‘LET THIS YEAR BE THE BEST IN SUBSIDIES’

Recently, Minister of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development Dr Allan Chiyembekeza announced that government has raised the amount of purchasing fertilisers under the Farm Input Subsidy Programme (Fisp) from K500 a bag to K3 500 ($7). Maize seed was also raised to K1 000 ($2) while that for legumes is now at K500. ALBERT SHARRA sought the views of the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace (CCJP) national secretary on this. Excerpts:

: Government has revised farmers’ contribution to get fertiliser and seed under the Farm Input Subsidy Programme (Fisp). Are you surprised?

: No, not at all. All along, different experts have argued for a feasible financial base for the Fisp programme and that the lowest prices of the farm inputs were dangerous for our economy. Further, the current state of our national purse is so over-stretched that many government priority areas must be met. As such, adjusting upwards the price of fertiliser under Fisp is timely, relevant and cost effective.

It shows also that government can rise above narrow politics and deal with issues as they are.

: There are contrasting views on the development with some saying the sum is too high looking at the poverty levels in the country while others say the move is justifiable because the inputs are expensive.What is CCJP’s position?

: The programme is pro-poor. The cost of fertiliser on the commercial market is not K8 500. This new price is a subsidised one, as such to expect that it can be lower than this to meet the poorest of the poor, is to demand impossibilities. There are poor people in Malawi who could not even raise the previous K500 price so it is important for people to be honest enough to acknowledge the pervasiveness of poverty and the capacity for the poor to lift themselves from poverty. The rest could merely be an academic argument which in this case is a sheer luxury.

: Some commentators say government has taken this bold step because it is broke. What do you say?

: You see, history would testify that social commentators and experts had already been arguing about having realistic prices for Fisp products. Alas! in this Malawi, it is always easier to look at who is causing what than what is causing what. Those who claim government is broke want later to apportion blame on government but it is of no material significance. The prices have gone up anyway.

: Fisp is one of the programmes that gets one of the biggest allocation in the national budget and sometimes takes up to 10 percent of the whole budget, but agriculture experts argue in their research papers that there is no exit plan for beneficiaries. Do you see Malawi graduating from Fisp any time soon?

: This discussion has been going on for some time. It is true that we need to be planning the exit strategy. But as we think like this, we need not forget the rationale why Fisp was introduced and whether the living conditions of those targeted by the program, have actually changed and if not what would happen to them if this programme is exited.

: It has been observed that most of the people who benefit from Fisp are the same who benefit from relief hand-outs when hunger strikes. What do you say to that and how do you want this to be handled?

: Fisp on its own cannot be a solution to the vulnerability of people to hunger. Other interventions are needed. I would not blame those that are also targeted by other interventions. Food security is currently being affected by many factors arising from climate change. What we need is an integrated approach to sort out the perennial challenge of hunger in this country. For example, by trying irrigation at a larger scale and be serious about it.

: Some quarters have been advocating for universal subsidy. With regard to this development to raise the price, do you think it is time the country takes this step?

: The argument for universal subsidy is a far-fetched one considering the economic situation of Malawi. The rise of the prices of Fisp products cannot be a necessary and sufficient condition for the adoption of universal subsidy. The prices will always fluctuate.

: What is your overall assessment of Fisp initiative so far?

: It is a good programme but it can be diversified to consider the local living conditions. I suppose few commercial farmers at large scale farming could be considered and these could directly sell their produce to government to ensure national food reserves are sustained whilst the smallholder farmers, the poorest, could still be supported but with lessened numbers. Unintended, Fisp has brought into communities unnecessary conniving and corruption that are divisive from social cohesion.

: What do you want to see happening to make Fisp relevant?

: Let Fisp be properly organised, be efficiently coordinated and let the correct targeting of beneficiaries be safeguarded to avoid abuse.

There have been preceding cases of more coupons remaining in the hands of the poor as they fail to access fertilizer yet, we have never been told that there are cases of remaining fertilizer under Fisp, so a reconciliation of the number of coupons printed and distributed and the tonnage of fertiliser and seeds should correspond.

: What advice do you have to government ahead of the next Fisp programme?

: Let the 2015/16 season be the best in logistics and sealing of diversions and let it be soon before the roads are bad.

: Any last word?

: As we believe Fisp is a propoor intervention, we need to ensure at all levels of our society that the real poor people are targeted and benefit from it than those that can afford. It’s the duty of the government, police, NGOs, CSOs, FBOs and the general public to ensure that those who do not deserve to benefit do not benifit.