Zimbabwe’s Command Agriculture scheme has been celebrated as a panacea to the hunger that has threatened millions of people. It is also envisaged to be a viable solution to the country’s huge grain import bill. In the last year or so, huge amounts of material which appear to be scattered have been produced on the scheme. Here is my response to questions around the programme, which I hope will bring clarity in a sea of daily newspaper reports talking about the programme.
What is Command Agriculture?
Command Agriculture, officially known in policy terms as the Special Maize Programme for Import substitution, was instituted by the Government of Zimbabwe in 2016 targeted at the 2016/2017 agricultural season. It is a contractual farming programme primarily targeted at increasing maize production with the aim of attaining national maize self-sufficiency. Zimbabwe’s Command Agriculture aims to safeguard against hunger as well as reduce grain imports into the country hence the inclusion of “import substitution” in the official policy name. Command Agriculture dovetails into the larger national objective of reducing foreign currency loss through excessive imports.
How does the programme actually work?
Interested farmers from around the country, particularly those in regions that are suitable for maize crop production, were invited to register for the programme in August 2016. The registration done through respective Agritex offices (a government agriculture department) was effectively a contract between farmers and the government. Participating farmers, where needed, were supplied with, among other things, key inputs such as fertilisers, seed and agrochemicals. In turn, the farmers committed to sell to the government 5 tonnes of the maize per each hectare ploughed as repayment of the advanced inputs. The farmers would keep any excess production for themselves or sell to the GMB at a rate of US$390.00 per tonne. US$390.00 per tonne is reportedly higher than what other governments are paying per tonne in the region. There was no exchange of money or cash between government and the farmers. The initial support was all in kind.
What are the targets under Command Agriculture?
As much as 400 000 hectares of arable land were targeted for farming under the programme. 200 000 hectares would be irrigated and the rest would rely on seasonal rains. At least 2 000 farmers were expected to take part in the programme. The government said it would spend US$500 million on the scheme. In return, the government expected a harvest of at least 2 million metric tonnes. Zimbabwe requires an estimated 1.5 million to 2 million tonnes per year to feed humans and animals. This means the scheme is expected to produce enough to last a year.
Does this mean Zimbabwe is a command economy?
The short answer is No. However, the Command Agriculture programme raised some concerns in some circles. It was interpreted to mean Zimbabwe is becoming a command economy. Officially, Zimbabwe is generally a free market economy with government intervention from time to time. With the perceived success of the scheme, there is also talk of command livestock farming, command wheat farming, command mining, command health and so on. This has led to some fearing that Zimbabwe’s Command Agriculture scheme could be a precursor to a dangerous militarised economic system.
Did the programme succeed?
There has been some dispute whether or not command agriculture by itself is responsible for the huge harvest that have been witnessed at the time of writing this QnA. What is not in dispute, however, is that Zimbabwe received some very good rains during the 2016/2017 farming season. This contributed to impressive harvests even among farmers who did not participate in the government sponsored Command Agriculture programme. Professor Jonathan Moyo, a cabinet Minister responsible for Higher Education, Science and Technology, has made some controversial social media remarks suggesting that the programme has not produced results to the extent claimed by its principal, Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa. The Minister suggested that another parallel government agricultural programme, the Presidential Input Scheme, had in fact contributed more than Command Agriculture. Vice President Mnangagwa has vehemently rejected Professor Jonathan Moyo’s assertion.
Can we expect a drop in grain imports as a result of the scheme?
It is reasonable to expect a significant drop in grain imports following the huge harvests that have followed the 2016/2017 agricultural season. The Minister of Agriculture, Joseph Made, announced in March 2017 that government had banned all imports of grain with immediate effect. This alone will force a drop in imports and result in significant savings of foreign currency. Zimbabwe traditionally spends huge amounts of forex importing maize from Brazil, Mexico and Zambia among other leading exporting markets.
Did Command Agriculture really save the country imports and therefore forex?
Whilst on one hand the Command Agriculture programme has led to a lower demand for grain imports, it has on the other hand increased imports of agricultural inputs such as fertilisers and other agrochemicals apart from agricultural equipment. The government found itself lifting an earlier imposed restriction on fertiliser imports in order to meet the demand towards Command Agriculture. With access to credible statistics and import figures, there remains room for deeper analysis to ascertain if in fact Command Agriculture has saved the country some forex. Strictly focusing on numbers, it’s possible that the whole programme has cost the country more in imports than importing ready to use maize grain from traditional sources. Even so, the programme arguably remains beneficial to the country on other grounds.
How was the scheme funded?
The government has said Command Agriculture was funded privately through partnerships with the private sector which included banks. Vice President Emerson Mnangagwa has been quoted in the media explaining that the funding was through “lines of credit with various financial institutions“. What has not been clear is how those lines of credit would be paid back. It seems highly likely that one way or the other the government would end up picking up the tab. A consortium of Zimbabwean millers has also reportedly contributed as much as US$8 million for GMB silo repairs in preparation of the grain storage. The government has repeatedly stated that no one has been forced to support or to be part of the programme.
Is it a good idea for government to follow-up with other command schemes in other areas of the economy?
I think it’s a bad idea. Government should restrain itself from falling into the temptation of turning everything into “command” schemes. To begin with, an honest evaluation of the Command Agriculture scheme is necessary. Issues raised by Prof Jonathan Moyo, for example, must be interrogated and not simply brushed off. All-things-command will have a negative impact on the rest of the economy as funding from the private sector is “forcibly” directed to priorities identified by government itself. Government being government which is driven, for the most part, by populist policies, this may lead to an inefficient allocation and application of resources in the economy which sooner rather than later would prove to be a grave mistake. Effectively, the widespread use of the command concept will gradually transform the country’s open market system into a command system which is essentially a command economy. Command economies cannot compete in an era of globalisation. This will only add to our troubles.