2010年-世界发展银行全球_Zambia_-_Impact_Assessment_of_the_Fertilizer_Support_Program___Analysis_of_Effectiveness_and_Efficiency_87页_7mb

Zambia Fertilizer Support Program Impact Assessment Summary

Core Content

The Fertilizer Support Program (FSP) in Zambia was initiated in 2002 as a temporary initiative to provide subsidized input packages to smallholder farmers and encourage private sector participation in supplying these inputs. The program aimed to improve maize production, reduce rural poverty, and support the transition to full market liberalization. However, over time, the FSP has grown beyond its original scope, with the subsidy level increased to 60% and the program now in its eighth year of implementation.

Main Objectives

• To provide subsidized input packages (hybrid seed and fertilizer) to smallholder farmers.
• To build the capacity of both farmers and the private sector.
• To promote food security and rural development.

Key Findings

Program Design and Inputs

• Each input pack includes 20 kg of hybrid seed and 4 x 50 kg bags of Compound D (basal) and 4 x 50 kg bags of Urea (top dressing), intended for 1 hectare of maize.
• Inputs are distributed through approved farmer cooperatives or groups, with a 60% subsidy rate.
• The program has been criticized for loose beneficiary selection criteria, which have led to arbitrary targeting and diluted strategic impact.

Expenditure and Costs

• The 2007/08 FSP budget was ZMK 150 billion (USD 39 million).
• Actual spending was ZMK 167.94 billion (USD 43.62 million), a 12% increase.
• Including staff time and farmer fees, the total cost was ZMK 182.61 billion (USD 47.43 million), a 23% increase over the original budget.
• The program's costs have grown significantly, displacing other development priorities such as irrigation, infrastructure, and livestock development.

Input Delivery Issues

• Major discrepancies in input distribution were found between DACOs and cooperatives, with an average 20% leakage.
• Only 44% of farmers received the full 4x4 input pack, while 55% received less and 2% received more.
• Late delivery was a significant problem, with 63% of farmers receiving inputs in November, 31% in December, and 2% in January.
• This delay impacted maize yields negatively, as timely planting is crucial for the crop.

Impact on Maize Production

• The 2007/08 FSP is estimated to have contributed 82,000 to 146,000 tons of incremental maize.
• This is 61–78% less than MACO's estimate of 375,000 tons.
• The program's cost per ton of maize is USD 325–579, which is competitive in remote areas for food security but not in commercial markets.

Private Sector Impact

• Only two private firms have been involved in the procurement of FSP fertilizer.
• NCZ (a parastatal firm) has dominated fertilizer contracts, while Omnia Small Scale Limited and Nyiombo Investments Limited are the only private firms involved.
• Private supply networks have strengthened in some areas, but not in all, particularly in Northern and Western Provinces.
• The program's geographic targeting does not consider the level of private sector development, risking the displacement of nascent private suppliers.

Key Recommendations

• Clarify the program's objectives to focus on either agricultural growth or livelihood security, as these define the targeting and implementation strategy.
• Implement a dual approach for the FSP, distinguishing between remote and non-remote areas:
  • In remote areas, continue direct procurement due to low private sector presence.
  • In non-remote areas, consider a voucher system to allow farmers to purchase inputs from private retailers, thereby promoting private sector development.
• Establish clear, verifiable, and meaningful selection criteria for beneficiaries to ensure strategic focus.
• Address late delivery issues by aligning the fiscal year with the calendar year, giving administrators an additional three months to complete distribution.
• Institute a robust monitoring and evaluation system to track FSP performance, including routine audits and results-based reporting.
• Engage farmers in monitoring through tools like the Farmer Report Card, promoting social accountability and participatory feedback.

Conclusion

The FSP has had a positive impact on input use and maize production, but its efficiency and effectiveness are compromised by loose beneficiary targeting, late delivery, and high costs. To ensure the program continues to support rural development and market liberalization, it must be restructured and reoriented to better align with strategic goals and private sector engagement.