Back to Index

Guidelines for Emergency Relief Projects in Zimbabwe: Seed and Fertilizer Relief
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
2004

http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001110/index.php

Download this document
- Acrobat PDF version (849KB)
If you do not have the free Acrobat reader on your computer, download it from the Adobe website by clicking here.

Introduction
During the 2002/03 and 2003/04 planting seasons, free seed and fertilizer were widely distributed in Zimbabwe in response to drought and a general economic decline. This distribution was necessitated by the reduction in household seed stocks caused by poor harvests. Production losses have been exacerbated by a sharp decline in economic growth, and limited availability and high retail price of food grains. As a result, household and community seed stocks are more likely to be consumed.

Zimbabwe's recent problems have been severe but not unique, or even uncommon. Input relief has been distributed in this country during 7 of the past 12 years. Similar programs have been periodically launched in virtually every neighboring country. The distribution of seed through relief and recovery programs has become so common that several smaller seed companies have emerged to service this market. Larger seed companies maintain at least some stocks of a range of food crops to respond to this demand.

The substantial investment in input distribution programs naturally leads to questions about their efficiency. In late 2002, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) began sponsoring monthly meetings of governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) providing input relief in Zimbabwe in order to improve coordination. These meetings initially involved NGOs linked with FAO programs, but eventually included most of the major NGOs involved in input distribution in the country.

The meetings of the informal FAO/NGO Agricultural Recovery Coordination Committee, involving major donors, international organizations and other stakeholders, encouraged the sharing of experiences and stimulated the joint assessment of possible solutions to common problems.

Distribution of seed, fertilizer, and related agricultural inputs has undoubtedly helped smallholder agriculture recover after the past two seasons of drought. However, many questions have been raised about program strategies and impacts. It is generally acknowledged that the effectiveness of assistance would be improved by better information flow - for example avoiding duplication or overlapping coverage of areas.

Related questions have been raised about how best to target farm households. Should inputs be given to the poorest and most food insecure, or to 'more serious' or 'better' farmers more likely to achieve production gains and thus improve food security in the community? Can targeting be more efficient?

Should farmers in drought prone regions be given maize seed? Is there a 'best' package of inputs for each agro-ecological zone? What indicators should be included in impact monitoring?

In late 2003, the FAO/NGO Agricultural Recovery Coordination Committee endorsed the drafting of a set of guidelines to provide advice to government and NGOs about how best to assist farmers in need of relief. Several members of the Committee volunteered to help draft these guidelines based on their diverse experiences. ICRISAT agreed to help coordinate the preparation of the guidelines. In the initial draft, six NGOs - CARE, Catholic Relief Services, GOAL, Oxfam (UK), FACHIG, and World Vision - contributed brief descriptions of what they considered best practices. This draft has been rewritten to provide a more consistent description of program options, as well as suggestions for best practice. Examples of the practices of specific NGOs are included.

This publication primarily considers issues relating to seed and fertilizer delivery in postdrought recovery programs in Zimbabwe. However, the Committee has agreed that this should be extended to a wider range of best practices relating to agricultural relief and recovery. These include options for tillage support, crop management advice,

water management, livestock systems management, and linking farmers to commercial markets for agricultural products. Therefore, these guidelines should be viewed as a work in progress.
The guidelines focus on programs with a 6 to 12 month lifespan, targeting relief and recovery after drought, as well as chronic crises such as HIV/AIDS and the declining economy. However, most of this advice can also inform program planning in areas affected by flooding. An effort is made to highlight problems relating to input delivery to households severely affected by HIV/ AIDS. However, much more analysis is required of the needs and capabilities of such households. This document represents our views of current best practice. This advice is expected to evolve with time.

Finally, we note one persistent problem encountered during the drafting. We are trying to provide simple advice to guide the development and implementation of relief and recovery programs. Yet opinions differ about what constitutes best practice. Programs are changing as more experience is gained with alternative methodologies. Therefore, these guidelines provide specific sets of advice as well as a discussion of program options, which could help users modify the advice to better suit a particular situation. More detail is provided in a series of appendices.

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP