A Thesis for the Degree of Master

THE IMPACT OF THE FARMER INPUT SUPPORT PROGRAM ON CROP

DIVERSIFICATION AMONG SMALL-SCALE FARMERS IN ZAMBIA:

A CASE STUDY OF NEGA-NEGA AGRICULTURAL CAMP.

THE IMPACT OF THE FARMER INPUT SUPPORT PROGRAM ON CROP

DIVERSIFICATION AMONG SMALL-SCALE FARMERS IN ZAMBIA:

A CASE STUDY OF NEGA-NEGA AGRICULTURAL CAMP.

 Advisor: Mr. Muvwanga, M.C.

by

Mangaba Darlington Arnold

Information and Communications University

A thesis submitted to the faculty of Information and Communications

University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Agriculture with Education

Lusaka, Zambia
April 15, 2017.
Approved by

(signed)
Muvwanga, M C
 Major Advisor

Mangaba Darlington Arnold

We certify that this work has passed the scholastic standards requested by the
Information and Communications University as a thesis for the degree of
Master of Science in Agriculture with Education

April 15, 2017

Approved:
Chairman of the Committee
Dr. Phiri William

Committee Member

Committee Member
 Declaration

I, Darlington Arnold Mangaba, hereby declare that the work presented herein is my own and

that it has never been presented for any academic award, either in part or as a whole.

However, where works of others have been included in this compilation, appropriate

acknowledgement has been made.

……………………………………………….

MANGABA DARLINGTON ARNOLD

Dedication

This thesis is a lone dedication to my wife, Sarah Tembo Mangaba, for her distinct faith,

support, encouragement and sacrifice, without which this work would not have been a

i
success.

Acknowledgement

A project of this nature and magnitude is impossible without the intellectual, editorial and

practical assistance from other people. As a result, I would like to take this opportunity to

acknowledge the input of the following people: Mr. Muvwanga, M.C., the Thesis Advisor and

Lecturer at Information and Communications University, Dr. William Phiri, PhD, Lecturer

ii
and Coordinator of the School of Education at Information and Communications University

and Ms. Kalinda Chiputa, Lecturer in the School of Education at Information and

Communications University for their invaluable guidance and supervision. I further extend my

gratitude to Mr. Mweemba Hibajene, Dean of the School of Education at Rusangu University

for his intellectual contribution, Ms. Charity Monde for her technical and moral support and

Mr. Urgent Cheelo, Teacher of Languages and Literature at Kapululira Secondary School, in

Chirundu district, for proofreading my work.

Operational definitions of terms

 Assumption - belief or opinion.

 Stakeholders - people involved/operating authorities.

 Supplement - additional or extra.

 Inadequate - not enough or not to standards.

 Emanating - coming out or emerging.

 Crop Diversification - practice of producing a variety of high value crops.

 Degradation - loss of the initial status.

iii
 Perception - understanding.

 Monoculture - the growing one type of crop every season.

 Small-scale - little quantities or low level.

 Resilience - ability to regain lost status.

 Respondents - people providing feedback to the questions asked.

Acronyms or abbreviations

 CAST - Centre for Applied Special Technology.

 AEO - Agriculture Extension Office.

 CSO - Central Statistical Office.

 GDP - Gross Domestic Product.

 FISP - Farmer Input Support Program.

 FRA - Food Reserve Agency.

 FFSSA - Forum for Food Security in Southern Africa.

 FSRP - Food Security Research Project.

 STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment.

iv
 ZARI - Zambia Agricultural Research Institute.

Organisation of the study

The study will be organised into six chapters as follows;

 Chapter One - Presentation of the research proposal.

 Chapter Two - Review of literate in the related areas.

 Chapter Three - Presentation of the study methodology.

 Chapter Four - Gives the presentation of the study findings and

their interpretation.

 Chapter Five - Presents the discussion of the study findings and

their applicability.

 Chapter Six - Presents the conclusion and recommendations of

the study.

v
 List of Tables

Table Page

Table 4.1 Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents..................................................31

Table 4.3.1 Crops Grown in the Camp before the Introduction of FISP................................35

Table 4.3.2 Crops Grown in the Camp in the Past Five Farming Seasons.............................36

Table 4.3.3 Crops Grown in the Camp in the 2016-2017 Farming Season............................37

Table 4.5 Average Annual Income from Crop Sales in the Past Five Farming Seasons........39

Table 4.6 Input Outlets and Government Subsidy..................................................................40

Table 4.8.3 Guarantee or Reliability of Market for Non-staple Food Crop Produce.............44

Table 4.11.1 Presence of Agricultural Extension Officer in the Camp..................................47

Table 4.11.3 Provision of Extension Services and Promotion of Crop Diversification........49

Table 4.11.4 Farmers’ call on AEO and the Subsequent Response........................................50

Table 4.15.1 Chi Square Test of Association; H01..............................................................53

Table 4.15.2 Chi Square Test of Association; H02.................................................................54

Table 4.15.3 Chi Square Test of Association; H03.................................................................55

vi
 List of Charts

Chart Page

Chart 4.2.1 Crop Diversification Adoption Rates before the Introduction of FISP...............32

Chart 4.2.2 Crop Diversification Adoption Rates in the Past Five Farming Seasons............33

Chart 4.2.3 Crop Diversification Adoption Rates in the 2016-2017 Farming Season..........34

Chart 4.4 Input Supply by the Farmer Input Support Program..............................................38

Chart 4.7 FISP’s Hindrance to Crop Diversification..............................................................41

Chart 4.8.1 Government Market for All Crop Produce..........................................................42

Chart 4.8.2 Government Market for Non-staple Food Crop Produce....................................43

Chart 4.9 Willingness to Diversify in Cropping.....................................................................45

Chart 4.11.2 Provision of Agricultural Extension Services in the Camp...............................48

Chart 4.12 Farmers’ Sources of Agricultural Information......................................................51

Chart 4.13 Effectiveness of Extension Service in Improving Crop Diversification..............52

vii
 Abstract

Agriculture is one of Zambia’s economic drivers and is a mainstay of the livelihood of a large

proportion of the country’s population. Agricultural production is mainly dependent on

seasonal rain-fed cultivation with maize as the principal staple food crop. Zambia is gradually

striving to diversify its crop sector in favour of high value crops. If technically approached,

crop diversification can be used as a tool to augment farm income, generate employment,

alleviate poverty and conserve precious soil and water resources. In Zambia, diversification

in cropping patterns is a very recent phenomenon. Zambia is basically a maize producing state

and has achieved a very high level of productivity over the years. Crop diversification is

expected to be able to contribute towards a higher nutrition level, poverty alleviation,

employment generation, and sustainable natural resources management. This paper aims to

bring to light the impact of certain policies, such as the introduction of the Farmer Input

Support Program (FISP), on crop diversification and agricultural productivity. To meet the

challenges of a globalising market in agriculture as well as the growing and changing needs of

the population, many countries in Africa have embraced crop diversification in order to

enhance productivity and cultivate high value crops with positive outcome. These countries

are gradually diversifying their crop sector in favour of high value commodities, especially

viii
fruits and vegetables. Diversification is taking place either through area augmentation or by

crop substitution. In order to improve food security and minimize risks associated with heavy

dependence on maize, the government of Zambia has been promoting crop diversification of

late.

The study purported to establish the causes of and solutions to poor small-scale farmers’

participation in crop diversification. The major focus having been put on the evaluation of the

effects of lack of government initiated and supported consumer market and inputs supply for

non-staple food crops. The focus also extended to addressing the impact of the quality of

extension services provision on the success of crop diversification.

The outcomes of the study indicated the fact that small-scale farmers do not receive adequate

extension services. It was also found that government initiated and supported market and

inputs supply for non-staple food crops were lacking in the agricultural system. All these

findings proved to have had some negative impact on the adoption rate of crop diversification

among small-scale farmers.

In anticipation of achieving an improved adoption rate of crop diversification among

smallholder farmers, the government ought to consider initiating and supporting the provision

of consumer market and inputs for non-staple food crops. This support requires substantial

support mechanisms such as restructured and improved extension service provision and access

to subsidised inputs and product market for high value crops.

ix
Contents

Declaration.......................................................................................................i
Dedication.......................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgement.........................................................................................iii
Operational definitions of terms.....................................................................iv
Organisation of the study...............................................................................vi
List of Tables.................................................................................................vii
Abstract..........................................................................................................ix
CHAPTER ONE.............................................................................................1
1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................1
1.1 Background...............................................................................................1
1.2 Problem statement....................................................................................5
1.3 Objectives..................................................................................................6
1.3.1 General Objective:..................................................................................6
1.3.2 Specific Objectives:................................................................................6
1.4 Hypotheses................................................................................................6
1.5 Justification of the Study...........................................................................6
1.6 Assumptions of the Study..........................................................................7
CHAPTER TWO.............................................................................................9
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................9
2.1 Introduction...............................................................................................9
2.2 Definition and Scope of Crop Diversification...........................................9
2.3 Global Perspective of Crop Diversification............................................10
2.4 The Zambian Perspective of Crop Diversification..................................12
2.5 Significance of Crop Diversification.......................................................14
2.5.1 Agronomic Significance.......................................................................14

x
2.5.2 Economic Significance.........................................................................15
2.5.3 Social Significance...............................................................................17
2.6 Factors Affecting Successful Crop Diversification.................................18
2.7 Suggested Solutions to Successful Crop Diversification........................20
2.8 Personal Critique.....................................................................................21
2.9 Establishment of the Gap........................................................................22
2.10 Conceptual Framework.........................................................................24
CHAPTER THREE.......................................................................................25
3.0 METHODOLOGY..................................................................................25
3.1 Introduction.............................................................................................25
3.2 Research Site: Description of the Research Area....................................25
3.3 Methodology and Research Design.........................................................26
3.5 Sample Size and Sampling Procedures...................................................26
3.6 Data Collection Instruments....................................................................27
3.7 Validation of the Data Collection Instruments........................................27
3.8 Data Collection Procedures.....................................................................27
3.9 Data Analysis...........................................................................................28
3.10 Triangulation.........................................................................................28
3.11 Ethical Considerations...........................................................................28
3.12 Limitations of the Study........................................................................29
CHAPTER FOUR.........................................................................................30
4.0 STUDY FINDINGS................................................................................30
4.1 Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents...................................30
4.2 Crop Diversification Adoption Rates......................................................31
4.2.1 Crop Diversification Adoption before the FISP...................................31
4.2.2 Crop Diversification Adoption Rates in the Past Five
Seasons...................................................................................................32
4.2.3 Crop Diversification Adoption in the 2016-2017 Farming
Season.....................................................................................................33
4.3 Crops Grown in the Camp.......................................................................34
4.3.1 Crops Grown in the Camp before the Introduction of FISP.................34
4.3.2 Crops Grown in the Camp over the Past Five Farming
Seasons...................................................................................................35

xi
4.3.3 Crops Grown in the Camp in 2016-2017 Farming Season..................36
4.4 Input Supply by the Farmer Input Support Program...............................37
4.5 Annual Income from Crop Sales.............................................................38
4.6 Government Subsidy on Inputs...............................................................39
4.7 Crop Diversification’s Hindrance by Farmer Input Support
Program..................................................................................................40
4.8 Government Market for Crop Produce....................................................41
4.8.1 Government Market for All Crop Produce...........................................41
4.8.2 Government Market for Non-staple Food Crop Produce.....................42
4.8.3 Reliability of Market for Non-staple Food Crop Produce....................43
4.9 Willingness to Diversify in Cropping......................................................44
4.10 Suggested Changes to FISP and Marketing Framework for CropS
…..45
4.11 Agricultural Extension Service Provision.............................................46
4.11.1 Presence of Agricultural Extension Officer in the Camp...................46
4.11.2 Provision of Agricultural Extension Services in the
Camp.......................................................................................................47
4.11.3 Extension Service Provision & Promotion of Crop Diversification…
48
4.11.4 Farmers’ call on AEO and the Subsequent Response.........................49
4.12 Farmers’ Sources of Agricultural Information......................................50
4.13 Effectiveness of Extension Service in Improving Crop
Diversification........................................................................................51
4.14 Suggestions on the Improvement of Extension Service
Provision.................................................................................................51
4.15 Statistical Tests of the Hypotheses........................................................52
4.15.1 Chi Square Test of Association..........................................................52
4.15.2 Chi Square Test of Association..........................................................53
4.15.3 Chi Square Test of Association..........................................................54
CHAPTER FIVE...........................................................................................55
5.0 DISCUSSION.........................................................................................55
CHAPTER SIX.............................................................................................60
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................60

xii
6.1 Conclusion...............................................................................................60
6.2 Recommendations...................................................................................60
References.....................................................................................................62
Appendix 1: Questionnaire............................................................................65

xiii
 CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Agriculture is the mainstay of the livelihood of a large proportion of the population of

Zambia. There is correlation in literature that Zambia’s potential in agriculture has not yet

been fully exploited. If well managed, the sector could contribute to substantial improvements

in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), employment and tax revenue (FAO, 2005). It is in this

regard that the Zambian government seeks to position the agricultural sector as one of the

economic spinners that will foster economic growth and poverty reduction in the country.

The Agricultural sector is one of the sectors that contribute significantly to the growth of

Zambia’s economy. The sector’s contribution to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) currently

stands at about 18% to 23% (CSO, 2015). The government has identified this sector as one

that has the potential to stimulate the country’s economic development. Agricultural activities

in Zambia are characterized by the production of food crops that include maize, sorghum,

cassava, millet and groundnuts (The IDL Group, 2002). Although maize is the most cultivated

crop in Zambia, efforts are being made to diversify into high value crops (Hazra, 2000). Maize

alone accounted for about 76% of the total value of smallholder crop production in 1990/91

farming season and the subsequent farming seasons, while cassava has been around 10%, and

all other crops trailing below 3% (Jayne et’ al., 2007).

In a bid to secure national food reserves, the government of Zambia created the Food Reserve

Agency, in 1996, whose mandate was to purchase agricultural food products. The Food

Reserve Agency became a dependable market to which small-scale farmers would offload

1
their agricultural food products. The agency, however, only purchased and stocked maize, the

country’s staple food crop. As a result of the increase in the size of the national food reserves,

responding to the growing population, the country’s farming community, the small-scale

farmers, could not produce enough to sufficiently meet the requirements of the expanded food

reserves. In responding to this challenge, the Zambian government created the Farmer Input

Support Program (FISP) in 2002. The Farmer Input Support Program was mandated to supply

subsidised seed and fertiliser with the view of facilitating growth in agricultural productivity

which would consequently increase supply of food products to the Food Reserve Agency

thereby sustaining the national food reserves. Unfortunately both agencies paid attention to the

staple food crop, maize, only. The Farmer Input Support Program was scaled up in 2005 by

12% and in 2010 by 66%.

Successful and profitable participation in the agricultural sector and crop diversification in

particular, has always been hindered by the many constraints that smallholder farmers face.

Some of these constraints include high cost of inputs, limited access to credit, poor or

insufficient market facilities, poor information dissemination, poor infrastructure and many

more. As long as these constraints remain present, smallholder farmers cannot significantly

improve their income base through agriculture.

For many years, maize has been the commonest crop being produced by almost all small-scale

farmers in Zambia. Maize was the first crop to be produced on a large scale in Nega-nega, and

being the country’s staple food crop, most farmers prefer growing maize to growing any other

crops. The over-dependency on maize farming, by the Zambian farming community, has

compromised the anticipated growth of the sector due to increasing costs of maize production

2
(Matandiko, 2010). The inadequacy in crop diversification among the smallholder farmers and

the perpetual monoculture of maize has led to the surfacing of several unanticipated

challenges to food security and economic development. Some of the problems that have

emerged from the inadequate crop diversification include; land degradation due to the same

tillage systems favoured by the same kind of crop being produced every season. The soil has

lost its fertility due to continued exposure to the same nutrient-uptake force as a result of

producing the same crop season after season. It has been noted that pest infestation has also

increased as the constant supply of ‘pest food’ has been enhanced, for the same crop is being

grown on the same piece of land every season. There is guaranteed total crop failure in cases

of droughts or complete pest attacks, as the only crop may be wiped out. The additional

advantage to increased numbers of crops is that the enhanced biodiversity can reduce

incidents of problematic insects and diseases, as well as create new opportunities for

innovative weed management through extended crop rotations (Blade & Slinkard, 2002). The

farmers lack or have limited market due to the supply of the same commodity by several

producers, as a result, inducing low-price market prevalence. The rise in the cost of farming

inputs has been facilitated by the obvious high demand for the same kind of inputs by several

farmers every farming season.

Farmers also face risk from bad weather and from fluctuating prices. Crop diversification is

thus a logical response to both threats. A diversified portfolio of products should ensure that

farmers do not suffer complete ruin when the weather is bad. Similarly, crop diversification

can manage price risk, on assumption that not all products will suffer low prices at the same

time (Hazra, 2002). Hazra, 2002, further alludes to the fact that domestic policy influences the

3
adoption of crop diversification. Agricultural production is sometimes undertaken as a

consequence of government subsidies rather than because it is inherently profitable. The

reduction or removal of those subsidies, whether directly or indirectly, can have a major

impact on farmers and provide a significant incentive for diversification or, in some cases, for

returning to production of crops grown prior to the introduction of the subsidies.

CROP PRODUCTION TREND RECORD

638 2012 2013 2014 2015
601
577592

58 64
34 41 26 42 32 21 15 11
18 28 16 12 0 0 0 0 19 8
Maize Groundnuts Soya beans Cassava Cotton Sunflower

ource: AEO, 2016.

The general overview of the state of crop diversification in Nega-nega Agricultural Camp is

depicted in the chart above. The chart shows the crop production pattern in the camp over a

period of four years, 2012 to 2015 farming seasons. The chart above shows the total number

of farmers that produced a particular crop in the cited years. It shows that, in each year, all

registered farmers, in the camp, produced maize yet only a few of them produced some non-

staple food crops. In general, the number of farmers that produced non-staple food crops kept

on reducing year by year, suggesting a fall in crop diversification among the farmers. In 2012,

the camp had a total of 577 registered farmers. All of these farmers produced maize while 58

4
produced groundnuts, 18 produced soya beans, 64 produced cotton, 32 produced sunflower.

The following years depicted a similar trend in which all the farmers produced maize while

only a few produced other crops which are all food crops. Of the four years, no single farmer

was recorded to have produced cassava. There was also no record of the production of any

crop which is solely a cash crop.

Agriculture should be taken as a venture beyond just producing agro-products. Agriculture

needs to be treated as an agribusiness or employment for rural communities as this is their

source of income and livelihood. As a business, agriculture should generate income for

acquisition of other resources. This true conception is missing in both small-scale farmers and

the government.

1.2 Problem statement

The problem that was identified is the inadequate participation in crop diversification by

small-scale farmers which exacerbates food insecurity. The rate of small-scale farmer

participation in crop diversification, in Zambia, currently stands at 0.01% (ZNFU, 2016). Crop

diversification among small-scale farmers has gone down in the recent past. Since there are

benefits associated with crop diversification, the dwindling levels of the practice among

small-scale farmers are a source of concern among Agricultural Economists. This is so

because small-scale farmers who do not diversify in crop production seem to face many

challenges ranging from threatening food insecurity to compromised economic growth,

stability and resilience. In this regard therefore, the falling crop diversification levels among

small-scale farmers are a significant problem whose causes and solutions are worth

investigating in order to set up mechanisms for mitigating the associated impacts.

5
1.3 Objectives

1.3.1 General Objective:

The general objective of this research was to assess the impact of the Farmer Input Support

Program on Crop Diversification among small-scale farmers in Zambia.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives:

The specific objectives of the study were:

1. To investigate the effect of uncertain market for non-staple food crops on crop

diversification.

2. To establish whether government subsidised inputs have an influence on crop

diversification.

3. To determine the impact of agricultural extension service provision on crop

diversification.

1.4 Hypotheses

H01: There is no significant association between uncertain market for non-staple food-crops

and crop diversification.

H02: There is no significant relationship between government-subsidised inputs and

crop diversification.

H03: There is no significant correlation between extension service provision and

crop diversification.

1.5 Justification of the Study

This study was important in that the findings may be of help in the efforts to control the

perceived problem. The established impacts of the Farmer Input Support Program on

successful crop diversification, if availed to all relevant stakeholders in the agricultural sector

6
and the policy makers, may be used, together with the already existing strategies, in the

improvement and enhancement of a successful and productive crop diversification practice.

The problems emanating from prolonged monoculture, such as land degradation, loss of soil

fertility, pest infestation, high cost of production and low ultimate profits (revenue), may be

addressed by the shift from the dependency on the sole production of maize and a few minor

food crops to full-scale crop diversification. This study, if made available to agricultural

institutions, may act as a guide and reference point in the dissemination of information about

practices pertaining to crop diversification, agro-productivity and advancement of future

research. The identified impacts and the possible corrective measures may provide a solution

to improved small-scale farmers’ income base, thus bringing about food security as well as

economic growth, stability and resilience by broadening the sources of income among small-

scale farmers.

1.6 Assumptions of the Study

This study was conducted under the assumptions that;

1. All the respondents would cooperate and provide accurate information as it were to the

best of their perception.

2. The findings of this study would be meaningful and made available to the relevant

stakeholders, in Agriculture, to quicken the implementation and improvement of crop

diversification as a pillar for sustainable agriculture and food security.

3. The findings obtained in this study would be a good supplement to the already existing

information regarding the constraints and solutions to the conceptual and practical

application of crop diversification, to enhance the making of informed decisions.

7
 CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

To be precise in this study existing literature, related to the research problem, was reviewed.

The problem identified for the study was the escalating levels of food insecurity coupled with

diminishing crop yields due to under-utilisation of crop diversification. It was deemed

paramount to investigate the role of crop diversification in increasing and stabilising

agricultural productivity and food security, by the fact that every farmer, large, medium or

8
small-scale relies on the sales of agricultural produce for income used for the purchase of

inputs for the following season. To this effect, any crop-producing farmer needs to diversify in

crop production as the focus is not only on home consumption but income generation too. It

was therefore, important to investigate this question as there is need to enhance sustainable

agricultural productivity through crop diversification.

2.2 Definition and Scope of Crop Diversification

Diversification may be defined as “the production of a variety of different articles, services,

etc., often as a safeguard against the effects of fall in demand for a particular product” (Oxford

English Dictionary, 1972). Crop diversification refers to the shift from the regional dominance

of one crop to regional productivity of a number of crops, which takes into account the

economic returns from different value-added crops with complementary marketing

opportunities (Hazra, 2002). According to Fletcher (2002), crop diversification is the adoption

of a new plant in a particular geographic region, for the purpose of production, so that it can

be manipulated as a crop for the generation of some commercial product (for consumer

satisfaction) that has not previously been successfully produced from that plant in that region.

Crop diversification is a collection of all programs of expanding the number of crops in a

region in the hope of increasing overall productivity and marketability (Small, 1995).

Diversified farming is the practice of growing more than one crop (or enterprise) in any year

to increase financial and biological stability of the farm (Johnston et’ al 1995).

2.3 Global Perspective of Crop Diversification

Crop diversification has been viewed as a practice that has great potential in fostering

agricultural productivity, food security, ecological biodiversity, land and soil fertility

9
maintenance and economic growth, stability and resilience world over. It is a pity that despite

huge investment in research, crop diversification has generally been neglected throughout the

world. A few countries that have taken the challenge to try diversified cropping have enjoyed

tremendous economic benefits from the practice. The challenge of agricultural sustainability

has become more intense in recent years with the sharp rise in the cost of food, energy and

production inputs, climate change, water scarcity, degradation of ecosystem services and

biodiversity, and the financial crisis. The expected increase in population and the associated

demands for food, water and other agricultural products will bring additional pressures.

Consequently, the development community, which includes politicians, policy makers, public

administrators, institutional leaders as well as academicians, scientists and agricultural

extension workers, has been highlighting the need for the development of sustainable

agricultural production systems that are compatible with the management of all ecosystem

services and also permit the restoration of degraded agricultural lands. In response to this,

action has been promoted internationally at all levels and yet, as witnessed in the Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005), the World Development Report 2008 (WDR, 2008) and

the IAASTD reports (McIntyre et al., 2008), some agricultural systems are still being

promoted with unacceptably high environmental, economic and social implications, albeit

with the promise of increased production yields. Consequently, business-as-usual with regards

to agricultural development is increasingly considered inadequate to deliver sustainable

production intensification to meet future needs in terms of food security, poverty alleviation

and economic growth and ecosystem services (Friedrich et al., 2009; Kassam et al., 2009).

The degradation of agricultural soils in the world, and the consequent loss in soil health and

10
their productive capacity, are the result of intensive tillage-based farming practices that pay

inadequate or no attention to managing the soils and the landscapes as part of living biological

and ecosystem resource base (Montgomery, 2007; Huggins and Reganold, 2008). Thus, most

agricultural soils have low organic matter with poor soil aggregate structure, and there is little

effort made by farmers to develop organic soil cover or mulch from crop residues, stubbles

and green cover crops to feed the soil microorganisms, or to maximize rainfall infiltration, or

to protect the soil from water and wind erosion. There is no doubt that it has been possible to

feed the world’s growing population and improve the nutritional status of a large majority with

the help of modern intensive tillage-based crop production practices, genetically enhanced

modern cultivars and increased inputs of agro-chemicals. However, the ecological, economic

and social foundations of such mainstream practices and the various philosophies and actions

of the public and private sector organizations that support and promote such practices, are now

under serious scrutiny in all regions as new and more environmentally sustainable and less

costly approaches to meet future societal needs are demanded and sought.

The severe degradation of the resource base and environment and other negative externalities

associated with monoculture and mainstream tillage-based agricultural practices is occurring

in all parts of the world. In the industrialized nations such practices rely increasingly on

specialised and less diversified cropping systems supported by genetically enhanced cultivars

and high levels of agro-chemical inputs and heavy machinery for high production. In the

developing nations, agricultural development and the research, extension and education

support services have been pushed by most national institutions, international organizations

and donor agencies towards the adoption and spread of similar harmful practices whose long-

11
term economic and environmental sustainability is questionable as well as their ability to

adapt to and mitigate climate change and deliver all the required environmental services. In

addition the degrading effects of this kind of agriculture in developing countries, located

mostly in tropical and subtropical climate zones, are accelerated compared to temperate

climatic regions.

2.4 The Zambian Perspective of Crop Diversification

Crop diversification in Zambia has not yet been fully embraced by most small-scale farmers.

There are several perceived factors that may be attributed to this scenario.

Matandiko, (2010), noted that Zambia’s agricultural sector has continued to record substantial

growth in recent years as evidenced by successive bumper harvests. The growth is largely due

to various government policies such as the Farmer Input Support Program (FISP), which

accords small-scale farmers, across the nation, access to fertiliser and seed for their farming

activities. He further recognizes the fact that the sector’s growth is coiled around maize

cultivation, which should raise concern as there are other cash crops like cassava, sorghum and

millet that need to be promoted to ensure sustainable national food security. Matandiko

highlights that farming has become a money-spinner, hence the need for diversification to

ensure crops that are required on both the local and international markets are readily

available.

Food shortages in Zambia result from high dependence on rain-fed cultivation where drought

usually entails a food crisis. This is particularly common among small-scale farmers. The

prevalence of the monoculture of maize production at the expense of crops tolerant to drought

which exacerbate the impact of drought on the food situation is equally at play. There has been

12
a country-wide promotion of maize cultivation without due consideration of agronomic

suitability for a long time since independence era, 1960s. Since maize is susceptible to

drought, agricultural production can be drastically low in case of adverse weather conditions.

Because of this situation, the government formulated the Food-Crop Diversification Support

Project (FCDSP) through the Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI) with a view of

enhancing food security by promoting drought tolerate food crops (Ngosa, 2009).

(Chikwanda, 2011), in the agricultural sector, we will extend support to crops beyond

maize, strengthen research and extension services, invest in irrigation, develop and

rehabilitate livestock infrastructure. The government will reform the agricultural marketing

system; promote agro-processing and forward linkages. Further, it is regrettable that the

government policy has encouraged the growing of maize to the detriment of other crops.

These constraints mean that the benefits of improved agricultural output have often not

reached the poorest rural households. As a result, the sector’s potential to significantly reduce

poverty has not yet been tapped. In order to address these constraints, the government will re-

design the Farmer Input Support Program, refocus market guarantees and differentiate

extension service provision to support the production of crops which are appropriate to each

agro-ecological zone. There are several policies and efforts by government to bring about

sustainable food security and meaningful economic growth and stability. Despite these

policies and efforts, crop diversification has still not been fully exploited. The constraints to

full exploitation of crop diversification in Zambia have to be marginally discovered and

controlled in order to achieve a ‘small-scale farmer breakthrough’ to economic stability.

13
2.5 Significance of Crop Diversification

The significance of crop diversification can be divided into three categories namely,

agronomic, economic and social significance.

2.5.1 Agronomic Significance

The agronomic significance of crop diversification is coiled around soil improvement (reduced

soil erosion, increased soil fertility and increased yields), reduced disease, weed and insect

pest pressures as well as reduced need for and dependence on inorganic fertilizers.

For many years, crop growers have used crop diversification to improve soils and increase

productivity and profits. Diversification strategies include rotating with other crops, double

cropping and intercropping. Crop diversification systems tend to have more agronomical

stability and resiliency. Some of the common advantages found in most diverse systems are

reduced disease, weed and insect pressures; reduced need for nitrogen fertilizer; reduced

erosion; increased soil fertility and increased yields. Diversification also provides habitat for

beneficial insects and reduces pest numbers by rendering host crops less apparent for

colonization by pests. Crop rotation, a strategy of crop diversification, is the practice of

planting a succession of crops in the same field. The practice is used for the management of

weed and insect pests, plant nutrition, crop scheduling and so on. One grew a winter cereal

often called the rotation crop, to improve the soil characteristics (Johnston et’ al, 1995).

Crop diversification and rotation have much scope to increase the yield of crops. The majority

of small-scale farmers could be lifted out of poverty without the use of modern technologies

such as improved seed, fertilizer and crop protection chemicals. Soil fertility could be

increased by organic manures, farmer bred and maintained indigenous varieties, biological or

14
mechanical control of insect-pests, diseases and weeds and human power to carry out farm

operations. Organic matter usage has been less in most countries, but its incorporation into the

agricultural systems will make the soil fertile and less degradable. The benefits of organic

matter have been overlooked due to demand for large volumes required, time and labour

costs. Another recent development is in the development of crop rotations, a strategy towards

diversification of agricultural systems to increase productivity and crop yields. This involves

the insertion of green manure cover crop or other legumes in the cropping systems as seen in

several countries (Gunasena, 1999).

2.5.2 Economic Significance

The economic significance of crop diversification is justified by the widening of the income

base and profit maximization which create economic growth and stability.

The role of the agricultural sector in any developing country is focused on food production

and security, gainful employment, revenue earnings, capital accumulation and labour

replacement. There are several advantages of crop diversification; comparatively high net

return from crops, higher net returns per unit of labour, optimization of resource use, higher

land utilization efficiency and increased job opportunities. In order to achieve the above

benefits, the process of crop diversification should be changed from very simple forms of crop

rotation, to intensive systems such as relay cropping and inter-cropping or specialization by

diversifying into various crops, where the output and processing could be different

(Gunasena, 1999).

Johnston, et’ al (1995) view crop diversification as an economic engine that gives rise to

economic stability and resilience by reducing financial risk, stabilising farm income and

15
increasing choice of farm practices. The variety of farm practices can be achieved by the

generation of processing activities of the crop products, which broadens the `revenue track’

and stable employment opportunities. Crop diversification is intended to give a wider choice

in production of a variety of crops in a given area so as to expand production related activities

on various crops and also to lessen risk (Hazra, 2002). A report of a food-security forum in

Southern Africa (FFSSA, 2004), which examined the scope of the region’s economic

development from different sectors, argued that agricultural smallholders are a suitable growth

driver, with impacts on pro-poor growth, food security, and market expansion. Expanded cash

crop production by smallholder farmers could contribute both to rural growth (through

consumption, labour demand, etc.) and to household food security (e.g., through generating

cash with which to buy food or inputs).

2.5.3 Social Significance

Crop diversification creates more permanent or longer season employment opportunities. The

continuous farm activities have a worker-retention power thus stabilising farm workers’ social

comfort.

Social benefits from diversification result from the opportunity to stabilise employment

through an extended on-farm work season. Farmers have found many benefits from a year-

round extended employment system. Some of these are increased worker availability,

increased productivity and dependability, less need for training workers and increased

personal satisfaction. All year-round farm employment fosters the provision of better

standards of living for farm workers and their families, ability to keep their children in the

same school for the full year, and the ability to settle their families into the communities where

16
they work (Johnston, et’ al 1995).

Maarten and Alarcon (1992), report Kennedy (1988), having said that the need to migrate

seasonally to find off-farm employment was likely to reduce when cash crops are introduced

in the agricultural system, with positive benefits resulting from more social interaction within

the household and lower incidence morbidity.

Seasonal off-farm employment in coastal areas, often involving the whole family, provides

additional cash income for smallholder farmers at a high social cost. In general, the food

security, health and nutrition conditions in this area continue to deteriorate. In 1982, the

government of Guatemala initiated a program of crop diversification in this area for

smallholder farmers, primarily based on cold weather vegetables. The program aims to

improve the socio-economic well-being of subsistence farmers and their households by

increasing household income and on-farm employment (Maarten and Alarcon 1992).

2.6 Factors Affecting Successful Crop Diversification

Many factors, including policies have the potential to affect crop diversification, some directly

yet others indirectly through the creation of fringe benefits. Price support mechanisms for

agricultural commodities, which reduce price variability and exacerbate income risk, tend to

have some impact on diversification (Woldehanna et al., 2000). Grants aimed at boosting

diversification and training increase the propensity to diversify. Research and extension, if

directed at diversification, will aid those considering enterprise start-up. When directed

towards production, they may reduce production risk and, therefore, reduce the impetus to

diversify. However, Huffman (1980) reports a rather surprising result that extension increases

off-farm work by farmers. This may be due to a reduction in labour demand on-farm so that

17
more labour is available for allocation to off-farm work. Land rights must be secure for

investing in non-agricultural on-farm enterprises. Credit schemes influence diversification

since investment is often needed for creation of non-agricultural enterprises on-farm. Access

to credit at affordable interest rates is, therefore, an important factor. Crop insurance schemes,

which may be governmental, reduce risk, and thus the propensity to diversify. Lack of

insurance markets and of government insurance schemes may promote diversification as a

risk-coping strategy.

Industrial economics literature indicates that diversified enterprises are the strongest entrants

in a market, particularly for those enterprises for which new, dedicated plants have been built.

These enterprises grew fastest after entry and had the greatest survival rates (Siegfried and

Evans, 1994). A study found that diversifying firms were undeterred by conventional entry

barriers (Siegfried and Evans, 1994). The reason for this appears to be unknown, so the

applicability to agricultural diversification is difficult to assess. However, one reason may be

the ability to use internal capital markets and also the effect of diversification on risk

(Siegfried and Evans, 1994).

Maarten and Alarcon (1992), say it is commonly believed that crop diversification among

smallholder farmers is incompatible with maintaining or improving household food security

when cash crops are included in the new crop mix [Lunven, 1982; Dewey, 1979; Hern’andez

et’ al, 1974]. The main concern is that food availability of smallholder farm households will be

affected by the displacement of food crops by cash crops. It has been postulated that the

household’s vulnerability to food insecurity and dietary inadequacy may be increased,

particularly when household food availability does not change much in response to higher

18
household income from cash crops [Popkin, 1980].

In spite of higher economic returns to household resources (land and labour) from cash crops

compared with basic staple food crops, a number of risks for smallholder farmers are

associated with increased diversification and commercialisation. These include; income loss

from crop failure, market price variability over time, weak and inefficient marketing

institutions, higher input requirements, and thus greater need for credit and extension services,

both of which are typically lacking for farmers with little land (Maarten and Alarcon, 1992).

Myers, (1999) highlighted some constraints to successful crop diversification. The Thomas

Jefferson Institute for Crop Diversification was authorized in 1998 to address possible ways of

achieving successful crop diversification and general production of commodity crops in

America. It was difficult for farmers to produce commodity crops due to low market prices for

the produce and the declining farm payments. The solution identified was developing

profitable alternative crops such as canola, sunflower and millets. These had to be grown in a

rotational, pattern with traditional crops in order to address matters of soil conservation, large

income base and food security. The provision of adequate funding to regional and national

coordinating centres and the availability of competitive grants would foster the development

of crop diversification. That to date, no funds have been appropriated to the Thomas Jefferson

Initiative, means the comprehensive approach strategy remains unrealised.

2.7 Suggested Solutions to Successful Crop Diversification

Market infrastructure development and certain other price related supports also induced the

shift (crop diversification). Often low-volume, high-valve crops like spices also aid in crop

diversification. Higher profitability and the resilience in production also induce crop shift, for

19
example, sugarcane replacing rice and wheat. Identification of suitable crops in an area, for

instance, growing rice in high water table areas replacing oilseeds, pulses and cotton,

promotion of soybean in place of sorghum in medium and deep black soils, all stand as

strategic measures of promoting meaningful crop diversification. India’s performance during

the post-independence period has been a matter of pride and satisfaction. The agricultural

sector has left behind the era of food shortages and dependence on imports and arrived at a

stage of self-sufficiency and occasional surpluses. India has not only become self-reliant in

food grains but has also acquired sufficient resilience to tide over the adverse conditions.

These achievements are the result of a successfully implemented policy framework of

improving rural infrastructure including irrigation, research, extension, provision of

agricultural inputs at reasonable prices and marketing support through minimum price

mechanism (Hazra, 2002).

The European Community succeeded in meaningful crop diversification by the help of

adequate investment in alternative oilseed development. The community is reportedly

investing $50 million per year. Australia has also funded a National New Crop Program that

provides credit and extension services to wheat farmers to successfully achieved crop rotation

alternatives. Canada is now enjoying enormous revenue from Canola exports to the United

States following heavy investments in the crop. It is therefore, certain that adequate funding is

instrumental to successful crop diversification (Myers, 1999).

Betts, (1999), said research and experimentation are vital for the success and development of

crop diversification. Jefferson (1808), in his letter to Lasteyrice, said, “The introduction of new

cultures [crops] and especially of the objects [plants] of leading importance to our comfort, is

20
certainly worth the attention of every government, and nothing short of the actual experiment

should discourage the essay of which hope can be entertained.” In other words he advised that

every new crop be tested and tried before assuming it has nothing to offer.

2.8 Personal Critique

Sustainable small-scale agricultural systems rely on crop diversification for enhanced food

security, prudent land utilisation and economic advancements that ensure reliable access to

finances for the purchase of agricultural inputs. The role of the diversified agriculture is to

focus on food production and security, gainful revenue earnings, capital accumulation and

labour replacement. There are several advantages of crop diversification; comparatively high

net return from crops, higher net returns per unit of labour, optimization of resource use,

higher land utilization efficiency and increased risk protection in cases of adverse weather and

other crop threats. Johnston, et’ al (1995) view crop diversification as an economic engine that

gives rise to economic growth, stability and resilience by reducing financial risk, stabilising

farm income and increasing choice of farm practices. Any deviation from the right course of

the standard requirements for crop diversification gives way to a faulty and ineffective

agricultural system that has unending impact on food security, economic growth, sustainability

and resilience. Any organisation that overlooks the guidelines and expectations of the

diversified agricultural approach, procedures and the associated socio-economic implications

directly influences food insecurity and economic downfall. An agricultural service

management team that is ushered into office and operates without adherence to the

implications of diversified cropping will definitely operate without confidence and proficiency

in extension service provision thereby exacerbating maize monoculture, land degradation and

21
a downgraded productivity in the agricultural sector. This is a common phenomenon in the

Zambian agricultural sector today.

2.9 Establishment of the Gap

There seems to be a widening gap between the number of diversifying small-scale farmers and

those practising monoculture. There is no doubt that the economic transformative significance

of diversified cropping and agriculture at large has been fully understood world-over. Despite

its widespread, the need for sustainable crop diversification seems not to be receiving the

attention it deserves. Zambia’s agricultural sector has continued to record substantial growth in

recent years as evidenced by successive bumper harvests. The growth is largely attributed to

various government policies such as the Farmer Input Support Program (FISP), which accords

small-scale farmers, across the nation, access to fertiliser and seed for their farming activities.

The agricultural growth pattern is coiled around maize cultivation, and this should raise

concern as there are other cash crops like cassava, sorghum and millet that need to be

promoted to ensure sustainable national food security (Matandiko, 2010).

Although there has been substantial growth in the agricultural sector in Zambia, food

shortages and economic hardships have not spared some sections of society, majorly due to

high dependence on rain-fed cultivation where drought usually entails a food crisis. This is

particularly common among small-scale farmers. The prevalence of the monoculture of maize

production at the expense of crops tolerant to drought which exacerbates the impact of

drought on the food situation is quite instrumental. There has been a continued country-wide

promotion of maize cultivation without due consideration of its agronomic suitability for a

long time. Since maize is susceptible to drought, agricultural production can be drastically low

22
 in case of adverse weather conditions. (Chikwanda, 2011), in the agricultural sector, we will

extend support to crops beyond maize, strengthen research and extension services,

invest in irrigation, develop and rehabilitate livestock infrastructure. It is regrettable that

the government policy has encouraged the growing of maize to the detriment of other crops.

These constraints mean that the benefits of improved agricultural output have often not

reached the poorest rural households. As a result, the sector’s potential to significantly reduce

poverty has not yet been tapped. In order to address these constraints, the government will re-

design the Farmer Input Support Program, refocus market guarantees and differentiate

extension service provision to support the production of crops which are appropriate to each

agro-ecological zone. Despite these policies and efforts, crop diversification has still not been

fully exploited. There is a big gap between the ideal situation and the reality. This gap is what

this study intends to fill up.

2.10 Conceptual Framework

Unreliable input market for non-staple food crops Uncertain consumer market for non-staple food crops

Crop Diversification

Inadequate provision of agricultural extension services

ck of government subsidy on inputs for non-staple food crops

23
The above framework proposes that the adoption and practise of crop diversification among

small-scale farmers has some negative influence from the Farmer Input Support Program

(FISP). The inadequate small-scale farmer participation in crop diversification may be

influenced by four major variables. These variables include; unreliable input market for non-

staple food crops, uncertain consumer market for non-staple food crops, the lack of

government subsidy on inputs for non-staple food crops and inadequate provision of

agricultural extension services.

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the details of the way the study was designed. The information

hereunder includes; the description of the study area, the study population, sample size and

sampling procedures, data collection instruments and procedures, validation of the data

collection instruments, data analysis and an account of the variables and their effects, if any.

3.2 Research Site: Description of the Research Area

The study was conducted in Mazabuka district of Southern province, Zambia. The targeted

area was Nega-nega Agricultural Camp, located about forty-two kilometres to the north-east

of Mazabuka town. The research area lies in zone 2 of the Zambia’s three distinct agro-

ecological zones. The area has an average altitude of 950 m above sea level, with annual

temperatures ranging from 00C to 380C, and average annual rainfall of 850 mm. The soils of

this area are reddish loamy clay, deep well structured and well drained, with a sandy clay top

24
soil of pH 5.5 to 6.0 (ZARI, 2015). The district’s population is 261, 268 (CSO, 2010).

Nega-nega Agricultural Camp covers an average of 150 km 2 and has a total registered farmer

population of Six hundred thirty-eight (638), 289 females and 349 males. The camp’s farmer

population is divided into five (5) zones of uneven population (AEO, 2016). The area

generally comprises small-scale farmers of low economic status, who rely solely on rain-fed

seasonal agriculture. The farmers practise mixed farming, in which they rear livestock and

produce maize and a few other food crops like sweet potatoes and groundnuts, on a very small

scale. Their sources of income are majorly crop and livestock sales.

3.3 Methodology and Research Design

The research design used in this study is a survey, which took both quantitative and qualitative

approaches. To this accord, the study relied on both quantitative and qualitative data. A

descriptive survey design is a type of a research method used to get information about and to

describe what is in existence, in respect to conditions or variables that are found in a given

situation. A quantitative survey design is a type of a research method used to gather

information about some phenomenon and to draw conclusions about it based on empirical

facts or quantities of feedback, in respect to conditions or variables that are found in a given

situation (Kombo & Tromp, 2006). This design was deemed suitable, for this study, because it

provided for the collection of information regarding the naturally occurring characteristics of a

particular group without changing the environment.

3.4 Target Population

Bryman (2004) defines study or target population as the universe of units from which the

study sample is to be selected. The study intended to cover small-scale farmers in Nega-nega

25
Agricultural Camp because the nature of the information required was highly associated with

the small-scale farmers. The target population summed up to 638 farmers (AEO, 2016).

3.5 Sample Size and Sampling Procedures

The selection of the camp was done using purposive or non-probability sampling, owing to the

observations made. Proportional Stratified Sampling, a form of random sampling, was used in

the selection of the sample to ensure that every stratum or sub-group of the entire target

population was represented. To this effect, each of the five zones provided an average of

forty-nine (49) respondents. The sample that was selected comprised two hundred forty-five

(245) farmers out of the six hundred thirty-eighty (638). The sample size was determined as

follows;

n = N / 1+N(e)2 where n = sample size, N = population and e = margin of error.

Total camp sample: n = N / 1+N(e)2 = 638 / 1+638 (0.05)2 = 638 / 1+638 x 0.0025

n = 638 / 1+1.595 = 638 / 2.6 = 245.38 = 245.

Total zone sample: n = [N/1+N(e)2] / 5 = [638/1+638 (0.05)2] / 5 = [638/2.595] / 5

n = 245 / 5 = 49.

Sampling factor = N / n = 638 / 245 = 2.6 = 3.

This indicates that every third farmer in the register of each zone was sampled for a

respondent.

3.6 Data Collection Instruments

The study relied on questionnaires and interviews to gather primary data. Secondary data was

obtained from the local Agricultural Extension Office (AEO), Farmers’ Training Centre

(FTC), Zambia National Farmers’ Union (ZNFU) and other sources that were deemed

relevant, including publications.

26
3.7 Validation of the Data Collection Instruments

The data collection instruments were both face and content validated. They were submitted to

the research supervisors for scrutiny and authentication. All recommendations from the

supervisors were effected before administering the instruments. The research instruments were

further validated by means of a pilot study.

3.8 Data Collection Procedures

Data was collected within a period of 20 days. The researcher involved personally trained

research assistants (enumerators) to collect the data from the illiterate respondents as well as to

distribute the data collection instruments to the literate respondents in their respective zones

and then collect the completed questionnaires by the agreed time, within 20 days. Secondary

data was sought during the visits to the local Agricultural Extension Office (AEO), Farmers’

Training Centre (FTC), Zambia National Farmers’ Union (ZNFU) and the farmers for the

distribution and collection of the data collection instruments.

3.9 Data Analysis

The gathered data was systematically coded in Microsoft Excel spread sheets and then

subjected to statistical analysis using STATA in order to generate tabulations, cross tabulations

and charts for easy data representation. The hypotheses were tested using the Chi Square test

of association.

3.10 Triangulation

To facilitate validation of the data, the collected data was cross-verified by comparing it to the

data that was obtained from a parallel source (pilot study) that involved respondents that were

not part of the actual target population.

27
3.11 Ethical Considerations

In most social science researches, the participants are known to the researcher and anonymity

is thus exclusively impossible. In such an instance, the researcher should assure the

participants that their identities as well as their feedback would be treated with prime

confidentiality, and never to be revealed to any third party (Parahoo, 2006). The researcher

thus assured the respondents that their identity would not be disclosed by both parties and the

feedback would equally be treated with high confidentiality. The respondents were also

assured that their responses would only be used for the research purposes and none of them

would be disclosed to any person or office for any ill purposes to disadvantage any of the

respondents. The findings of the study would only be used for this academic undertaking and

any purposes of implementing change in and for the improvement of the agricultural system,

should there be need.

3.12 Limitations of the Study

This study was conducted under the following constraints: the financial challenges hindered

the production of better work as the study was not externally funded and all expenses were

met by the researcher. This fact contributed to the limiting of the study area, population as

well as the sample size, which is likely to produce findings that might not be very

representative hence limiting their generalisation. There may also be alterations in the actual

intent of the respondents in the process of interpreting and translating the information

contained in the questionnaires as some of the respondents dealt with were not literate.

28
 CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 STUDY FINDINGS

4.1 Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents.

Below is a presentation of the demographic attributes of the study

characteristics include camp and zone of residence, gender, age group and marital status.

Table 4.1 Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents.

Characteristic Classification Frequency Percentage

Camp Nega-nega 245 100.00
 
Zone 1 49 20.00
2 50 20.41
3 45 18.37
4 52 21.22
5 49 20.00
Gender Female 111 45.31
  Male 134 54.69
Age 26 - 35 41 16.73
  36 - 45 42 17.14
46 - 55 80 32.65
56 + 83 33.88

29
Marital Status Single 6 2.44
Divorced 35 14.29
Widowed 40 16.33
Married 164 66.94

Table 4.1 shows that, all respondents were drawn from the same agricultural camp, Nega-

nega. It further shows that all the five zones of the camp were represented. Zone 3 had the

least representation of 45 (18.37%), zones 1 and 5 had an equal representation of 49

(20.00%), zone 2 was represented by 50 (20.41%) while zone 4 had the largest representation

which stood at 52 (21.22%) of the 245 study units. There were more males than females that

participated in the study with representation of 111 (45.31%) females and 134 (54.69%)

males. Only 6 (2.44%) respondents were single. 35 respondents (14.29%) had been divorced

while 40 (16.33%) had been widowed. The largest representation was by married respondents

which stood at 164 (66.94%). Further, the age pattern of the respondents was in ascending

order with none below 26 years, 41 (16.73%) between 26 and 35, 42 (17.14%) ranged between

36 and 45 while those between 46 and 55 were 80 (32.65%). 83 (33.88%) respondents of the

total 245 were above 55 years of age.

4.2 Crop Diversification Adoption Rates.

This part presents the details about crop diversification adoption rates in Nega-nega

agricultural camp before and after the introduction of the Farmer Input Support Program.

4.2.1Crop Diversification Adoption Rates before the Farmer Input Support Program.

The following chart gives details pertaining to the adoption rates of crop diversification before

the introduction of the Farmer Input Support Program.

30
Chart 4.2.1 Crop Diversification Adoption Rates before the Introduction of FISP.

Diversified Cropping before Introduction of the

Farmer Input Support Program

Frequency

245
228

17

Yes No Total

Chart 4.2.1 shows that out of a total of 245 valid responses, 17 (6.94%) respondents were not

practising crop diversification before the introduction of the Farmer Input Support Program.

The majority of the respondents in the camp, 228 (93.06%), were practising diversified

cropping prior to the introduction of the Farmer Input Support Program.

4 . 2 . 2 C r o p D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n A d o p

The following chart gives details pertaining to the adoption rates of crop diversification in the

recent past five farming seasons.

Chart 4.2.2 Crop Diversification Adoption Rates in the Past Five Farming Seasons.

31
 Diversified Cropping Past 5 Seasons
Frequency

245

155

90

Yes No Total

Chart 4.2.2 shows that out of a total of 245 valid responses, 90 (36.73%) respondents had been

practising crop diversification in the recent past five farming seasons. 155 (63.27%) of the

respondents have not been practising diversified cropping in the past five farming seasons.

4 . 2 . 3 C r o p D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n A d o p t i o n R a t e s i n

The following chart gives details pertaining to the adoption rates of crop diversification during

the 2016-2017 farming season.

Chart 4.2.3 Crop Diversification Adoption Rates in the 2016-2017 Farming Season.

32
 Diversified Cropping 2016-2017 Farming Season
Frequency

245

213

32

Yes No Total

Chart 4.2.3 shows that out of a total of 245 valid responses, only 32 (13.06%) respondents

were practising crop diversification in the 2016-2017 farming season. The majority, 213

(88.94%) of the respondents were found not to have diversified cropping in the 2016-2017

farming season.

4.3 Crops Grown in the Camp.

This section presents information regarding the various crops that have been produced in the

camp before and after the introduction of the Farmer Input Support Program.

33
4.3.1 Crops Grown in the Camp before the Introduction of FISP.

The table below gives information about the types of crops that the zone was producing before

the introduction of the Farmer Input Support Program.

Table 4.3.1 Crops Grown in the Camp before the Introduction of FISP.

Crop Frequency Percentage

Beans 104 42.45

Cotton 167 68.16

Groundnuts 209 85.31

Sunflower 116 47.35

Irish potatoes 26 10.61

Maize 245 100.00

Sweet potatoes 134 54.69

Cassava 98 40.00

Cow peas 121 49.39

Table 4.3.1 shows that a number of high-value crops were being produced prior to the

introduction of the Farmer Input Support Program. The least produced crop was Irish potato

which stood at 10.61%. Cassava was at 40.00%, beans at 42.45%, sunflower at 47.35% and

cow peas stood at 49.39%. The rest of the crops produced were above 50% in reference to the

total number of respondents. Sweet potatoes had a percentage of 54.69%, cotton was at

68.16%, and groundnuts were highest in terms of the production percentage among all non-

staple food crops at 85.31%. Maize, the staple food crop stood at 100.00%, indicating that the

crop was being produced by every respondent.

34
4.3.2 Crops Grown in the Camp over the Past Five Farming Seasons.

The table below gives information about the types of crops that the zone has produced in the

past five farming seasons.

Table 4.3.2 Crops Grown in the Camp in the Past Five Farming Seasons.

Crop Frequency Percentage

Beans 26 10.61

Cotton 11 4.49

Groundnuts 72 29.39

Sunflower 17 6.94

Irish potatoes 0 0

Maize 245 100.00

Sweet potatoes 30 12.24

Cassava 0 0

Cow peas 21 8.57

Table 4.3.2 shows that Irish potatoes and cassava were not being produced in the past five

farming seasons. The least produced crop was cotton which stood at 4.49%. Sunflower was at

6.94%, cow peas at 8.57%, beans at 10.61% and sweet potatoes stood at 12.24%. Groundnuts

were highest in terms of the production percentage among all non-staple food crops at

29.39%. Maize, the staple food crop stood at 100.00%, indicating that the crop was being

produced by every respondent.

4.3.3 Crops Grown in the Camp in 2016-2017 Farming Season.

The table below gives details about the types of crops that the zone was producing in the

2016-2017 farming season.

35
Table 4.3.3 Crops Grown in the Camp in the 2016-2017 Farming Season.

Crop Frequency Percentage

Beans 15 6.12

Cotton 0 0

Groundnuts 44 17.96

Sunflower 0 0

Irish potatoes 0 0

Maize 245 100.00

Sweet potatoes 25 10.20

Cassava 0 0

Cow peas 16 6.53

Table 4.3.3 shows that Irish potatoes, sunflower, cotton and cassava were not produced in the

2016-2017 farming season. The least produced crop was beans which stood at 6.12%. Cow

peas were at 6.53% and sweet potatoes stood at 10.20%. Groundnuts were highest in terms of

the production percentage among all non-staple food crops at 17.96%. Maize, the staple food

crop stood at 100.00%, indicating that the crop was being produced by every respondent.

4.4 Input Supply by the Farmer Input Support Program.

The following part of the chapter presents the details relating to the crops for which the

Farmer Input Support Program was supplying agricultural inputs from its inception to date.

Chart 4.4 Input Supply by the Farmer Input Support Program.

36
 FISP Input Supply
Frequency

245

0
Maize Others

Chart 4.4 depicts that the Farmer Input Support Program does not and has never supplied

inputs for any non-staple food crop from its inception. This was evidenced by no ‘yes’

response from all the 245 respondents. All the 245 respondents, representing 100.00%,

indicated that the Farmer Input Support Program has only been supply inputs for maize since

its inception.

4.5 Annual Income from Crop Sales.

This section is a presentation of the details pertaining to the average annual revenues of the

respondents as obtained from the sale of crops. The table below is a cross tabulation showing

the relationship between the total income from all crop sales and the income from sales of

non-staple food crops in the five past farming seasons.

37
Table 4.5 Average Annual Income from Crop Sales in the Past Five Farming Seasons.

Annual Crop Annual Income Non-staple Food Crop Sales

Sales Income

  0 1-500 501-1000 1001-5000 Total

6000-10000 0 41 41 0 82

11000-15000 42 0 0 0 42

16000-20000 81 0 0 40 121

Total 123 41 41 40 245

Table 4.5 shows that 40 (16.33%) respondents were getting between K1001 and K5000 from

sales of non-staple food crops. This was the highest earning group from non-staple food crop

sales. Those earning between K501 and K1000, and also those between K1 and K500 were

both represented by 41 (16.73%) respondents, each. 123 (50.20%) respondents did not earn

any income from non-staple food crop sales. With regard to the overall annual crop sales

earnings, 42 (17.14%) of the total respondents had their annual earnings ranging from K11000

to K15000. Those that earned between K6000 and K10000 were 82 (33.47%). 121 (49.39%)

have had their annual earnings between K16000 and K20000.

4.6 Government Subsidy on Inputs.

This part of the chapter gives more information about the input outlets in the area and the

subsidy by government on the supplied inputs. The table below shows the availability of

outlets for agricultural inputs as well as the availability of government subsidised inputs in the

38
area.

Table 4.6 Input Outlets and Government Subsidy for Non-staple Food Crops.

Non-staple Food Crop Government Subsidized Non-staple Food Crop Inputs

Input Outlets

  Yes No Total

Yes 0 122 122

No 0 123 123

Total 0 245 245

According to table 4.6, 122 (49.80%) responses indicated that there were outlets for non-staple

food crops in their area while 123 (50.20%) claimed that outlets for non-staple food crops

were not present in the area. All the 245 respondents indicated the absence of government

subsidised agricultural inputs in the area.

4.7 The Crop Diversification’s Hindrance by the Farmer Input

This presentation is giving details of the farmers’ perception regarding the effect of the

introduction of the Farmer Input Support Program on crop diversification adoption rates.

39
The following chart depicts the rating of the effect of the Farmer Input Support Program on

the adoption and practice of crop diversification.

Chart 4.7 FISP’s Hindrance to Crop Diversification.

FISP Hindrance to Crop Diversification

Frequency

245

164

81

0 0
Very high High Low No impact Total

Chart 4.7 shows that 0 (0%) respondents indicated that the effect was either low or not there

at all. 81 respondents, representing 33.06%, rated the program’s negative impact on crop

diversification as very high while 164 (66.94%) rated it as high. The table further alludes to

the fact that the negative impact of the Farmer Input Support Program was perceived by all the

respondents and that the impact was high.

4.8 Government Market for Crop Produce.

Part 4.8 gives details regarding the availability of government initiated market for agricultural

crop produce.

40
4.8.1 Government Market for All Crop Produce.

Below is a chart showing the availability of government-based market for the staple food

crop, maize, and the other crops which are not staple food crops.

Chart 4.8.1 Government Market for All Crop Produce.

Government Market for All Crop Produce

Frequency
245 245

0
Maize Others Total

Chart 4.8.1 shows that no respondent indicated that the government had a marketing system

for non-staple food crop produce while all the 245 (100.00%) responses showed that the

government provided small-scale farmers with market for the staple food crop, maize.

4.8.2 Government Market for Non-staple Food Crop Produce.

The chart below shows the availability of government-based market for non-staple food crop

produce in the area.

Chart 4.8.2 Government Market for Non-staple Food Crop Produce.

41
 Government Market for Non-staple Crop Produce
Frequency

245 245

0
Yes No Total

According to chart 4.8.2, 0 (0%) responses indicated the presence of a government market or

marketing framework for any non-staple food crop. According to the responses obtained, 245

(100.00%) responses showed that there was no government-provided or initiated market for

non-staple food crop produced.

4 . 8 . 3 G u a r a n t e e o r R e l i a b i l i t y o f M a r k e t f o r N o n

This section of the paper gives a presentation of the reliability or guarantee of the available

market for agricultural produce from non-staple food crops as perceived by the respondents.

The details of the information contained in this section are shown in the following table below

42
which is a cross tabulation showing the relationship between market guarantee and the

availability of people or organisations that buy non-staple food crop produce in the area.

Table 4.8.3 Guarantee or Reliability of Market for Non-staple Food Crop Produce.

Guaranteed Market for Non- People/Orgs Buying Non-staple Food Crop Produce
staple Food Crop Produce

  Yes No Total

Yes 0 0 0

No 222 23 245

Total 222 23 245

Table 4.8.3 shows that 23 (9.39%) responses said that there were no people or organisations

that bought produce from non-staple food crops while the rest, 222 (90.61%) indicated the

presence of people or organisations that visited the area to purchase agricultural produce from

non-staple food crops. The table further shows that none of the respondents supported the

reliability or guarantee of the non-staple food crop produce. All the 245 (100.00%) responses

indicated that the available market for non-staple food crop produce, if any, was not

guaranteed or reliable.

4.9 Willingness to Diversify in Cropping.

The current section gives information about the respondents’ view of crop diversification and

their willingness or desire to adopt the practice if the market and marketing framework for

43
both input and produce for non-staple food crops were restructured and fully supported by the

government.

Chart 4.9 Willingness to Diversify in Cropping.

Willingness to Diversify if Market Guarantee is

Assured and Inputs Subsidised
Frequency

245

204

41

Yes No Total

According to chart 4.9, only 41 responses, representing 16.73% of the total valid responses

showed unwillingness to adopt crop diversification even after the establishment of a reliable

and subsidised market for non-staple food crop inputs and the existence of a well supported

consumer market for produce from non-staple food crops.

4.10 Suggested Changes to the FISP and Marketing Framework for Cr

The respondents suggested the following changes or adjustments in the way the Farmer Input

Support Program (FISP) and the marketing framework of agricultural produce, crop produce

44
in particular, are currently being run.

1. The Farmer Input Support Program to extend its input supply to non-staple food crops

that are high-value in themselves as this will boost annual revenue for the farmers.

2. The current government marketing framework (food reserve creation), spearheaded by

the Food Reserve Agency (FRA), to be restructured and extended to the purchase of

non-st aple food crop produce a s w el l as st retc hing it to s ome s igni ficant high-val u

crops that are non-food crops.

3. B o t h t h e i n p u t s u p p l y a n d t h e p r o d u c e p u r c h a s e s t r a t e g i e s a

segregative and a preserve of the social high class. Only a few individuals of

social standing and influence are benefitting fully from the two programs. Measures

should be put in place to make the two programs universally and fairly accessible.

4. T h e g o v e r n m e n t s h o u l d a c k n o w l e d g e a n d a c c e p t i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f p r

fostering competitive market for both inputs and produce in the agricultural sector so

that small-scale farmers can realise the benefits of their agricultural undertakings.

4.11 Agricultural Extension Service Provision.

The current part of the chapter presents findings based on the status of the agricultural

extension service as provided in the area.

45
4.11.1 Presence of Agricultural Extension Officer in the Camp.

The following table is a cross tabulation giving details regarding the presence of an

Agricultural Extension Officer in the camp throughout the past five farming seasons and also

during the 2016-2017 farming season.

Table 4.11.1 Presence of Agricultural Extension Officer in the Camp.

AEO Present this Season AEO Present in Camp throughout the Past 5 Years

  Yes No Total

Yes 245 0 245

No 0 0 0

Total 245 245 245

Table 4.11.1 shows that the camp had had an agricultural extension officer throughout the past

five farming seasons as well as during the current season, 2016-2017. No respondent refuted

the presence of an agricultural extension officer in the camp over the period while all the

respondents, 245 (100.00%) indicated that they have had an agricultural extension officer

throughout the past five farming seasons and also during the present season, 2016-2017.

4.11.2 Provision of Agricultural Extension Services in the Camp.

The following chart presents details regarding the frequency of the provision of agricultural

extension services by an Agricultural Extension Officer in the camp throughout the past five

46
farming seasons and also during the 2016-2017 farming season.

Chart 4.11.2 Provision of Agricultural Extension Services in the Camp.

Frequency of Agricultural Extension Provision

Frequency

245

163

82

Farming Season (rarely) Farming Season (consistently) Total

Chart 4.11.2 shows that the provision of agricultural extension services by the extension

officer was only done during the farming season. Of the total 245 valid responses, 82

(33.47%) indicated that extension services were only provided during the farming season and

on a consistent basis. The rest of the respondents, 163 (66.53%) also said that the provision of

extension services was only done during the farming season though rarely.

4 . 1 1 . 3 P r o v i s i o n o f E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e s a n d P r o m

The following table is a cross tabulation presenting details regarding the frequency of the

provision of agricultural extension services by an Agricultural Extension Officer in the camp

47
throughout the past five farming seasons and also during the 2016-2017 farming season and

the agricultural extension officers’ promotion of crop diversification.

Table 4.11.3 Provision of Extension Services and Promotion of Crop Diversification.

Agricultural Extension Provision AEO Promoting Crop Diversification

by AEO

  Yes No Total

Farming season (rarely) 122 41 163

Farming season (consistently) 82 0 82

Total 204 41 245

Table 4.11.3 shows that the provision of agricultural extension services, by the extension

officer was restricted to the farming season. Of the total 245 valid responses, 82 (33.47%)

indicated that extension services were only provided, by the extension officer, during the

farming season and on a consistent basis. The rest of the respondents, 163 (66.53%) also said

that the provision of extension services by the extension officer was only done during the

farming season though rarely. The table further shows that 41 (16.73%) responses indicated

that the extension officer did not promote crop diversification. 204 (83.27%) responses

indicated that the extension officer actually promoted diversified cropping.

4.11.4 Farmers’ call on AEO and the Subsequent Response.

The following table is a cross tabulation presenting details regarding the farmers’ call on the

Agricultural Extension Officer and the officer’s response to call. The extension officer’s

48
response to call by the farmers is rated in the table below.

Table 4.11.4 Farmers’ call on AEO and the Subsequent Response.

Call on AEO Response by AEO to call

  Very good Good Not sure Total

Yes 82 122 0 204

No 0 0 41 41

Total 82 122 41 245

Table 4.11.4 indicates that 41 (16.73%) respondents had not called on the agricultural

extension officer for any technical advice while 204 (83.27%) respondents had called on the

extension officer to offer technical guidance. On the rating of the extension officer’s response

to call, the 41 (16.73%) respondents, who had never called on the extension officer, said they

were not sure and could give a rating. 82 responses, representing 33.47%, rating the extension

officer’s response to call as good while 122 (49.80%) responses said the extension officer’s

response to call by the farmers was good.

4.12 Farmers’ Sources of Agricultural Information.

This part presents the details of the main sources from which the farmers access information

about agriculture. The following chart shows the five major sources of agricultural information

49
that the farmers relied on.

Chart 4.12 Farmers’ Sources of Agricultural Information.

Sources of Agricultural Information

Frequency

235

151

23 26
10
Television Radio Newspapers AEO Magazines

Chart 4.12 displays the five major sources of agricultural information for the farmers. The five

main sources are television, radio, newspapers, magazines and the agricultural extension

office. Only 10 (4.08%) respondents accessed agricultural information through newspapers. 23

(9.39%) and 26 (10.61%) respondents accessed agricultural information through television and

magazines respectively. Those that got agricultural information through radio were 151,

representing 61.63% of the total valid responses. The majority respondents (235; 95.92%)

accessed agricultural information through their local agricultural extension office.

4 . 1 3 E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c

The chart below shows the effectiveness ratings of the impact of extension service on crop

diversification based on the farmers’ perception.

50
Chart 4.13 Effectiveness of Extension Service in Improving Crop Diversification.

Effectiveness of Extension Service in Improving

Crop Diversification
Frequency

245

121 124

0
Very effective Effective Not effective Total

Chart 4.13 indicates that the role of extension service in improving crop diversification was

perceived by all the respondents as none of them suggested that it had no impact. 121

(49.39%) responses rated the impact as very effective while 124 (50.61%) rated it effective.

4 . 1 4 S u g g e s t i o n s o n t h e I m p r o v

The respondents suggested that there was need to recruit and deploy more Agricultural

Extension Workers in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of service provision.

This would be achieved by reducing the size of catchment areas thereby improving easy reach

to individual farmers.

4.15 Statistical Tests of the Hypotheses.

Below are presentations of the statistical tests carried out on the hypotheses. The relationship
between variables (predictors and responses) was tested and the findings are as below.

51
4.15.1 Chi Square Test of Association.

H01: There is no significant association between uncertain market for non-staple food crops

and crop diversification. The following table shows the association between uncertain market

for non-staple food crops and the success of crop diversification.

Table 4.15.1 Chi Square Test of Association; H01: There is no significant association
between uncertain market for non-staple food crops and crop diversification.

(Uncertain Market)
(Crop Diversification)
Response
Yes No Total

High 204 0 204

Low 0 41 41

Total 204 41 245

Pearson chi 2 (1) = 245.0000 Pr = 0.000

The statistics showed that the calculated Pearson Chi-Square result was at p = 0.000, measured

with the assumed α = 0.05 (at 95% level of significance). The calculated probability is less

than α = 0.05, and in this regard, the corresponding specific objective was achieved and we

reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. Therefore, there is a

significant association between uncertain market for non-staple food crops and the success of

crop diversification.

4.15.2 Chi Square Test of Association.

H02: There is no significant relationship between government-subsidised inputs for non-staple

52
food crops and crop diversification. The following table shows the relationship between

government subsidy on non-staple food crops and the success of crop diversification.

Table 4.15.2 Chi Square Test of Association; H02: There is no significant relationship
between government-subsidised inputs for non-staple food crops and crop
diversification.

(Govt. Subsidised Inputs) (Crop Diversification)

Response
Yes No Total

Very High 81 123 204

High 41 0 41

Total 122 123 245

Pearson chi 2 (1) = 49.6438 Pr = 0.000

The statistics showed that the calculated Pearson Chi-Square result was at p = 0.000, measured

with the assumed α = 0.05 (at 95% level of significance). The calculated probability is less

than α = 0.05, and in this regard, the corresponding specific objective was achieved and we

reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. Therefore, there is a

significant relationship between government-subsidised inputs for non-staple food crops and

the success of crop diversification.

4.15.3 Chi Square Test of Association.

H03: There is no significant correlation between extension service provision and crop

diversification. The following table shows the correlation between the provision of extension

service for non-staple food crops and the success of crop diversification.

53
Table 4.15.3 Chi Square Test of Association; H 03: There is no significant correlation

between extension service provision and crop diversification.

(Extension Service Provision) (Crop Diversification)

Response
Yes No Total

Very High 121 0 121

High 83 41 124

Total 204 41 245

Pearson chi 2 (1) = 49.6438 Pr = 0.000

The statistics showed that the calculated Pearson Chi-Square result was at p = 0.000, measured

with the assumed α = 0.05 (at 95% level of significance). The calculated probability is less

than α = 0.05, and in this regard, the corresponding specific objective was achieved and we

reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. Therefore, there is significant

correlation between the provision of extension service for non-staple food crops and the

success of crop diversification.

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 DISCUSSION

The study findings show that the government does not provide market for both produce

consumption and inputs for non-staple food crops. Further indications are that the introduction

54
of the Farmer Input Support Program, whose input supply is coiled around maize, led to

drastic reductions in crop diversification and the provision of extension services is equally

inadequate. The findings of this study revealed that the provision of consumer market and the

supply of inputs for non-staple food crops by government have a significant influence on the

participation of small-scale farmers in crop diversification. The other factor that was found to

be compromising the involvement of small-scale farmers in crop diversification is the

inadequacy in the provision of extension services.

The results of the statistical tests conducted on the hypotheses fostered the coming up of the

above facts. With reference to specific objective number one, to investigate the effect of

uncertain market for non-staple food crops on crop diversification, the research findings have

shown that uncertain market hindered the practice of crop diversification.

H01: There is no significant association between uncertain market for non-staple food crops

and crop diversification, had all the 245 responses in support, with 204 and 41 responses rating

the influence of a stable and guaranteed consumer market for non-staple food crops as high

and low respectively (table 4.15.1). The findings from these responses indicated that

government had not provided market for non-staple food crops. The Pearson’s Chi Square

Test of Association result was at p = 0.000 (table 4.15.1). The second specific objective, to

establish whether government subsidised inputs have an influence on crop diversification, was

investigated and findings suggested the presence of a significant influence.

H02: There is no significant relationship between government-subsidised inputs for non-staple

food crops and crop diversification, obtained 245 responses out of 245 valid responses

against, with 204 giving a ‘very high influence rating’ and the other 41 rated the influence as

55
just high (table 4.15.2). These results indicated that government had not provided inputs for

non-staple food crops and still did not subsidise such inputs despite the recorded availability

of outlets. The Pearson’s Chi Square Test of Association result was at p = 0.000 (table 4.15.2).

According to investigations on specific objective number three, to determine the impact of

agricultural extension service provision on crop diversification, it was revealed that extension

service influenced crop diversification. H03: There is no significant correlation between

extension service provision and crop diversification, had 121 ‘very high’ ratings and 124

‘high’ ratings, giving a total of 245 valid responses (table 4.15.3). The findings indicated that

the camp had had an Agricultural Extension Officer throughout the current season and the

past five farming seasons. The point of contention was the quality and frequency of the

provided extension services. The Pearson’s Chi Square Test of Association result was at p =

0.000 (table 4.15.3). Although all the respondents (245) confirmed the presence of an

Agricultural Extension Officer during the 2016/2017 farming season and beyond, their access

to information through the extension office was confirmed to have been poor. All the 245

responses indicated that they only accessed extension services from the Agricultural Extension

Office during the farming season. 82 responses suggested consistence of extension service

provision during the farming period while 163 other responses indicated that they only

accessed agricultural information, through the extension office, during the farming season and

on rare occasions.

According to Matandiko, (2010), Zambia’s agricultural sector has continued to record

substantial growth in recent years as evidenced by successive bumper harvests. The growth is

largely due to various government policies such as the Farmer Input Support Program (FISP),

56
which accords small-scale farmers, across the nation, access to fertiliser and seed for their

farming activities. He further recognizes the fact that the sector’s growth is coiled around

maize cultivation, which should raise concern as there are other cash crops or high-value

crops like cassava, sorghum and millet that need to be promoted to ensure sustainable national

food security. It is indeed true and evident in the findings that the current cropping system is

not diversified. The many high-value crops have been neglected. Such crops, which might not

be food crops, have the potential to give farmers substantial marginal earnings. However, the

economic pressure, generated by subsidised maize inputs as well as consumption market for

maize produce, has drawn the attention of most farmers and thus reduced diversified cropping

patterns.

Matandiko (2010), further highlights that farming has become a money-spinner, hence the

need for diversification to ensure crops that are required on both the local and international

markets are readily available. The researcher found it prudent to be in tandem with Matandiko

on his observations about the nature of the growth of Zambia’s agricultural sector and the state

of the market and marketing infrastructure for non-staple food crops. It is true that crop

diversification has not been supported in terms of the creation and provision of consumer

market as well as the supply of inputs for non-staple food crops. According the generated

statistics, there is need for huge investment in subsidised inputs and market establishment for

non-staple food crops if crop diversification is to be enhanced.

For meaningful and sustainable agricultural development and food security to be attained,

support should be extended to crops beyond maize (non-staple food crops), in terms of the

provision of consumer market and inputs. The support for and improvement of the production

57
of a variety of crops, majorly, non-staple food crops which are of high value, would foster the

decongestion of the maize market, thus giving rise to market prices for maize and its products,

which would consequently lower the cost of production of the staple food crop. The market

for most non-staple food crops is readily available and its prices are averagely good. The

challenge remains with their accessibility within the cost-effective means. The exploitation of

these markets can uplift the socio-economic standards of small-scale farmers, if taken

advantage of.

Maarten and Alarcon, (1992), reported that in spite of higher economic returns to household

resources (land and labour) from cash crops than from basic staple food crops, a number of

risks for smallholder farmers are associated with increased diversification and

commercialisation. These include; income loss from crop failure, market price variability over

time, weak and inefficient marketing institutions, higher input requirements, and thus greater

need for credit and extension services, which are typically lacking for small-scale farmers.

Zambian small-scale farmers are no exception. The two writers justifiably put to light the fact

that income loss due to crop failure, market price variability, weak and inefficient marketing

institutions, higher input requirements and the increased need for credit and extension service

provision, are great risks to and are lacking among small-scale farmers. These factors need to

be addressed so as to create a stable environment for agricultural production and profitability

through diversified cropping.

In the history of agricultural advancement, we see India emerging vigorously from poverty

and persistent food shortages to self-sufficiency and ‘economic power-house’. India’s

performance during the post-independence period has been a matter of pride and satisfaction.

58
The agricultural sector has left behind the era of food shortages and dependence on imports

and arrived at a stage of self-sufficiency and occasional surpluses. India has not only become

self-reliant in food grains but has also acquired sufficient resilience to tide over the adverse

conditions. These achievements are the result of a successfully implemented policy framework

of improving rural infrastructure including irrigation, research, extension, provision of

agricultural inputs at reasonable prices and marketing support through minimum price

mechanism (Hazra, 2002).

The researcher agrees with Hazra that the designing and implementation of good policies that

can sufficiently address matters of input supply, market and marketing framework, land tenure

and adequate provision of extension services, among others, can spearhead and quickly

transform the ‘face’ of agriculture in Zambia and enhance economic growth, stability and

resilience. If this was successfully achieved by India, it is therefore achievable by any other

nation, provided essential policies are identified and supported sufficiently.

CHAPTER SIX

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusion

The study revealed that the area (Nega-nega Agricultural Camp) is dominated by small-scale

59
farmers of low economic status. This was vindicated by the low average annual incomes for

the farmers in the area. The participation rate of small-scale farmers in crop diversification is

very low and it is affected by the lack of government initiated and supported consumption

market and input supply mechanisms for non-staple food crops. It was also revealed that the

provision of extension services was not adequate. Poor quality extension services, given only

during the farming season, do not favour or support the competitive involvement of small-

scale farmers in crop diversification. Both the Farmer Input Support Program and the Food

Reserve Agency do not carter for non-staple food crops and are influenced by politics as seen

in the subsequent up-scaling of the two which mainly took place in years just prior to the

tripartite elections. The Farmer Input Support Program positively influences maize production

(as observed from the successive bumper harvests) which in turn congests the maize market

hence lowering prices of the commodity and income for the farmers (high risk in cases of crop

failures and market price fluctuations). Market prices are not regulated by the market forces

(the invisible hand is greatly at play). This is the case of the 2017 maize floor price drop from

K85 in 2016 to K60 per 50kg bag.

6.2 Recommendations

Having successfully conducted the study and understood the interpretations of the findings,

the researcher recommends that;

1. Individual farmers take keen interest and initiative in adopting crop diversification.

2. T h e g o v e r n m e n t i n i t i a t e s t h e d e s i g n i n g a n d c r e a t i o n o f c o n s u m e r m a r k e t a n d

supply mechanisms for non-staple food crops, in order to encou

farmers’ involvement in crop diversification.

60
3. T h e g o v e r n m e n t , i n p a r t n e r s h i p w i t h o t h e r s t a k e h o l d e r s , r e - d e s i g

services provision framework such that there will be an improvement in the extension

officers’ attitude towards work, which may facilitate the delivery of good quality and

up to date technical information on agriculture to farmers.

4. The government introduces and improves agricultural media programmes and facilitate

farmers’ access to information.

5. The government reforms and restructures the Farmer Input Support Program (FISP)

and the Food Reserve Agency (FRA) into full-scale government entitie

supply subsidised inputs for high-value crops and provide market for all crop produce

beyond the staple food crop.

6. Other academicians conduct similar or related studies in various areas in order to fully

justify the authenticity and credibility of the findings of this study,

provide evidence, whether or not crop diversification is essential for food security and

economic improvement, stability and resilience.

References

1. Betts, E M 1999, Thomas Jefferson farm book, TJMF, Charlottesville, VA.

2. Blade, S F & Slinkard, A E 2002 New crop development, the Canadian experience,

ASHS, Alexandria, VA.

3. Chikwanda, A 2011, Zambia 2012 national budget presentation, Lusaka.

61
4. Dr. Myers, R 1999, Thomas Jefferson initiative for crop diversification, CAST issue

paper # 6.

5. FFSSA (Forum for Food Security in Southern Africa) n.d. Zambia food security issues

paper.

6. FFSSA Country Issues Paper. Online. http://odi.org.uk/work/projects/03-food-

securityforum/docs/zambiacipfi nal.pdf (Accessed January 10, 2016).

7. Fletcher, R J 2002, International new crop development, an Australian perspective.

8. Friedrich, T and Kassam, A H 2009, Adoption of conservation agriculture

technologies, constraints and opportunities, invited paper at the

IV World congress on conservation Agriculture, 4-7 February 2009, New Delhi, India.

9. Friedrich, T, Kassam, A H & Shaxson, F 2009, Conservation agriculture in India,

agriculture for developing countries, science and technology options assessment

(STOA) project, European Parliament, European technology assessment group,

Karlsruhe, Germany.

10. Friedrich, T, Kassam, A H & Taher, F 2009, Adoption of conservation agriculture and

the role of policy and institutional support, invited keynote paper presented at the

International consultation on ‘No-Till with Soil Cover and Crop Rotation,’ a basis for

policy support to conservation agriculture for sustainable production

intensification, Astana-Shortandy, Kazakhstan, July, 2009.

11. Friedrich, T, Kienzle, J, Kassam, A H 2009, Conservation agriculture in developing

countries, the role of mechanization, paper presented at the

club of Bologna meeting on innovation for sustainable

mechanisation, Hanover, Germany, 2 November 2009.

62
12. Gerhard, A 2015, The economic theory principle, online publications.

13. Gunasena, H P M 1999, Intensification of crop diversification in the Asia-Pacific

region.

14. Hazra, C R 2002, Crop diversification in India.

15. Huggins, D R & Reganold, J P 2008, No-Till, the quiet revolution, Scientific

American, July 2008: 70 – 77.

16. Jayne, T S, Govereh, J, Mason, N, Chapoto, A & Haantuba H 2007,

Trends in agricultural and rural development indicators in Zambia,

Food Security Research Project (FSRP), working Paper no. 24, Lusaka,

http://www.aec.msu.edu/fs2/zambia/wp_24.pdf (Accessed on January 10, 2016).

17. Johnston, W G et’ al 1995, California agriculture, crop and farm diversification,

research paper.

18. Kassam, A H 2009, Sustainability of farming in Europe, is there a role for conservation

agriculture? Journal of farm management 10, 717-728.

19. Kassam, A H, Friedrich, T, Shaxson, F & Jules, P 2009, The spread of conservation

agriculture, justification, sustainability and uptake, international journal of agricultural

sustainability 7 (4): 292-320.

20. K o m b o , D K & T r o m p , D A 2 0 0 6 , P r o p o s a l a n d t h e s i s w r i t i n g , a n i n t

Nairobi, Pauline’s Publications Africa.

21. Marten, D C I & Alarcon, J A 1992, Household food security and crop diversification

among smallholder farmers in Guatemala.

22. Matandiko, V 2010, Crop diversification, key to sustainable growth of the agriculture

sector.

63
 23. McIntyre, B D, Herren, H R, Wakhungu, J & Watson, R T (Eds) 2008, Agriculture at a

crossroads, synthesis report of the international assessment of agricultural knowledge,

science, and technology for development (IAASTD), Island Press, Washington DC.

24. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, 2004, National agricultural policy (NAP).

25. Montgomery, D 2007, Dirt, the erosion of civilizations, University California Press,

Berkeley and Los Angeles.

26. Ngosa, S 2009, The art of farming-crop diversification.

27. P a r a h o o , K 2 0 0 6 , N u r s i n g r e s e a r c h , p r i n c i p l e s , p r o c e s s a n d i

Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.

28. Small, E 1995, Crop diversification in Canada.

29. Small, E 1999, New crops for Canadian agriculture.

30. World Bank 2005, Ecosystems and human well-being synthesis, millennium ecosystem

assessment, Island Press, Washington DC.

31. W o r l d B a n k 2 0 0 8 , A g r i c u l t u r e f o r d e v e l o p m e n t ,

Washington DC.

Appendix 1: Questionnaire

THE IMPACT OF THE FARMER INPUT SUPPORT PROGRAM ON CROP

DIVERSIFICATION AMONG SMALL-SCALE FARMERS IN ZAMBIA:

A CASE STUDY OF NEGA-NEGA AGRICULTURAL CAMP.

Dear respondent,
You have been picked randomly via the use of probability techniques to participate in this

64
 research project. Therefore, your full participation will be highly appreciated.
It is my sincere assurance that the findings generated in this study will be handled with the
highest level of confidentiality and for this academic exercise only.

Questionnaire for Small-scale Farmers

ICU

(MSc in Agriculture with Education 2017)

Please respond to the following questions as truthfully as possible. Write your response or
the number corresponding to your response of choice in the “response” box.
A. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS

Q. id Question Response For official use

A1 Name of agricultural camp

What is your sex?

A2 1. Male

2. Female

How old are you?

A3 1. 16 to 25

65
 2. 26 to 35

3. 36 to 45

4. 46 to 55

5. 56 and above

B. CROP DIVERSIFICATION ADOPTION RATE

Q. id Question Response For official

use

Which of these non-staple food-crops did you produce this farming

B1 season?

1. Beans

2. Cotton

3. Groundnuts

4. Sunflower

5. Irish Potatoes

6. Other (Specify) ..................................................

Which of these non-staple food-crops were you producing before the

introduction of the Farmer Input Support Program?

B2 1. Beans

2. Cotton

3. Groundnuts

4. Sunflower

5. Irish Potatoes

6. Other (Specify) ..................................................

For which of the following crops have you been receiving inputs from the Farmer Input

B3 Support Program?

1. Maize

2. Beans

3. Cotton

4. Groundnuts

66
 5. Sunflower

6. Irish Potatoes

7. Other (Specify) ..................................................

Are there any non-staple food-crops you were producing before the introduction of the

B4 Farmer Input Support Program and you have since given them up?

1. Yes

2. No

B5 If your answer to B4 above is YES, what are some of the reasons for abandoning such

crops?

1. Lack of access to inputs for the crops

2. Lack of market for the crop produce

3. High cost of the crop inputs

4. Shortage of extension service provision

5. Other, specify........................................................

B6 If the Farmer Input Support Program was providing inputs for all other non-staple food

crops, would you have been producing them?

1. Yes

2. No

B7 What are the benefits of producing non-staple food crops (other crops apart from

maize)?

1. Risk cushion in case of adverse conditions

2. Source of income for inputs

3. Other, specify........................................................

B8 What is your average annual income from crop sales?

1. K 1000 to K 5000

2. K 6000 to K 10000

3. K 11000 to K 15000

4. K 16000 to K 20000

5. K 21000 to K 24000

6. K 25000 and above

B9 How much of your annual income comes from the sale of non-staple food crops?

1. K0

67
 1. K 1 to K 500

2. K 500 to K 1000

3. K 1000 to K 5000

4. K 5000 to K 10000

5. K 10000 and above

B10 How would you rate the impact of the Farmer Input Support

Program in its hindrance to crop diversification?

1. Very high

2. High

3. Low

4. No impact at all

C. ACCESS TO MARKET

Are there any places in your community, where seed for other crops, other than maize

C1 is sold?

1. Yes

2. No

If there are places where seed and other inputs for non-staple food crops are sold, are

C2 the prices subsidized by government?

1. Yes

2. No

Are there any people or organizations that come to your area to buy crop produce of

C3 crops other than maize?

1. Yes

2. No

Is there a guaranteed market for the produce of non-staple food crops as is the case

C4 for maize in your area?

1. Yes

2. No

If your answer to C4 above is ‘NO’, would you start producing non-staple food crops

C5 if a guaranteed market for the produce was established?

68
 1. Yes

2. No

What do you think should be done in order to improve small-scale farmer access to

C6 inputs for non-staple food crops?

.....................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................

What changes do you think should be made to the Farmer Input Support Program?

C7 .....................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................

What do you think should be changed in the way the Food Reserve Agency is

C8 operating?

.....................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................

B. ACCESS TO EXTENSION SERVICES

Q. id Question Response For official

use

Do you know what crop diversification is?

D1 1. Yes

2. No

How do you get information about agriculture?

D2 1. Television

2. Radio

69
 3. Newspaper

4. Agricultural Extension Worker

5. Other (Specify) ........................................................

Do you have an Agricultural Extension Officer in your camp?

D3 1. Yes

2. No

Have you had an Agricultural Extension Officer in your camp throughout the last five

D4 years?

1. Yes

2. No

How often do you receive technical advice on crop production from the Agricultural

D5 Extension Officer?

1. Every week

2. Every month

3. Only in the farming season but rarely

4. Only in the farming season but consistently

5. Never

Does the Agricultural Extension Officer promote the production of crops other than

D6 maize?

1. Yes

2. No

Have you ever called on the Agricultural Extension Officer to monitor your crops and

D7 offer advice, when you faced challenges?

1. Yes

2. No

How would you rate the response of the Agricultural Extension Officer to calls by

D8 farmers that need help?

1. Very good

2. Good

3. Poor

How would you rate the ability of good provision of extension services to improve

D9 the crop diversification?

70
 1. Very effective

2. Effective

3. Not effective

What do you think should be done in order to improve the quality of agricultural

D10 extension service provision in your camp?

.......................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................

Interviewee’s Signature: ……………………………………………………

Date: ........................................................................................................

Name of Interviewer: ……………..………………………………...............

SIN …………………………………………………………………................
Signature: ………………………….………………………………..............
Date: …………………………………..……………………………..............
Thank you for

participating in this survey.

71