Skip to Main Content
Have library access? Log in through your library
Research Report


Thomson Kalinda
Mwalimu Simfukwe
Copyright Date: Oct. 1, 2007
Pages: 45

Table of Contents

Export Selected Citations Export to NoodleTools Export to RefWorks Export to EasyBib Export a RIS file (For EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager, Zotero, Mendeley...) Export a Text file (For BibTex)
  1. (pp. 2-2)
  2. (pp. 3-3)
  3. (pp. 5-5)
  4. (pp. 6-6)
  5. (pp. 7-8)

    Through such programs as the government’s Fertilizer Support Program (FSP), inputs have been provided to smallholder farmers at a subsidized rate, while some relief organizations distribute them for free. Government input distribution by FSP is done through a tendering procedure where the government invites tender bids from fertilizer and seed companies for deliveries to designated destinations. Under the FSP, four bags of Compound D (basal dose), four bags of urea (for top dressing) plus 20 kg of hybrid maize seed for use on 1 ha of land have been given to targeted farmers. These farmers, members of cooperatives, have been...

  6. (pp. 9-9)

    Increased use of improved seed and fertilizer has the potential to raise productivity and increase farmers’ incomes, thereby reducing rural poverty. However, smallholder farmers, most of whom are in outlying areas, are faced with lack of access to these indispensable inputs.

    Conventional input delivery channels such as the Direct Seed Distribution (DSD) used by government and non-governmental organizations have failed to effectively address the lack of access to seed due to the massive delays in delivering the input; in some cases irregularities such as corruption and financial mismanagement have also been experienced.

    Attempts are being made to improve seed distribution...

  7. (pp. 10-14)

    In this section, summary findings of relief seed/voucher country reports finalized during 2006 have been updated using literature from local and international studies. A more complete review of literature is available in Kalinda and Simfukwe (2007).

    During the earlier FANRPAN study (Simfukwe, 2006), it was established that there are two parallel seed distribution systems in the country ― the “commercial channel” through the wholesale and distribution networks of 5-6 major seed companies; and the “non-commercial channel” through the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MACO), relief agencies and NGO farmer support programmes. It was also agreed at the national validation workshop...

  8. (pp. 15-16)

    Literature reviews continued even after the completion of the Phase 1 report (Kalinda and Simfukwe 2007). However, during Phase 2, a structured questionnaire constituted the main instrument for capturing primary data from field surveys (Annex 1). As part of the field survey, perspectives of stakeholders and intended beneficiaries were also be captured through informant interviews and participatory rural appraisals (PRAs) at farmer community level.

    The study was undertaken under certain limitations, especially the small sample size in both Luapula and Western Provinces, due to limited resources. Additionally, the study did not benefit from adequate local experiences with vouchers which limited...

  9. (pp. 17-33)

    There were two sets of data analysed ― one pertaining to the group of respondents who have had prior experience using input vouchers, and another relating to the group of respondents who have not had any experience using input vouchers. The group with previous voucher experience was sampled from an area called Sioma, in Shangombo District of Western Province, about 500 km from Lusaka. This group is referred to as “Western Province” in the rest of this report.

    The group without prior experience in the use of input vouchers was sampled from farmers in the peri-urban areas of Mansa District...

  10. (pp. 34-36)

    Where they have been implemented, vouchers have received a favourable response from beneficiaries.

    Vouchers, if implemented, would provide a natural feedback mechanism for both public and private input suppliers on the actual needs of the farmers.

    While DSD and the voucher approach both deliver inputs to the farmers, DSD does not benefit from the feedback of farmers since it is a top down approach while in the voucher system, information flows upwards and downwards.

    Most respondents believed that SV&F is a transparent system as everything takes place in full view of everyone, leaving less room for fraudulent activities.

    Most beneficiaries...

  11. (pp. 37-38)