizer of adoption revealed age as a highlysignificant factor. There was a considerable variation among the regions. Though the age factorwas not significant in NRs I, II and V, it was a highly significant factor in NR IV, and significantin NR III (Table 42).

TABLE 42Age and adoption of fertilizer useFactor Natural regions (% of farmers)

I II III IV V TotalAge Use Never

usedUse Never

usedUse Never

usedUse Never

usedUse Never

usedUse Never

usedUnder 30 100 0 92.6 7.4 75.2 24.8 45.7 54.3 15.3 84.7 59.8 40.230 ormore 93 7 96 4 82 18 60.3 39.7 22.6 77.4 71.6 28.4Total 94.4 5.6 95.5 4.5 80.7 19.3 57.7 42.3 20.6 79.4 69.4 30.6χ2 NS NS * *** NS ****** Highly Significant (p < 0.01) * Significant (p < 0.10)** Moderately significant (p < 0.05) NS Not significant

Sex

Table 43 indicates that the sex of the farmers is a highly significant factor as a determinant offertilizer adoption reveals it. While 72.5 percent male farmers had adopted fertilizer use, only66.7 percent of female farmers had done so. Women farmers appear to be more risk averse andless disposed to adopt fertilizer use.


TABLE 43Sex and adoption of fertilizer useFactor Natural regions (% of farmers)

I II III IV V TotalSex Use Never

usedUse Never

usedUse Never

usedUse Never

usedUse Never

usedUse Never

usedMale 89.5 10.5 96.2 3.8 84.2 15.8 59.8 40.2 31.9 68.1 72.5 27.5Female 97.1 2.9 94.6 5.4 77.4 22.6 55.5 44.5 13.0 87.0 66.7 33.3Total 94.4 5.6 95.5 4.6 80.7 19.3 57.6 42.4 20.9 79.1 69.4 30.6χ2 NS NS * ** NS ****** Highly Significant (p < 0.01) * Significant (p < 0.10)** Moderately significant (p < 0.05) NS Not significant

Education

Education was found to be a highly significant factor in fertilizer adoption (Table 44). While55.3 percent of farmers with no education were found to have adopted fertilizer use, 73.9 percentof farmers who had primary education and 72.2 percent of farmers with secondary or highereducation had done so. Educated farmers are expected to have a greater understanding and moreinformation about the merits of fertilizer use and therefore to be more favourably disposed to itsadoption.

TABLE 44Education and adoption of fertilizer use

Factor Natural regions (% of farmers)I II III IV V Total

Education Use Neverused

Use Neverused

Use Neverused

Use Neverused

Use Neverused

Use Neverused

None 90 10 92 8 67 33 38.6 61.4 9.8 90.2 55.3 44.7Primary 92.9 7.1 96.6 3.4 85 15 62.7 37.3 22.9 77.1 73.4 26.6Secondaryor more 100 0 96.4 3.63 80.3 19.7 61.7 38.3 26.2 73.8 72.2 27.8Total 94.3 5.7 95.5 4.5 80.6 19.4 57.7 42.5 20.3 79.7 69.3 30.7χ2 NS NS * *** NS ****** Highly Significant (p < 0.01) * Significant (p < 0.10)** Moderately significant (p < 0.05) NS Not significant

Size of landholdings

Table 45 shows the size of landholdings to be a highly significant factor influencing fertilizeradoption.

TABLE 45Size of landholding and adoption of fertilizer use


Land-holding(ha)

Use Neverused

Use Neverused

Use Neverused

Use Neverused

Use Neverused

Use Neverused

Less than2 94.7 5.3 96.3 3.7 74.2 25.8 54.2 45.8 24.3 75.7 64.5 35.52 or more 94.3 5.7 95.4 4.6 84.3 15.7 59.1 40.9 17.1 82.9 71.9 28.1Total 94.4 5.6 95.5 4.6 80.7 19.3 57.6 42.4 20.9 79.1 69.4 30.4χ2 NS NS * ** NS ****** Highly Significant (p < 0.01) * Significant (p < 0.10)** Moderately significant (p < 0.05) NS Not significant


Financial resources

Table 46 indicates that the availability of cash or financial resources (in this case from the sale ofgrains) does not have a statistically significant impact on the adoption of fertilizers. Nonetheless,the hypothesis that the farmers who can source cash are more positive in adoption of modernfarming inputs like fertilizers was proved correct as 90.9 percent of farmers with cash availablehad adopted the use of fertilizers, whereas only 59.2 percent of the farmers who did not sellgrains and had no cash used fertilizers.

TABLE 46Financial resources and adoption of fertilizer use


Soldgrain in1996

Use Neverused

Use Neverused

Use Neverused

Use Neverused

Use Neverused

Use Neverused

Yes 100 0 99.2 0.8 92.2 7.8 84.9 15.1 52 48 90.9 9.1No 90.9 9.1 92.5 7.5 73 27 48.4 51.6 16.8 83.2 59.2 40.8Total 94.3 5.7 95.5 4.5 80.7 19.3 57.6 42.4 20.8 79.2 69.4 30.6χ2 NS NS * ** NS NS*** Highly Significant (p < 0.01) * Significant (p < 0.10)** Moderately significant (p < 0.05) NS Not significant

Access to all-weather road

The linking of the farmers’ villages to an all-weather road and the level of adoption showed ahighly significant correlation (Table 47). The hypothesis that farmers residing in villagesconnected to all-weather roads have better access to sale points and, therefore, are more likely toadopt fertilizers was proved correct. While 70.9 percent of farmers connected to all-weatherroads adopted fertilizers, only 60.8 percent of farmers without access to such roads did so.

TABLE 47Access to all-weather road and adoption of fertilizer use


Access toall-weatherroad

Use Neverused

Use Neverused

Use Neverused

Use Neverused

Use Neverused

Use Neverused

Yes 95.6 4.4 95.4 4.6 81.4 18.6 58.1 41.9 22.1 77.9 70.9 29.1No 87.5 12.5 95.6 4.4 73 27 56.4 43.6 13.9 86.1 60.8 39.2Total 94.3 5.7 95.4 4.6 80.4 19.6 57.8 422 20.7 79.3 69.4 30.6χ2 NS NS * ** NS ****** Highly Significant (p < 0.01) * Significant (p < 0.10)** Moderately significant (p < 0.05) NS Not significant

DETERMINANTS OF FERTILIZER PURCHASES

Age

Table 48 shows support for the hypothesis that a higher percentage of young farmers purchasefertilizers. Age was, therefore, found to be a moderately significant factor at the overall level,though it was not a significant factor in NRs I, II, III and V. The major impact of age was


observed in the NR IV, where 82.4 percent of younger farmers purchased fertilizers as comparedto 73.3 percent of farmers aged 30 years and above.

TABLE 48Age and fertilizer purchases


Age Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes NoUnder 30 100 0 94.3 5.7 85.7 14.3 82.4 17.6 100 0 88.3 11.730 or more 95 5 90.6 9.4 87.2 12.8 73.3 26.7 83.8 16.2 83.3 16.7Total 96.1 3.9 91.2 8.8 87 13 74.6 25.4 87 13 84.1 15.9χ2 NS NS NS * NS **

*** Highly Significant (p < 0.01) * Significant (p < 0.10)** Moderately significant (p < 0.05) NS Not significant

Sex

Table 49 shows that the sex of the farmers has a highly significant impact on the purchasingdecisions of small-scale farmers. The hypothesis that male farmers are more likely to purchasefertilizers than female farmers was supported.

TABLE 49Sex and fertilizer purchases


Sex Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes NoMale 94.1 5.9 92.6 7.4 87.7 12.3 75.9 24.1 80 20 84.8 15.2Female 97.1 2.9 90 10 86 14 73.4 26.6 100 0 83.6 16.4Total 96.1 3.9 91.2 8.8 86.9 13.1 74.6 25.3 87.2 12.8 84.2 15.8χ2 NS NS * ***


Education

Table 50 shows that education has a highly significant impact on fertilizer purchases.

TABLE 50Education and fertilizer purchases


Education Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes NoNone 100 0 83.5 16.5 81.7 18.3 65.6 34.4 100 0 78.5 21.5Primary 96.2 3.8 92.4 7.6 88.7 11.3 72.3 27.7 81.8 18.2 83.5 16.5Secondaryor above

93.3 6.7 96.9 3.1 86.2 13.8 84.7 15.3 88.2 11.8 89.2 10.8

Total 96 4 91.7 8.3 87 13 74.8 25.2 86.7 13.3 84.4 15.6χ2 NS ** NS *** NS ***



Family size

Table 51 shows that family size does not have a significant impact on farmers purchasingbehaviour. There was little difference in the overall pattern of fertilizer purchases betweenfarmers with fewer than five family members and those with larger families.

TABLE 51Family size and fertilizer purchases


Family size Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes NoFewer than5

100 0 91.2 8.8 80 20 78.3 21.7 100 0 85.1 14.9

5 or more 94.3 5.7 91.8 8.2 89.2 10.8 73.9 26.1 83.8 16.2 84.1 15.9Total 96 4 91.6 8.4 87 13 74.7 25.3 87 13 84.3 15.7χ2 NS NS ** NS NS NS


Product knowledge

Table 52 indicates that farmers’ knowledge about the use benefits and the methods of use ofdifferent types of fertilizers has a highly significant impact on their purchasing decisions.

TABLE 52Product knowledge and fertilizer purchases


Knowsbenefits

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Yes 96.1 3.9 91.4 8.6 86.8 13.2 75.6 24.4 87 13 84.6 15.4No 0 0 87.5 12.5 1 0 30 70 0 0 57.9 42.1Total 96.1 3.9 91.4 8.6 86.9 13.1 74.9 25.1 87 13 84.3 15.7χ2 NA NS NS *** NA ***

*** Highly Significant (p < 0.01) * Significant (p < 0.10)** Moderately significant (p < 0.05) NS Not significant NA Not applicable

Length of fertilizer use

Table 53 confirms the hypothesis that farmers who have been using fertilizers for a long periodare more likely to continue purchasing them. Over 92 percent of farmers with more than 10 yearsexperience of using fertilizers purchased fertilizers in 1996-97 compared with 70.9 percent offarmers who had been using fertilizers for 1-4 years. The length of fertilizer use was found tohave had a highly significant impact on fertilizer purchases by farmers in 1996-97.

TABLE 53Length of fertilizer use and fertilizer purchasesFactor Natural regions (% of farmers)

I II III IV V TotalDuration(years)


1-4 100 0 85.2 14.8 72.7 27.3 65.1 34.9 82.4 17.6 70.9 29.15-9 90 10 93.2 6.8 89.2 10.8 86.3 13.7 100 0 89.5 10.510 or more 96.9 3.1 92.7 7.3 93 7 90.4 9.6 88.5 11.5 92.3 7.7Total 96 4 91.3 8.7 86.8 13.2 75.2 24.8 87.2 12.8 84.4 15.6χ2 NS ** *** *** NS ***



Knowledge of incremental value

The impact of knowledge of the incremental value of fertilizers on fertilizer purchases in 1996-97was found to be highly significant both overall and in NR IV (Table 54). In the other NRs small-scale farmers fail to relate the purchase of fertilizers to the exact economic advantage obtained byway of increased yield. It may also be that the quantity of less than one bag of fertilizers appliedby a large majority of small-scale farmers is too small to be correlated with the incremental value.

TABLE 54Knowledge of incremental value and fertilizer purchases


Knowsincrementalyield ofcompound D


Yes 100 0 93.8 6.2 87 13 76.6 23.7 82.4 17.6 86.3 13.7No 97.2 2.8 92 8 89.3 10.7 75.3 24.7 88.5 11.5 85 15Total 98 2 92.7 7.3 88.4 11.6 75.6 24.4 86 14 85.4 14.6χ2 NS NS NS *** NS ***


Size of landholdings

The size of the landholding was not found to be significant in its impact on fertilizer purchasesboth overall and in four of the NRs (Table 55).

TABLE 55Landholding and fertilizer purchases


Landholding(ha)


Less than 2 88.9 11.1 92.9 7.1 88.6 11.4 77.6 22.4 89.3 10.7 86.4 13.62 or more 100 0 91.4 8.6 86.5 13.5 73.8 26.2 83.3 16.7 83.7 16.3Total 96.1 3.9 91.8 8.2 87.2 12.8 74.8 25.2 87 13 84.5 15.5χ2 * NS NS NS NS NS*


Contacts with Agritex

Contacts with Agritex did not have a significant impact on the fertilizer purchases of small-scalefarmers either overall or in four NRs. However, in NR III, where this was a significant factor,90.5 percent of farmers who seek the advice of Agritex staff purchase fertilizers as compared to85.1 percent of farmers with no contacts with extension workers (Table 56).

Credit availability

The hypothesis that a larger number of farmers who can obtain credit buy fertilizer as comparedto those to whom credit is not available was proved correct and a moderately significantcorrelation was observed (Table 57). The impact of credit was not found to be significant in NRsII and III. However, credit availability is very restricted in small-scale farming areas.


TABLE 56Extension workers and fertilizer purchases


Decisionbased uponadvice ofextensionagents


Yes 100 0 929 7.1 90.5 9.5 79.5 20.5 91.7 8.3 13 NoNo 93.9 6.1 91 9 85.1 14.9 74.8 25.2 85.7 14.3 84.1 15.9Total 96.1 3.9 91.3 8.7 87 13 76.3 23.7 87.2 12.8 84.9 15.1χ2 NS NS * NS NS NS


TABLE 57Credit and fertilizer purchases


Creditavailable1996


Yes 0 0 94.3 5.7 91.3 8.74 93.5 6.5 0 0 93.1 6.9No 96 4 91.4 8.6 88.5 11.5 77 23 90. 9.1 85.3 14.7Total 96 4 91.8 8.2 88.7 11.3 78.2 21.8 90.9 9.1 86 14χ2 NS NS ** **


Fertilizer price information

The impact of prior information of fertilizer price on farmers’ purchasing behaviour was foundsignificant (Table 58).

TABLE 58Prior price information availability and fertilizer purchases


Period Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No0-13 days 95 5 90 10 89.8 10.2 84.4 15.6 85.7 14.3 87.9 12.114-29 days 100 0 92.6 7.4 89.2 108 86.6 13.4 71.4 28.6 90.1 9.91-2 months 95.5 4.5 95.5 4.5 88.9 11.1 90.2 9.8 100 0 92.1 7.9Total 96 4 93.1 6.9 89.3 10.7 86.7 13.3 892 10.8 90.1 9.9χ2 NS NS NS ** Ns *


Perception of fertilizer prices

No significant correlation could be established between the perception of fertilizer prices andfarmers’ actual purchasing behaviour (Table 59).


Access to all-weather road

No significant overall correlation could be established between access to an all-weather road andthe purchase of fertilizer. In NRs III and IV, however, a significant impact was observed (Table60).

TABLE 59Perception of fertilizer prices and fertilizer purchases


Priceperception


As expected 100 0 94.9 5.1 92.9 7.1 85.5 14.5 100 0 92 8Higher thanexpected

95.3 4.7 91.4 8.6 87 13 84.3 15.7 85.7 14.3 87.9 12.1

Lower thanexpected

0 0 100 0 100 0 80 20 100 0 90 10

Total 96 4 92 8 88.2 11.8 84.4 15.6 88.4 11.6 88.6 11.4χ2 NS NS NS NS NS NS


TABLE 60All-weather roads and fertilizer purchases


Access Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes NoYes 95.3 4.7 91.3 8.7 87.7 12.3 73 27 85 15 84.2 15.8No 100 0 95.3 4.7 79.6 20.4 81.3 18.8 100 0 84.4 15.6Total 96 4 91.6 8.4 86.8 13.2 74.6 25.4 86.7 13.3 84.2 15.8χ2 NS NS * * NS NS


Distance from sale point

A highly significant correlation between fertilizer purchases and distance from sale point wasobserved (Table 61). In NR III 94.0 percent of farmers who were located within 20 km of a salepoint purchased fertilizers as compared to 83.5 percent of farmers who were located fartheraway.

TABLE 61Distance and fertilizer purchases


Distance (km) Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No> 20 95.2 4.5 92.5 7.5 83.5 12.3 76.5 23.5 90 15 84.9 15.120 or less 96.2 3.8 92.5 7.5 94 20.4 84.4 15.6 80 0 90.4 9.6Total 95.8 4.2 92.5 7.5 89.4 13.2 79.9 20.1 88.9 13.3 87.3 12.7χ2 NS NS *** ** NS ***



Fertilizer availability

The hypothesis that fertilizer availability in an area has a direct impact on purchasing behaviourwas proved correct and a highly significant correlation of this variable was observed (Table 62).Only in NR V did availability have a non-significant impact.

TABLE 62Fertilizer availability and fertilizer purchases


Availability Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes NoYes 100 0 94.1 5.9 93.8 6/2 90.2 23.5 94.9 5.1 93 7No 83.3 16.7 85.4 14.6 80.7 19.3 59.8 15.6 100 0 73.6 26.4Total 98 2 92.1 7.9 91.4 8.6 81.8 20.1 95.1 4.9 88.7 11.3χ2 ** ** *** ** NS ***


Grain sales

The hypothesis that a large number of farmers who could sell grain purchased fertilizers wasproved correct and the correlation was highly significant (Table 63). Over 92 percent of farmerswho sold grains purchased fertilizers, as compared to 78.7 percent of farmers who could not sellgrains.

TABLE 63Grain sales and fertilizer purchases


Sold grain Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes NoYes 100 0 93.9 6.1 94 6 88 12 84.6 15.4 92.1 7.9No 93.3 6.7 89.7 10.3 80.6 19.4 67.2 32.8 87.9 12.1 78.7 28.1Total 96 4 91.6 8.4 86.8 13.2 75 25 87 13 84.4 21.3χ2 NS * *** *** NS ***


FERTILIZER DEMAND PROSPECTS

Fertilizer demand estimates for 1998-99 and beyond

About 63 percent of the farmers interviewed for this study expressed the belief that they wouldincrease fertilizer use in the future, while 25.5 percent of them, however, replied that they wouldnot and 1.9 percent of them were uncertain as to whether they would be able to purchase higherquantities of fertilizers in the future.

Estimated demand for AN (1998-99)

A large number of the 13.5 percent of farmers who forecast their using one or less than one bag(50 kg) of AN for the year 1998-99 are located in NR IV and V (Table 64). The 26.7 percent offarmers expecting to apply up to two bags of fertilizers were almost equally distributed across allthe NRs except NR II. The percentage of farmers in NR V hoping to increase fertilizerconsumption to four to six bags was rather small (1.9 percent).


Estimated Demand forCompound D

The data in Table 65 indicatethat 24 percent of small-scalefarmers expect to buy sixbags or more of CompoundD in 1998-99.

Factors favouring in-creased use of fertilizers

A majority of farmers(56.2 percent) consideredprice stability an importantfactor for encouraging theuse of higher quantities offertilizers (Table 66). Some47.5 percent of farmersstated that the governmentsubsidy would encouragethem to use higher doses offertilizers. A larger numberof farmers wanting subsidiesare located in NRs IV and V,the two resource poorregions. Credit availabilitywas highlighted by asignificant percentage offarmers from all five NRs. About 35 percent of farmers were of the view that price paritybetween grain and fertilizer prices is an important factor for encouraging the use of higherquantities of fertilizers, while 15.7 percent of small-scale farmers thought that if governmentbecame the supplier, their fertilizer consumption would be higher. Other factors such as improvedseeds, smaller packaging and timely delivery were considered important by a small percentage offarmers.

TABLE 66Factors favouring fertilizer use

Factors Natural regions (% of farmers)I II III IV V Total

Price stability 83.3 54.2 66.8 52.8 40.2 56.2Credit availability 35.2 25.4 43.5 27.9 16.6 28.2Govt. as supplier 35.2 17.1 20.7 13.2 3.5 15.7Availability of agro-dealers 44.4 13.7 28.0 20.0 5.5 19.8Grain prices commensurate with fertilizer prices 50.0 40.7 48.7 27.6 12.6 35.1Govt. subsidies 50.0 35.3 46.7 53.8 51.8 47.5No supply problems 20.4 8.6 15.6 14.8 2.9 12.7No transportation problems 46.3 15.9 23.1 18.5 2.9 12.7Timely delivery 22.2 6.1 5.4 7.0 0.5 6.2Smaller packaging 13.0 6.5 8.3 11.1 4.5 8.8Availability of improved seeds 5.6 6.5 4.9 8.3 0.5 6.3

TABLE 64Distribution of farmers by demand estimate of ammoniumnitrate (1998-99) and beyond

Natural regions (% of farmers)Quantity (kg)I II III IV V Total

Less than 50 15.6 7. 1 11.4 19.5 27.8 13.5

51 - 100 40.0 19.7 28.6 29.9 31.5 26.7101 - 150 6.7 13.5 10.4 13.3 11.1 12.3151 - 200 13.3 12.6 20.3 14.5 7.4 15.2201 - 250 2.2 6.4 5.3 4.6 1.9 7.8251 - 300 6.7 9.4 8.0 7.0 1.9 7.8301 or more 15.6 31.4 16.0 11. 2 18.5 19.3Total 3.0 31.6 27.9 33.9 3.6 100.0

TABLE 65Distribution by Compound D demand estimate, 1998-99Quantity (kg)Compound D


I II III IV V Total< 50 12.2 6.5 10.8 18.0 18.5 12.051 – 100 26.8 15.1 23.6 22.8 38.9 21.2105 - 150 24.4 11.6 9.5 11.2 9.3 11.2151 - 200 9.8 12.7 19.7 16.2 11.1 15.6201 – 250 0 5.8 5.1 5.9 0 5.3251 – 300 7.3 12.5 12.3 9. 3 1.9 10.9301 or more 19.5 35.9 19.0 16.6 20.4 24.0Total 3.0 33.5 28.1 31.6 3.9 100.0


Factors influencing farmers’ decisions to buy fertilizers

A large percentage of farmers (40.7 percent) mentioned the level of government subsidy as a keyfactor in influencing their decision to buy fertilizers (Table 67). A majority of such farmers arelocated in NRs IV and V. Fertilizer price stability was indicated as a key factor by 36.3 percentof farmers.

TABLE 67Factors affecting fertilizer purchases


Price stability 46.3 49.2 40.5 29.3 22.8 36.6Credit availability 5.6 21.2 17.1 13.4 4.1 15.3Govt. supplier 0 14.8 6.0 5.3 1.0 7.3Availability of agro-dealer 11.1 9.8 7.4 6.2 1.0 7.0Grain prices commensurate with fertilizer prices 25.9 34.2 23.4 13.8 3.6 20.4Govt. subsidies 13.0 38.9 35.9 45.5 43.1 40.7No supply problems 5.6 2.5 1.4 2.9 1.0 2.4No transportation problems 11.1 15.5 10.0 11.8 1.5 11.4Timely delivery 3.7 8.8 3.2 3.1 0 4.2Smaller packaging 0 9.1 4.6 4.8 0.5 5.3Availability of improved seeds 1.9 13.3 6.3 8.8 0 8.4

FERTILIZER ADOPTION AND CONSUMPTION DEMAND AMONG SMALLHOLDER FARMERS

Whereas the earlier analysis only involved simple bi-variable assessments, this one presents theresults of (1) probit estimation of the antecedents of fertilizer adoption, and (2) weighted leastsquares regression (WLS)1 of the factors determining fertilizer consumption demand, for thosefarmers who have already used fertilizer2.

Methodology

The data

The Fertilizer Adoption and Marketing Survey in Zimbabwe (FAMSZ), carried out in the fiveNatural Regions of Zimbabwe, eventually generated 2 634 usable cases. Following data cleaning,and imputation for missing values, the STATA dprobit3 and probit procedures were then appliedto estimate an equation containing the variables described in Table 68. In addition, the STATAregress [a weight = n] procedure was employed to estimate the WLS equation containing thevariables described in Table 68.

1 WLS regression was employed to deal with the problem of heteroskedasticity.2 The methodologies employed in this study borrow heavily from Croppenstedt, A. and Mulat Demeke,

1996 “Determinants of Adoption and Levels of Demand for Fertilizer for Cereal Growing Farmersin Ethiopia”, Centre for the Study of African Economies, WPS/96-3.

3 dprobit provides estimates of dF/dx calculated at the means of the independent variables. dF/dx is thechange in the probability function for an infinitesimal change in x, extrapolated out.


TABLE 68Description of the variables used in the probit estimation

Variable DescriptionDependent: (1) Previous fertilizer use (2) In (fertilizer/ha)

1 if Yes, Else 0

Independents:In (Age)SexLiteracyIn (Adults)In (Dependants)Grain sales last yearIn (Farm size)Access to all-weather roads

In (Age of household head)1 if Female, Else 01 if Yes, Else 0In (number of adults)In (number of dependants)1 if Yes, Else 0In (Farm size)1 if Yes, Else 0

The results

Factors affecting fertilizer adoption

The results of the probit estimates for fertilizer adoptionare given in Table 69. The variables sex of householdhead, number of dependants, farm size and access to all-weather roads are not found to be statistically significant.The results are discussed below in order of significance.

Natural Region: As expected, compared to farmers inNatural Region 4 (NR4) farmers in all the natural regions,except NR5, were more likely to have ever used fertilizer.

Grain sales: Compared to farmers who did not sell grainthe previous year, farmers who did were much more likelyto have ever used fertilizer, a result that is also found to behighly significant (Table 69). In addition, and as Table 70shows, the sale of grain the previous year had the strongesteffect on the likelihood of fertilizer adoption for everynatural region. Farmers who had sold grain the previousyear were on average 27% more likely to have ever usedfertilizer than farmers who had not sold grain.

TABLE 70dF/dx estimates for the factors affecting fertilizer consumption demand

Natural RegionVariableI II III IV V

Total

In (Age)SexLiteracyIn (Adults)In (Dependents)Grain salesIn (Farm size)Access to roads

--------

-0.00-0.010.030.010.010.07-0.010.00

0.17-0.020.23-0.040.020.180.000.04

0.150.020.260.07-0.010.37-0.00-0.03

0.14-0.130.140.02-0.020.52-0.110.05

0.13-0.010.220.030.000.27-0.010.00

TABLE 69Parameter estimates for probitmodel of fertilizer adoption:FAMSZ 1998

Variable CoefficientSexLiteracyGrain salesAccess to roadsIn (Age)In (Adults)In (Dependents)In (Farm size)Nregion1Nregion2Nregion3Nregion5

ConstantN-2 (log likelihood)χ2

dfppseudo R2

-0.04230.6575***1.0412***

0.00.4301***0.0857*

0.0-0.0501

1.3839***1.5117***0.5928***-0.9863***

-2.21792 634

-1138.0393

963.3512

<0.010.30

*** p<0.01; ** p<0.05; * p<0.10


Literacy

The level of literacy had the next strongest effect on the likelihood of fertilizer adoption.Compared to illiterate farmers, literate farmers were more likely (22%) to have ever usedfertilizer (Table 70), though there is a variation according to the natural region.

Age

The effect of age on fertilizer adoption is negative with a one-year increase in age reducing thelikelihood of fertilizer adoption by a factor of 0.43 (Table 69).

TABLE 71Description of the variables used in WLS regression

Variable DescriptionDependent: (1) Ever used fertilizer (2) In (fertilizer/ha)

1 if Yes, Else 0

Independents:In (Age)SexIn (Adults)In (Dependants)Grain sales last yearIn (Farm size)In (Distance)Contact with AgritexKnows benefitsSupply a problemCredit previous yearObtained expected yield previous yearIn (Years used)

In (age of household head)1 if Female, Else 0In (number of adults)In (number of dependants)1 if Yes, Else 0In (Farm size)In (Distance to market)1 if Yes, Else 01 if Yes, Else 01 if Yes, Else 01 if Yes, Else 01 if Yes, Else 0In (Number of years fertilizer used)

Fertilizer consumption demand

Table 72 gives the parameter estimates for the demand forfertilizers. The results show that sex, obtaining the expectedyield of the previous year, number of dependants andnumber of adults are found not statistically significant.

Knowledge of the benefits of fertilizer

Reported knowledge of the benefits of fertilizer use had thestrongest positive effect on fertilizer consumption.Compared to farmers, who did not report knowledge of thesebenefits, fertilizer consumption per hectare was about 96%higher among farmers who reported the said knowledge(Table 72).

Years of fertilizer use

Years of experience with fertilizer use also had a strongpositive effect on fertilizer consumption (Table 72). Anadditional year of fertilizer used increased the level offertilizer consumption by about 71%.

TABLE 72Parameter estimates for WLSmodel of fertilizer consumptiondemand: FAMSZ 1998

Variable CoefficientCreditAgritexKnows benefitsSupplySexExpected yieldGrain salesIn (Years used)In (Age)In (Adults)In (Dependants)In (Farm size)In (Distance)

ConstantNR2

0.6397***0.1786**0.9606***-0.2730*-0.0964-0.0668

0.5752***0.7092***-0.6049***

-0.0022-0.0063

-0.5567***-0.0417*

5.22891 8280.25

*** p<0.01; ** p<0.05; * p<0.10


Credit

As in the base of knowledge and experience, access to credit also had a strong positive effect onfertilizer consumption. Compared to farmers who had not obtained credit the previous year,fertilizer consumption per hectare was about 64% higher among farmers who had obtained credit(Table 72).

Age

Age was negatively associated with fertilizer consumption (Table 72).

Grain sales

Consistent with the result for access to credit, grain sales the previous year were positivelyrelated to fertilizer consumption. Compared to farmers who sold grain the previous year, fertilizerconsumption per hectare was about 58% higher among farmers who had sold grain (Table 72).

Farm size

The total amount of land cultivated was negatively associated with fertilizer consumption (Table72).

Supply

Fertilizer consumption by farmers who reported that fertilizer supplies were a problem weremuch lower than the level of consumption among those farmers who did not report that supplieswere a problem (Table 72).

Agritex

The results indicate that the availability of agricultural extension services facilitates increasedfertilizer consumption (Table 72). Compared to farmers, who had not had any contact with anAgritex official, fertilizer consumption per hectare was about 18% higher among those farmerswho had (Table 72).

Distance

As Table 72 shows, distance to marketplace was negatively associated with fertilizerconsumption.

CASE STUDY OF A SURVEY ZONE

To obtain a clearer understanding of the socio-economic, fertilizer adoption and marketingscenario, a case study of one of the survey zones was undertaken.

The survey team consisted of five enumerators and one survey supervisor. The field surveycommenced on 20 November and ended on 15 December 1997. The group covered theMuzarabani, Karoi, Sanyati and Mutoko districts. The farmers positively received theenumerators.


General profile of survey areas

Muzarabani

The Muzarabani area consists of the district of Guruve in Mash West Province including Dandein the Zambezi Valley along the Zambezi River. The Guruve Rural District Council administersthe district. Of the total population, 64 627 are males and 70 614 are females. The district has apopulation density of 30.2 inhabitiants/km2 (CSO, 1992). In the valley the population is sparsecompared to around Guruve, which is heavily populated. Much of the land is a national parkprotected area and is reserved for wildlife. Villagers are concentrated in pockets in agriculturallands close to the national parks. The area comes under NRs IV and V.

Karoi

The Karoi sampling area is an important agricultural area in Hurungwe in Mashonaland WestProvince. Of the total population of 248 627, 122 739 are males and 125 888 are females. Thepopulation density is 19.4 inhabitiants/km2 (CSO, 1992). Karoi comes under NR II.

Sanyati

The Sanyati sampling area covers both the Sanyati and Kadoma districts and the northern andsouthern areas of Gokwe district. Kadoma district is in Mashonaland West Province and has atotal population of 151 112 persons (75 332 males and 75 780 females). Gokwe district is inMidlands Province and has a total population of 403 653 persons (194 537 males and209 116 females). The population density is 26.6 inhabitiants/km2.

Mutoko

The Mutoko sampling area in Mashonaland East Province consists of the districts of Mutoko andMurehwa. Mutoko has a population of 124 013 persons (58 489 males and 65 524 females). Thetotal population of Murehwa is 152 505 persons (72 942 males and 79 563 females). Thepopulation density is 32.1 inhabitiants/km2, which is one of the highest in the rural areas ofZimbabwe.

Cropping pattern

In Guruve district and Muzarabani, the main crops grown are maize and cotton. In Hurungwedistrict, in addition to the major crops of maize and cotton, farmers also grow sunflowers andgroundnuts on a small scale. Maize is grown on 40 000 ha, cotton on 25 000 ha, sunflowers on15 000 ha and groundnuts on 7 000 ha. In Sanyati, maize and cotton are the main crops.

In the Mutoko and Murehwa districts, in addition to maize, sunflowers and groundnuts,horticultural activities are quite significant. Farmers grow tomatoes, cucumbers and potatoes forsale in Harare, which is the nearest market.

Socio-economic and agricultural scenario

In Dande, farming is not mechanized and a majority of the farmers relies on hand tools that makefarming operations difficult and slow. Though farmers have large tracts of land, they fail toutilize them all because of the limited draught power available (the majority of farmers do nothave cattle). The tsetse fly problem in the area has exacerbated the situation (however, efforts areunderway to bring the situation under control). The majority of farmers are illiterate and livebelow the poverty line.


In Muzarabani, the landholdings are very small and there is a high population density. Alarge majority of the farmers do not have proper knowledge of fertilizers and the fertilizer use perhectare is very low.

In Hurungwe, the district produces about 100 000 t/year of maize. The majority of farmersunderstand the benefits of fertilizer use. Of the farmers who use fertilizers, 25-30 percent of themuses adequate amounts. The district produces enough food to feed Zimbabwe for a month. Thefarmers and Agritex staff believe that if fertilizer application is doubled, the yield will double.The small-scale farmers have generally adopted modern methods of cultivation and are convincedof the benefits of fertilizer use.

In Sanyati and Gokwe, farmers have mainly small landholdings. Cotton being their majorcash crop, the farmers are in a position to send their children to school and still have some moneyto purchase fertilizer with, though not in adequate amounts.

In Mutoko and Murehwa districts, farmers have mainly smallholdings of 1-1.25 ha.Intercropping is widely practised. Farmers do a lot of other activities to earn money. Mosthusbands work in the towns. They also sell onions, cucumbers and mangoes to raise additionalincome.

In Muzarabani, farmers grow hardly any maize for sale because there are no GMB depotsor agro-dealers in the area. The Cotton Company has established one collection point in thevalley, but farmers face many transport difficulties. The telephone network is very poor but theroads are relatively good. Most areas can be accessed throughout the year.

In the Karoi area, there are several agro-dealers and most farmers can access depots easilyand purchase inputs quite near their farms. The roads are good and the means of communicationhave improved considerably. In Sanyati and Mutoko, the situation is relatively good.

All-weather roads are found in most areas. Fertilizers are available from agro-dealers,though price is a major issue.

Natural endowments

Soils of moderate fertility are found in the Dande valley. The area has black soils, red soils andsandy soils. There is still plenty of unsettled land and squatters are settling in the area. The valleyis generally flat and levelled. Temperatures are always high. Wild animals such as elephants oftendestroy crops in the fields.

In Guruve, the soils range from sandy to clay and most of them show signs of soil fertilitydepletion. The rainfall pattern is very erratic. Droughts occur every three years, and this hasbecome a chronic cyclic pattern.

In Hurungwe district, the soils are light and heavy textured. They are low in fertility. It is avery good rainfall area of moderately high temperature. Droughts are experienced about everyfive years.

In Sanyati, most soils are sandy. It is a very hot region with unreliable rainfall patternssuitable only for drought resistant crops, mainly cotton. In Gokwe, soils range from sandy loamsto clay loams. Many farmers in this region do not use fertilizers because of the belief that the soilfertility levels of their soils are still good.


In Mutoko and Murehwa, the soils are mostly sandy although there are also a few patches ofred soil. The soils are no longer productive and soil fertility has generally been declining. Thesettlement pattern has tended to be clustered around the limited productive soils.

Cultural factors

Most farmers in Dande and Muzarabani believe what their mhondoros (spirit mediums) say. Ifthey say no to infrastructure development, it becomes difficult to do anything; a good examplebeing that of boreholes, which the mhondoros were against although people were dying fromcontaminated drinking water. Road construction has met with stiff opposition. Of particular noteis the case of the abandoned idea of introducing an irrigation scheme. Most farmers were againstthe idea as they thought they were going to be made labourers. The mhondoros are againstfertilizer use.

Fertilizer supply

In most of the survey area, fertilizers had been introduced prior to independence. Agri-inputsupply has since improved in most areas. A majority of the farmers now know the benefits offertilizer use. Some farmers have received master farmer training. Due to increased knowledge,fertilizer demand has increased. In recent years, marketing systems have been liberalized andagrodealers are becoming established in the productive markets.

The declining fertility levels of soils are now forcing farmers to make increased use offertilizers. This has encouraged fertilizer companies to appoint agrodealers in the communalareas. Many crop produce marketing companies are also entering the fertilizer supply market.Cotton Company is now giving fertilizer on credit to its contracted farmers; GMB has also beensupplying fertilizers. In Hurungwe, the area under maize has increased and this has increased thedemand for Compound D and AN. However, some areas have a poor supply of fertilizers becauseof their remoteness. In Muzarabani, because farmers lack knowledge about fertilizers, the marketis very limited.

Problems facing farmers

Fertilizer prices have increased and the effect has been exacerbated by poor grain prices.Transport costs have also worsened the problem. Farmers receive a very low annual income, withwhich they have to send their children to school and buy fertilizers and seeds for the next season.Some of the major problems mentioned by farmers are outlined below.

Marketing problems

At times, GMB stops buying grain from farmers and they are eventually forced to sell tounorganized private buyers, some of whom disappear without paying the farmers. This leaves thefarmer unprotected and very vulnerable.

Land size and fertilizer use

Farmers have mainly very small landholdings and the increased use of fertilizers appears to havelimited scope.

Credit

The availability of credit at reasonable interest rates is a major constraint in the small-scalefarming areas. The AFC loan facility has very high interest rates and farmers are also limited on


the quantity they can purchase. Moreover, farmers with no formal land title cannot produce thecollateral to be eligible for loans from commercial lending institutions.

The Cotton Company of Zimbabwe requires farmers to team up in order to qualify forfertilizer loans, and subsequently to collectively repay the money after harvesting the crop. If onefarmer from the team fails to repay his portion, the whole group will not be considered for loans.The more motivated farmers do not wish to be ‘policemen’ for other farmers. The scheme alsolimits the number of bags farmers can purchase. They believe that competition is also neutralizedby this approach.

Fertilizer supply

There are many informal agro-dealers who are mostly grocery shop owners. They bring inputsfrom the city markets in peak selling months and sell to the farmers at very high prices, so makingit difficult for farmers to purchase adequate quantities of inputs.

The delayed delivery of fertilizers in the communal areas leads to late application and thisresults in poor use efficiency.

Because of increasing fertilizer prices, fertilizers are becoming less affordable, and theprospects for increased agricultural production are limited at this time.

Droughts

Persistent droughts in most areas make it difficult for farmers to repay loans and to obtain morefertilizers. Uncertainties caused by weather patterns also have a strong bearing on the quantity offertilizer purchased and/or used by farmers.

Crops grown

Many of the farmers in the communal areas rely only on maize and some marginal crops, whichare uneconomic and not easily transportable.

Soil sampling

Soil sampling for testing was done a long time ago and farmers only rely on blanketrecommendations from Agritex. There is a need for up-to-date soil sampling and testing in orderto apply proper types of fertilizers to maximize yields and achieve improved economic returns.

Produce grading systemMost farmers are critical of the grading system applied to their crop produce. The buyers usuallyaward the lower grades of C or D, so the produce fetches lower prices. Grade B is the best theyhave obtained to date. Some farmers feel their produce is grade A or B. Some prejudice exists ascommunal areas are perceived and valued lower in a hierarchy of economic gradation that placeslarge-scale commercial areas at the top.

AIDS

AIDS has become a major menace affecting most rural farming communities and their environs,including the peri-urban areas such as growth points and rural service centres associated with themicro-economy. Farmers often have to attend funerals. This entails their using most of the moneythey would have set aside to purchase fertilizers. Commercial farmers, who need a large labourforce, are also affected. This trend is expected to worsen in the near future.


ZIMBABWE

NATURAL REGIONS

I Specialized and Diversified Farming Region

IIA Intensive Farming Region

IIB Intensive Farming Region

III Semi-Intensive Farming Region

IV Semi-Extensive Farming Region

V Extensive Farming Region

70 70% probability of receiving more than500 mm rainfall during the periodOctober – April

This map has been derived from “Natural Regions and Provisional Farming Areas ofZimbabwe”, 1:1,000,000 (Surveyor-General, 1998).

The original Map was compiled from information supplied by the Department of Agricultural,Technical, and Extension Services (Agritex).

The 70% probability isoline is based on information from the Met. Dept. as compiled by theEarly Warning Unit for Food Security.

Documents

A Fertilizer Strategy for Zimbabwe