Smallholder farmers versus Ministry of Agriculture
(Judge Mbadwa is making a ruling on the application from smallholder farmers who want government to either abandon the mechanised farming project through the use of tractors or subsidise cost of hiring the equipment if they want it to work.)
Judge Mbadwa: I have listened to the submissions by smallholder farmers as backed by the Farmers Union of Malawi (FUM). They have argued that over 50 years after independence, farmers in the country are tired of continuous use of the back-breaking hoe to till their land.
They have presented affidavits from a network of civil society on agriculture that have clearly demonstrated how primitive and ancient the hoe as a farm tool is.
It is clear from the affidavits that generally farmers have relied on an instrument which is just a slight improvement of the stone tool our ancestors were using for ages to dig. They also attributed the pervasive loss of fertility in Malawi to the continued use of the hoe because of what they termed as the instrument’s a pan effect ––“low nutrient recycling in the soil profile and low water infiltration resulting in soil erosion from surface runoff”.
I agree with the observation that it is foolish for the country to continue using hoes when production is largely driven by technology.
Government’s idea to introduce mechanised tractors was a welcomed development that should have changed the landscape of farming. Unfortunately, as FUM has argued, most smallholder farmers cannot afford to hire the tractors to till their small gardens at the current rates.
Charging K45 000 for a tractor per hectare to just plough the land or K21 000 if the farmer provides fuel is unfair to poor farmers who struggle to buy input and have to rely on subsidised seed or input. Where do you expect smallholder farmers will get the money to pay for that kind of equipment?
The president of FUM has argued his case well in saying that “smallholder farmers do not have resources to hire the tractors” and they should have been consulted to come up with a programme that would benefit them.
Smallholder farmers are right that the mechanised agriculture programme in its present state is a non-starter. It does not benefit the majority of subsistence farmers.
This citizen court, therefore, orders government to subsidise the cost of hiring tractors and that the services be extended to every poor farmer at the cost of government if it wants to see transformational agriculture. The issue of money should not arise because if it can subsidise the cost of cement and iron sheets; why should it fail to subsidise mechanised farming? In fact, money from the Cement and Malata Subsidy Programme should be diverted to the mechanised farming programme as it currently benefits a few and the disbursement process of the malata subsidy is still murky. Case closed.
Court clerk: All rise as the honourable judge departs the chamber!
