maize, food self-sufficiency and policy in east and southern africa

In recent years maize has become a major food staple in the East and Southern African region. National average yields of maize remain low and yield gains are generally below population growth rates. Agricultural policy (particularly maize pricing, marketing and trade) is examined and it is noted that, despite an objective of maize self- sufficiency, many countries in the region continue to face erratic supplies. Finally, a brief look is taken at the technologies available for maize, and at those groups of smallholders who are unable to meet their annual household food requirements.

Malcolm J. Blackie is Senior Scientist, The Rockefeller Foundation, PO Box 30721, Lilongwe 3, Malawi.

I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the following colleagues who strug- gled gallantly through earlier drafts of this review: Derek Byerlee, Kelly Cassidy, Ann Conroy, Ron Fenner, Tom Gillard-Byers, Paul Heisey, Richard Jones, Dan McCall, Mike Morris, Spider Mughogho, Kay Muir, Steve Waddington, Andy Wilson, Batson Zambezi. Remaining errors are mine.

Maize, food self- sufficiency and policy in East and Southern Africa

Malcolm J. Blackie

The expansion and acceptance of maize as a major calorie source has been a significant element in the change in farming systems that has overtaken societies in Eastern and Southern Africa during the past century. Over large areas of Eastern and Southern Africa, maize is now the primary staple and occupies a third or more of the cultivated area. Maize is a crop with considerable potential for improved yields through genetic improvement and the adoption of well-tried technologies, notably the application of nitrogen fertilizer. With population growth exceeding the increase of food supply over much of the region, there is an evident need to develop and extend more productive maize technologies to the farmers of Eastern and Southern Africa.

The more recent history of the region has led to the evolution of two parallel, but very different, types of farming systems. Large-scale commercial farmers employing modern technologies and occupying sizeable tracts of, very often, the better agroecologies make up an important component of the agricultural economies of many Southern and Eastern African states. Smallholders, during colonial times often treated as residual to the main agricultural economy, farm much of the remaining area (where water and topography permit) using variants of traditional farming methods on lands held under a range of communal tenure systems. In areas where the human population is sufficiently low, and where animal diseases can be controlled, oxen are frequently used for draught power. In more densely populated areas, and where diseases such as rrypanosomiasis preclude cattle, farmers rely largely on hand hoe cultivation.

Productivity under many traditional smallholder systems in the region was sufficient to support populations of around eight persons per square kilometre. As populations rose, fallowing, which was the preferred technology of both large- and small-scale farmers to restore fertility, became increasingly inadequate. In Kenya, Malawi, Swaziland and Zimbabwe, average smallholder landholdings were approaching the minimum necessary to sustain shifting cultivation by the end of the 1930s.

Large-scale producers (exclusively colonial settlers) started to utilize inorganic fertilizers in significant quantities around 1920. The influence of this group pre-independence is apparent in Kenya, Malawi, Swazi-

0306-9192/90/050383-l 2 0 1990 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd 383

Maize, food self-sufficiency and policy in East and Southern Africa

‘U. Lele and W. Candler, ‘Food security in developing countries: national issues’, in A. Valdes, ed, Food Security for Develop- ing Countries, Westview, Boulder, CO, 1981. ‘World Bank, Eastern and Southern Africa Agricultural Research Review, Eastern and Southern Africa Projects Department, World Bank, Washinctton, DC, 1987. 31bid. 4Green maize, grown on residual moisture in swampy areas, was and remains a valuable contribution to the diet of African people, especially in winter. There is a dearth of statistics regarding the area planted to green maize and the productivity of the crop. %IMMYT. Maize facts and Trends - 7989, ClfvlM’fT Economics Programme, Mexico City, forthcoming.

land, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Their emerging political power gave them favoured access to markets and to purchased inputs. From the late 193Os, large-scale maize production came to dominate the formal maize markets in those countries where large-scale farmers were influential. The outcome was substantial discrimination against smallholders in research, price policy and access to markets.

As a consequence, the existence of a powerful large-scale farming sector biased the development of the maize industries throughout the region. The bias in technology development towards large-scale producers who were able to exploit the complementary benefits of purchased inputs and improved husbandry practices has resulted in a narrow base of improvement for maize production in Southern and Eastern Africa. Despite some impressive successes in maize technology development for groups of smallholders, much of the technological advance has bypassed the vast majority of low-input, low-resource maize producers. The result, as illustrated in subsequent sections of this paper, has been a low rate of productivity growth for maize throughout most of the region. A picture emerges of a need to tailor technology and systems specifically to carefully identified smallholder requirements if the present dis- appointing scene is to change.

System trends and smallholder mnize production

It is well recognized that the statistical base for food production and consumption data in sub-Saharan Africa is weak. Frequently, only the transactions of the official marketing agencies are available, although most food transactions take place outside the official channels. The reliability of even those data that are reported is poor, since farmers may choose to operate in either or both of the unofficial and official markets. As they can shift their transactions frequently, there need be no correlation between changes in production and the quantities handled by the official agency.’

With this caveat, and in recognition also of the ecological diversity of the region, there are some common factors in maize production that can be deduced from available information on Eastern and Southern Africa. First, the greatest area of maize is grown by smallholders under rainfed conditions. These farmers intend to grow maize primarily for home consumption, but they will anticipate selling surplus production. In over 90% of this small-farm area, the land will be prepared, the crop sown and cultivated and the harvest gathered using mainly family labour.* In some parts, family labour will be supplemented by animal draught, hired labour or both. In the smallholder farming areas with most potential, which are those most suited to rainfed maize production, labour constraints mean that the average total area cultivated per farm household will be around, at most, 2.5 ha where animal draught is not available and about 4 ha where animal draught is common.’ Many households only manage to cultivate around l-2 ha.

Over most of the main maize-growing areas, only a single maize crop can be grown in any one year.4 FAO data” on the areas of maize harvested, average yields and total estimated production for countries in Southern and Eastern Africa divide the countries into two distinct groups. The drier nations such as Botswana, Somalia and the Sudan have average yields in the 50&900 kg/ha range, while the remaining countries have average yields ranging from 1000 to 2000 kg/ha. Of the 21

FOOD POLICY October 1990

Maize, food self-sufficiency and policy in East and Soulhem Africa

nations that comprise the Eastern and Southern Africa region, five - Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe - have consistently produced over two-thirds of the total maize crop.

The regional data, and some of the country data, indicate a serious decline in maize productivity over the past three decades. The region as a whole failed to achieve maize productivity growth rates in excess of population growth (typically between 3 and 4% annually) over the period 19.5187. Lele and Meyers show an annual growth rate in overall maize production over the period 197@85 of 3.9% for Kenya, 2.1% for Tanzania and 1.5% for Malawi.‘j FAO data on maize yields from 1951 to 1987 show an average rate of growth of 1.21% for the region as a whole.7 There is considerable variability in maize yields between countries and between time periods, with the most obvious causes of this variability being seasonal rainfall patterns and war. Average yields in the region as a whole rose from 0.85 tonnes in the period 1951-60 to 1.24 tonnes in the period 1981-87. Kenya, Zimbabwe and latterly Zambia are mainly above the average.

The poor performance of maize in Southern and Eastern Africa reflects the general decline in per capita food production that has been typical of much of sub-Saharan Africa over the past three decades. Analysis of the causes of this trend has preoccupied politicians, scien- tists and economists, particularly since the 1970s. The Lagos Plan of Action, drawn up by the Organization of African Unity in 1981, and the World Bank’s 1981 Accelerated Development in sub-Saharan Africa are two seminal documents in this debate.s Both reports emphasize the role of policy in reversing Africa’s agricultural decline, although their recommendations are markedly different. The focus of the present paper is the policy issues that have influenced maize producers in Southern and Eastern Africa. The effects of economic policies, especially price policy and government intervention in marketing, are examined by contrasting the experiences of several different countries in the region. Finally, major technology constraints are briefly outlined.

‘U. Lele and R. Meyers, ‘Growth and structural changes in East Africa: domestic policies, agricultural performance, and World Bank assistance, 1963-l 986, Parts I & II’, World Bank Development Research Department Discussion Papers 273 and 274, Washington, DC, 1987. 7CIMMYT, op tit, Ref 5. *Organization of African Unity, The Lagos Plan of Action for the Development of Africa 7980-2000, Institute for Labour Stu- dies, Geneva, 1981; World Bank, Acceler- ated Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Agenda for Action, World Bank, Washington, DC, 1981. ‘FAO, ‘Structure and characteristics of the world white maize economy’, Report of the Committee on Commodity Problems, 22nd Session of the Intergovernmental Group on Grains, CCP:GR 84/5, July 1984.

Marketing, price policy and trade

Yellow maize dominates world maize markets; the annual output of yellow maize estimated by the FAO is some 400 million tons as compared with 50 million tons of white maize. Of this output of white maize, only a small amount is traded on the world markets - 3 million tons in 1982.9 Much of the maize traded internationally was, and remains, yellow maize for livestock feed. This does not have to be kept to the high milling quality of white maize used for human consumption. In Eastern and Southern Africa, maize production is almost entirely of white rather than yellow maize, and is destined for food not feed. White maize production outside Eastern and Southern Africa thus has little effect on supplies within the region, or on regional opportunities for trade in maize. This commodity is not traded outside the region in sufficient quantities on a regular basis to warrant the special investments in handling facilities required.

Maize trade in Southern and Eastern Africa

The driving force behind the development of agricultural trade in Southern and Eastern Africa was the evolution of an influential large-scale farming sector. From soon after European settlement at the

FOOD POLICY October 1990 385


‘OK. Muir-Leresche, ‘Crop and wage policy in the light of Zimbabwe’s development goals’, unpublished DPhil thesis, Univer- sity of Zimbabwe, 1985. “Poor road and rail links remain a problem for regional trade to the present day. ‘*D, Dodge, Agricultural Policy and Per- formance in Zambia, Institute of Interna- tional Studies, Berkeley, CA, 1977; J. Heyer, ‘The marketing system’, in J. Heyer, J. Maitha and W. Senga, eds, Agri- cultural Development in Kenya: An Econo- mic Assessment, Oxford University Press, Nairobi, 1976; Muir-Leresche, op tit, Ref 10. 13H. Weinmann, Agricultural Research and Development in Southern Rhodesia: 792440, Series in Science 2, University of Rhodesia, Salisbury, 1975. 14M. Lipton, ‘Intra-trade and food security in Southern Africa: production technology or marketing institutions’, Institute of De- velopment Studies, University of Sussex, UK, mimeo, 1987.

turn of the century, in many countries maize was encouraged as an export crop; in Zimbabwe, for example, by 1914 nearly two-thirds of the maize crop was being exported. Most of this went to Europe rather than to the region. ” Poor roads and the absence of rail links discouraged regional trade in bulky commodities such as maize. The main rail routes led out of Southern Africa to Durban and Cape Town, and from Eastern Africa to Mombasa. There was no linkage between the rail networks of Eastern and Southern Africa and there were only limited road connections of a poor standard.”

This reliance on world, rather than regional, markets has had a long-standing influence on the development of the Southern and Eastern Africa maize industry and the associated maize trade. In international terms, the main export era for maize from the region ceased in the 1930s. This period saw a substantial fall in world maize prices, partly due to the world depression but as importantly to the growing influence of US maize production on world supplies. This followed the adoption by US farmers of input-responsive maize varieties and of inorganic fertilizers. Falling maize prices intensified competition between large- and small-scale producers in Eastern and Southern Africa. It was around this time that many of the parastatal maize marketing boards were established in an attempt to regulate prices and markets. Typically these boards were biased against smallholders, thus establishing a mistrust of central marketing that persists in many circles to the present day.‘*

Many of the maize-consuming countries of Eastern and Southern Africa have poor access to the sea. The colonial powers typically required that the territories under their administration should be self-financing as far as possible. Drought in the period 1945-50, when many countries in the region were forced to import maize, further encouraged a tradition of maize self-sufficiency in the region. This was supported by systematic maize-breeding programmes (starting in Zim- babwe in the 1930s and in other countries a decade or so later), and by a downward trend in the prices of inorganic fertilizers. The release and dissemination of improved high-yielding maize varieties coincided both with a decline in fertilizer price, and with the improved availability of fertilizer in those countries having a reasonably developed infrastructure and adequate access to the sea. In Zimbabwe, the price of nitrogenous fertilizer was half as expensive in relation to the maize price in 19.50 as it had been in 1930.‘” Large-scale farmers, who were the primary beneficiaries of the new maize technology and marketing systems, were thus able to maintain maize production profitability in the face of declining real maize prices.

Prices in global maize markets continue to make maize unattractive as an export crop in Eastern and Southern Africa. Trade in maize is now perceived by countries in the region mainly as a means of disposing of random surpluses rather than as an integral part of regional trade. In Southern Africa, Lipton attributes this in part to the fact that maize output from the Southern Africa Development Coordination Confer- ence (SADCC) nations rises and falls in tandem.14 After good seasons, many of the countries of the region will have surplus maize stocks but regional prices will be depressed. After poor seasons, when prices could be expected to recover, few countries have surpluses for export. As importantly, the multiplier effect on the agriculturally based economies of Southern Africa following a poor season leaves maize deficit nations without the financial resources to pay for needed imports.


Maize, food self-sufficiency und policy in East and Southern Africa

The emphasis on self-sufficiency in maize is controversial. The holding of sufficient publicly funded maize stocks to cover drought- induced domestic demand, although costly in financial terms, is in- tended to allow the national marketing authority to retain its ability to act as a stabilizing influence on the domestic market. l5 Asian experience has shown that it is essential for a central foodgrain board to be in command of sufficient stock for it to be able to exert pressure on domestic prices in terms of crisis. However, some commentators suggest that countries in the region are unduly risk-averse in this regard. An analysis by Buccola and Sukume, based on post-independence data, suggested maize stocks in Zimbabwe were typically well above economi- cally rational levels.16 While this suggests that policy makers are prone to take unusually large financial risks to avoid the physical risks associated with maize imports, this needs to be seen in the economic context of the region. In particular, chronic foreign exchange shortages affect most countries in the region which, in part, explains the emphasis, despite the costs involved, on holding large domestic grain stocks (which are funded in local currency), rather than commercial imports.

Koester argues that there is considerable potential for intra-regional trade in maize to improve food security in Southern Africa.” In landlocked countries such as many of those in SADCC, the difference between import and export parity prices for trade outside the region is large because transport costs are high. lx This should mean that surplus countries in the region ought to be in a position to supply maize within the region at more attractive prices to importing countries than international suppliers. Trade could also assist in risk management strategies, such as holding sufficient stockpiles of grain to provide adequate national supplies during periods of extended drought.

Lipton holds a contrary view, emphasizing the tiny proportion of regional maize production that is traded.” Until there is a major increase in rural maize output, he believes it is unrealistic to expect the development of a reliable and significant level of intra-regional trade in maize. He suggests that there are several additional reasons why

15The emphasis on self-sufficiency in maize production derives also from domestic political pressures - in some countries. The need to import maize is regarded as a failure on the part of the government to meet its obligations. The fact that imported maize is often of the less favoured yellow types exacerbates this situation. ‘% Buccola and C. Sukume, ‘Optimal

intra-regional trade in maize is unlikely to develop as a successful

grain pricing and storage policy in control- strategy for food security and economic growth. These include in- led agricultural economies: application to appropriate marketing structures, the absence of improved maize Zimbabwe’, in M. Rukuni and C. Either, eds, Food Security for Southern Africa,

technologies suitable for smallholders (except improved seeds), risky

Proceedings of the Second Annual Confer- and expensive transport links, dispersed populations, the limited size of ence on Food Security Research in South- the maize market and the high covariance in maize supply between ern Africa, 9-l 3 November 1986, Universi- ty of Zimbabwe/Michigan State University

countries of the region. He argues that a regional trade in maize (and

Food Security Research Project, Depart- other cereals) is unlikely to develop in the absence of strong growth in ment of Agricultural Economics and Exten- agricultural productivity. sion, Harare, 1988. 17U Koester, Regional Cooperation to Im-

Available data appear to support Lipton’s analysis. The main trade in

proie Food Security in Southern and East- maize in the region is concentrated around Southern Africa. This area em African Countries, IFPRI Research Re- has two of the major participants in regional grain trade, a number of port No 53, International Food Policy Re- search Institute, Washington, DC, 1986.

chronically food deficit countries, and two important regional entities

“For example, in 1981, the Zimbabwe aimed at encouraging regional cooperation - the SADCC’” and the export parity price was US$l 10 and the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), which includes Botswana, import parity price US$245 (Muir- Leresche, op cit. Ref 10).

Lesotho, Namibia, the Republic of South Africa and Swaziland. The

“Lipton, op tit, Ref 14. only consistent maize exporters in the region are the Republic of South “The SADCC is a grouping of member Africa and Zimbabwe, both of which have significant numbers of states: Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Mala- wi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Tanzania,

comparatively highly productive large-scale maize producers. Other

Zambia and Zimbabwe and recently joined nations in the region (mainly Kenya, Malawi and Zambia) only enter Namibia. the export market periodically. The Republic of South Africa accounts



“FAO, op tit, Ref 9. 22CIMM’fT, op cif, Ref 5. 23T. Takavarasha, ‘Grain trade, barter, and triangular trade: proposed research and policy issues with specific reference to Zimbabwe’s experience’, in M. Rukuni and Ft. Bernsten, eds, Southern Africa: Food Security Policy Options, Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference on Food Security Research in Southern Africa, l-5 November 1987, University of Zimbabwe/ Michigan State University Food Security Research Project, Department of Agri- cultural Economics and Extension, Harare, 1988. 24D. Kingsbury, L. Stackhouse and J. Rusike, ‘Cereals trade patterns in the SADCC region’, University of Zimbabwe, Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Working Paper AEE 3/88, Ha- rare, Zimbabwe, 1988.

for approximately two-thirds of world exports of white maize,2’ and the Republic is an important supplier of maize to several countries in the region. While trade data on maize in the region are incomplete, in recent years Angola, Mozambique and Zambia have been the largest importers.

Despite the stated objective of self-sufficiency in maize by the major maize-consuming countries of Eastern and Southern Africa, aggregate data show that regional self-sufficiency has been falling steadily over the past three decades. 22 Maize consumption grew by 3.8% between the periods 196165 and 1971-75 while yields rose only 2.1% for the region overall. Between 1971-75 and 1983-87, consumption rose 1.3% while yields only increased by 0.1%. This gap was filled by two major changes. First, there has been a rapid increase in food imports. In the SADCC region, cereal imports grew at an annual rate of 6.94% over the period 197tL84, reaching 2.09 million tonnes in 1984/85. Food aid to the region doubled in the period 1980/81-1986/87 to reach about 1 million tonnes per annum. 23 Maize imports have grown at an average annual rate of 6% since 1970. Second, there has been a major expansion of the area planted for maize - from an average of 5.3 million ha over the period 1951-60 to 9.2 million ha in 1981-87. Neither change appears sustainable; the continued unhindered growth of food aid imports is unlikely, and, as population growth forces greater intensity of land use in several important maize-producing countries, expanding the area under maize becomes less viable as a strategy for maize self-sufficiency.

Trilateral food aid transactions in Southern Africa

A significant development in the maize trade in the 1980s has been the emergence of trilateral food aid transactions in the region. Several unique features of the region have contributed to the evolution of this trend. First, there has been the growth in white maize deficits in several countries of the region and the inability of these countries to import maize on commercial terms. Second, the strong preference for white rather than yellow maize for human consumption in the region and the absence of surplus white maize stocks amongst the major donor countries have led donors to seek these stocks from other sources. Third, there are several countries within the SADCC region that have had surplus maize for export that can be sold internationally only at a loss. Finally, there has been rapid growth in wheat consumption in the region, an increase in demand which all countries are finding difficulty in meeting from either home production or imports.

In the typical SADCC trilateral food aid deal, a SADCC country with surplus maize will offer it, in exchange for wheat, to a donor wishing to provide maize food aid to another African country. Kingsbury, Stack- house and Rusike report that in 1985/86 trilateral maize transfers represented 48% of intra-SADCC maize trade.24 Although these transfers are only a small part of the overall trade in cereals, they are of considerable importance to selected countries, In Zambia, two-thirds of maize imports from 1983-86 were financed through trilateral deals. One-third of exports from Zimbabwe and 80% of exports from Malawi in 1985 were supported by donor trilateral arrangements. Kingsbury, Stackhouse and Rusike, however, warn that while these arrangements have been valuable in some years to some countries, their potential as an important component of regional trade is seriously impeded by their highly variable and unpredictable nature.



Government intervention in maize murketing and pricing in Africa

Without exception, the main maize-producing countries of Southern and Eastern Africa set official producer, and, in most cases, consumer

prices for maize. There is a long history in Africa of official and quasi-official ‘single channel’ (ie monopsonistic) food marketing agencies. D. Jones gives the following summary of arguments typically used to justify government intervention in African food markets:

(1) Marketing and storing agricultural produce is a technically compli- cated business, and requires a highly qualified and technically well-equipped agency so as to avoid waste.

(2) There are important economies of scale in transport and storage which only a sole buyer and seller can realize.

(3) Private sector marketing involves many middlemen, leading to lower prices to farmers and higher prices to consumers.

(4) Private sector dealers form ‘rings’ to cheat farmers. (5) Official marketing channels are necessary to limit price fluctua-

tions. (6) Official marketing channels are necessary to prevent smuggling.2”

There are additional arguments not mentioned by Jones. The tendency for the private sector to confine its activities to areas with most favoured access and infrastructure is regarded by many as a particularly persua- sive reason for state intervention. Other grounds for public sector marketing include consideration of the state’s responsibility to ensure adequate national food security, and, less relevant to maize in Southern and Eastern Africa, the need to protect an infant industry.

Despite these justifications, as D. Jones points out,26 there is considerable evidence that the involvement of the state in primary agricultural marketing has placed an enormous burden on the economies of African states.27 Ahmed explores the interrelations between agricultural prices and market systems. 28 His analysis shows that farmers in Africa receive a smaller proportion of the price paid by final consumers of foodgrains in Africa than do farmers in Asia. Based on data from selected African countries, he suggests that the average producer price in Africa is only 35-60% of the terminal market price; this contrasts markedly with the 75-90% received by farmers in selected Asian countries.29 Transport and associated marketing costs explain 39% of the differential in marketing margins between African and Asian countries, while a further 27% of the differences in marketing margin can be explained by the transaction costs associated with public marketing.

The importance of smallholder maize both as a food and a cash crop has grown markedly over the past century and it is likely that the trend towards the increasing involvement of smallholders in commercial maize production will continue. Smallholder maize production can be expected to form a component of growing significance in the agricultural economies of countries in Southern and Eastern Africa, especially those in which maize is already a major food staple. This will require that smallholders have access to the maize markets, that maize production offers attractive income opportunities, and that governments follow a consistent policy towards marketing and pricing institutions.

Muir and Takavarasha describe the pricing policy mechanism for Zimbabwe3a ( . ‘1 p srmr ar recesses are followed in other countries of the region).31 The official price set for maize is usually a uniform price for

25D. Jones, State structures in new nations: primary agricultural marketing’, Jour- nal of Modern African Studies, Vol 20, No 4, 1982, pp 553-570. 261bid. “Either and Baker and W. Jones give summaries of the literature on foodgrain marketing in Africa: C. Either and D. Bak- er, Research on Agricultural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa, MSU International Development Paper No 1, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 1982; W. Jones, ‘Economic tasks for food marketing boards in tropical Africa’, Food Research institute Studies, Vol 19, Vol 2, 1984, pp 113-138. ‘*R. Ahmed, ‘Pricing principles and public intervention in domestic markets’, in J. Mellor and Ft. Ahmed, eds, Agricultural Price Policy for Developing Countries, Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, 1988. *% is relevant to note that the high cost of marketing in Africa is unlikely to be caused either by extra marketing services or by enhanced quality as compared with Asia. 30K. Muir and T. Takavarasha, ‘Agricultural producer price setting in Zimbabwe: with special reference to pan-territorial and pan-seasonal pricing for maize’, University of Zimbabwe, Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Working Paper AEE 8/88, Harare, Zimbabwe, 1988. 3’See for example, T. Pinckney, Storage, Trade and Price Policy Under Production Instability: Maize in Kenya, IFPRI Re- search Report 71, International Food Poli- cy Research Institute, Washington, DC, 1989; B. Kandoole, B. Kaluwa and S. Buccola, ‘Market liberalization and food security in Malawi’, in M. Rukuni and Ft. Bernsten, op tit, Ref 23; or Dodge, op tit, Ref 12.



“See for example Dodge, op tit, Ref 12; B. Ndulu, ‘Governance and economic management’, in R. Berg and J. Whitaker, eds, Strategies for African Development, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1986; A. O’Driscoll and T. Takavar- asha, ‘Zimbabwe crop price analysis’, Uni- versity of Zimbabwe, Department of Agri- cultural Economics and Extension, Work- ing Paper AEE 5/88, Harare, Zimbabwe, 1988. 33Muir and Takavarasha, op tit, Ref 30. 34ibid. %. Gerrard, ‘Economic development, government controlled markets and exter- nal trade in food grains’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, 1981; C. Gerrard and T. Roe, ‘Gov- ernment intervention in food markets: an econometric study of Tanzania’, Journal of Development Economics, Vol 12, 1983, pp 109-l 32. 36Lele and Meyers, op tit, Ref 6. 37See Muir-Leresche and Muir and Blackie for detailed description and analysis (Muir- Leresche, op tit, Ref 10; K. Muir and M. Blackie, ‘Maize price cycles in Southern and Eastern Africa’, University of Zim- babwe, Department of Agricultural Econo- mics and Extension, Working Paper AEE 6/88, Harare, Zimbabwe, 1988).

390

the entire season (‘pan-seasonal’ price) and prevails over the whole country (‘pan-territorial’ price). Both these approaches in pricing have been severely criticized in recent years.“2 Pan-seasonal prices leave little incentive for the farmers to store grain over the season. Maize is sold to the official marketing agency as soon as practicable following harvest, thus pushing the risk, and the cost, of holding stocks onto the official agency. This has been suggested as a major contributing factor to both the cyclical nature of maize prices in the region and to encouraging lower than ideal official prices. It is also suggested that it is an important factor in the high overhead costs typical of many official grain procure- ment agencies. Muir and Takavarasha argue that the costs of pan- seasonal prices are minor compared to those of holding reserve stocks.” Pan-territorial pricing is far more important in contributing to marketing board overheads, distorting national agricultural production patterns and constraining improvements in both growth and equity. Regional prices for maize, which at least approximate the opportunity costs of growing maize in deficit regions, would generate improved farm incomes in the poorer regions, and induce greater equity nationally.3”

Agricultural policy and maize production in Southern and Eastern Africa

Much of the food policy debate in sub-Saharan Africa has been concentrated on issues of food pricing and marketing. Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia encompass a wide range of national ideologies, levels of development and agricultural production potential. They also offer rather different applications of state-managed marketing, each of which has been in place long enough to have had a significant impact on the development of the maize subsector. In Kenya and Malawi, prices have generally been more attractive than in the other two countries (although all four countries have, until recently, consistently used pan-territorial prices).

Kenya and Malawi have also offered a more consistent institutional framework for pricing and marketing, as compared with Tanzania and Zambia. Kenya, and to a lesser extent Tanzania, have a more diversi- fied and decentralized system of marketing than Malawi, with coopera- tives and the private sector playing a more significant role in maize marketing. Zambia provides an example of an African nation with a substantial and influential urban sector; the country has maintained a policy of low urban food prices for many years, a tradition that began with the pre-independence development of the Copperbelt mining sector. The approach followed by Kenya has led to the greater participation of smallholders in formal maize marketing, while Tanzania has encouraged (unwittingly) the development of a major parallel market in foodgrains.3s Zambia, with somewhat similar agricultural policies to those in Tanzania, has precluded the development of an unofficial maize market through massive consumer maize subsidies. Malawi’s centralized system has allowed the cross-subsidization of commodity prices and encouraged resource transfers from the smallholder subsector to the large-scale estates.“’

In all these countries, the objectives of government intervention in the maize market have included the improvement of national maize self-sufficiency and stable maize consumer prices. The evidence suggests that neither of these major objectives has been met with any degree of reliability. Rather, government intervention has exacerbated an in- herently unstable maize market in Southern and Eastern Africa.“7



Muir-Leresche shows that maize prices, and national maize stocks, have fluctuated in a cyclical fashion.‘* The dominant influence on the official price has been the current year’s stock position which has set up a pattern of moving between extreme deficit and surplus maize stock positions. This cycle is apparent in Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia during the 1960s and 1970s. Data from the 1980s indicate that it has continued in all four countries, and is being replicated in Zimbabwe.

Yet, controlled marketing would appear to answer a real political and economic need in the region. The uncertainty of food production, and the difficulties of trade in the region, are such that governments are unlikely to rely solely on private trading to supply the market for major staples. Governments of such different political persuasions as South Africa and Tanzania rely extensively on public sector involvement in maize marketing.” Gseanger and Schmidt have shown that, with low income and price elasticities of demand for maize, consumer welfare (particularly for low-income groups) would fluctuate widely under free market conditions, an undesirable and politically destabilizing condition. 4o Their analysis of the welfare effects of various stabilization schemes indicates that price stabilization has net positive welfare implications where fluctuations are due to random shifts in supply. This is the case particularly in Eastern and Southern Africa, where total maize production is highly influenced by annual variation in rainfall.

Currently efforts are underway to encourage African countries to decontrol agricultural markets on the assumption, based on not entirely satisfactory data, that a free market system for maize would be less disruptive than the present system. It is true that the present system, which reacts to the previous year’s supply position, exacerbates market uncertainty. However, efficient free markets may require a sophisti- cated management-intensive production sector to help even out fluctuations in supply caused by rainfall patterns. Empirical evidence from Tanzania shows that while free market conditions were able to equate internal supply and demand in normal seasons, this was not true in periods of severe drought when major deficits occur.41 A partially decontrolled market would provide a possible alternative.42 Partial decontrol of maize markets is already occurring in both Malawi and Tanzania, and there is a growing lobby for this approach in Zimbabwe.

38Muir-Leresche, op tit, Fief 10. 39F. Ellis, ‘Agricultural price policy in Tan- zania’, World Development, Vol 10, No 4, 1982, pp 263-283. “OH. Gseanger and G. Schmidt, ‘Decon- trolling the maize marketing system in Kenya’, Discussion Paper No 254, Institute of Development Studies, University of Nairobi, 1977. 4’H. Kreisel, C. Laurent, C. Halpern and H. Larzelere, Agricultural Marketing in Tanza- nia: Background Proposals, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State Universitv, East Lansing, Ml, 1970. 42See Child, Muir and l%ckie for details of one such system: B. Child, K. Muir and M. Blackie, ‘An improved maize marketinq system for African countries’, Food Policy, Vol 13, No 4. 1988. DD 365-373). %ee slacki; and C’lhMYl for 4 compre- hensive review: M. Blackie, ‘Maize in East and Southern Africa’, CIMMYT Economics Working Paper, forthcoming; CIMMYT, op tit, Ref 5.

Policy, maize technology and household food security

While national maize production has fallen in those countries which have made commercial smallholder maize production unattractive, there is little evidence for any spectacular breakthrough in production in countries with more appropriate policies. Two other important policy variables clearly influence maize production. One - beyond the scope of this paper - is war. The data demonstrate clearly the effect of war on national maize production. Angola, Mozambique and, during the 197Os, Zimbabwe all show severely depressed production as the result of political turmoil. The other major policy variable - which is more amenable to rational analysis - is technology development. Space does not permit detailed discussion of available maize technology here.4” The remaining discussion will be confined to some of the critical issues affecting household food security at the smallholder level.

The development of high-yielding maize varieties has absorbed many resources in the region. Hybrid maize has been a popular item with seed



44J Howell, K. Anthony and A. Hewitt, ‘Agricultural aid to Kenya, Tanzania and Malawi’, a report submitted to the Over- seas Development Administration, Evalua- tion Department, London, 1987; Lipton, op tit, Ref 14; D. Rohrbach, ‘A preliminary assessment of factors underlying the growth of communal maize production in Zimbabwe’, in M. Rukuni and C. Either, eds, op tit, Ref 16; J. Stanning, ‘Factors of change and uncertainty in the contribution of small scale producers to the marketed agricultural output in Zimbabwe’, paper for the 19th Conference of the International Association of Agricultural Economists, Malaga, Spain, 25 August-5 September 1985. 45J Kydd ‘Maize research in Malawi: les- , sons from failure’, Journal of international Development, Vol 1, No 1, 1989, pp 112- 144; D. Rohrbach, ‘The growth of smallholder maize production in Zimbabwe (1979 1985): implications for food security’, in M. Rukuni and R. Bernsten, eds, op tit, Ref 23.

companies, and, in several countries, with farmers as well. There remain large groups of farmers for whom available improved materials are unsatisfactory. The pattern would appear to be one of fairly limited uptake of improved maize technologies at the smallholder level. The exceptions are some impressive examples of the use of improved varieties and of fertilizers. The fact remains that the adoption of these technologies has had a smaller effect on overall smallholder maize productivity than is generally realized, even in countries where considerable success has been achieved in making improved seed and fertilizer available to smallholders.4”

In part this is because the bias in maize research and technology development towards large-scale producers has had the effect of encouraging high-cost methods of maize production. Given the short growing season (relative to the maturity period of the maize varieties available) and the low level of soil fertility, maize technology over the past 30 years has relied increasingly on extending the growing season and on providing deficient soil nutrients. The growing season is extended by early planting (requiring substantial draught power to work the sun-baked soils before the rains), while soil nutrients are provided by inorganic fertilizers (the heavily weathered soil of much of Southern and Eastern Africa requires added fertility for sustainable agriculture). In some areas, supplementary irrigation may be used to assist in early crop establishment or to reduce the effect of mid-season drought on maize yield. The requirement of many of the improved maize materials for high inputs of inorganic fertilizer reduces their utility to the smallholder.

Much existing maize technology has failed to be adopted by smallholder maize producers in the region mainly because its potential can be exploited only partially by many smallholders under their current resource environment. The uptake of purchased inputs is influenced both by overall infrastructure and by the suitability of the technology to the range of production circumstances within each country. In particular, the costs of the major technologies on offer, and the associated risks, constrain the ability of smallholders to move to higher levels of maize production. Surveys of smallholder maize production systems show a consistent pattern of difficulties in meeting optimum planting dates and plant populations, and in managing weeds.

Thus, while there has been some progress in improving maize productivity through technology, the main beneficiaries have been large-scale producers and those smallholders on better quality land. It is these two groups that are able to participate in the gains from hybrids (albeit at markedly different levels of efficiency) and to a lesser extent in the use of fertilizer. Their ability to plant close to the optimum time and to manage the weed problem is closely linked to their better resource base. These two groups are better positioned to handle the increased risks associated with new technologies. There is no doubt that very low levels of working capital, and the virtual absence of rural financial markets (other than official credit schemes) are key constraints on the purchase of inputs.4’

Maize harvests, labour and food security

In smallholder maize production systems, an important factor influenc- ing the maize harvest is the availability of labour. Certainly in Southern


Maize, food self-sufficiency and policy in East und Southern Africa

Africa, the tradition of seeking work in urban areas has left many rural households without able-bodied young males, exacerbating an existing shortage of labour at the critical times of planting and harvesting. Where remittance incomes from absent males are sufficiently high, female-headed households are able to compensate for absent males largely by buying in labour, plus purchasing yield-increasing inputs of seed and fertilizer. For many households, however, labour shortages are a dominant influence on maize productivity.

While maize is the staple food in most of Southern and Eastern Africa, it is both an important cash crop and a wage good used to remunerate agricultural labourers.4h There is growing evidence of significant numbers of households that are unable to grow enough maize to meet household needs.47 The data suggest that substantial numbers of food deficit households are to be found, not only in marginal, drought- prone areas, but also in high potential areas and in years of good rainfall.48

The most common method of overcoming household maize deficits is temporary agricultural work on other people’s fields.4” These workers are caught in a vicious circle: they cannot generate enough income and food from their own production, yet their off-farm work does not generate large enough income to increase substantially their low maize stores. Maize is often the only crop this group has for sale. The dependence of some of the poorest households on buying and selling grains with quick turnover and small returns accounts for the finding, paradoxical on its face, that a few of the net sellers of grain are poor households.50

46P. Peters, ‘The links between production and consumption and the achievement of food security among smallholder farmers in Zomba South’, Harvard Institute for In- ternational Development, mimeo, 1988. 47Peters, ibid; Rohrbach, op tit, Fief 45; J. Stanning, ‘Policy implications of household grain marketing and storage decisions in Zimbabwe’, in M. Rukuni and R. Bernsten, eds. OR cit. Ref 23. %Stanning, ibid; Rohrbach, op tit, Ref 45. 49Peters, OD cit. Ref 46: R. Mkandawire. ‘Smallh&ld& survival strategies and participation in credit and extension services in Malawi: a case study from Salima Agri- cultural Development Division’, forthcoming. “‘Peters, op tit, Ref 46. “C. Christensen, A. Dommer, N. Horen- stein, S. Pyror, S. Shapouri and H. Steiner, Food Problems and Prospects in Sub- Saharan Africa - the Decade of the 1980s. USDA Foreign Economic Report No 166, USDA, Washington, DC, 1981. “FAO, op tit, Ref 9. 53S. Kumar, ‘Women’s role and agricultural technology’, in J. Mellor, C. Delgado and M. Blackie, eds, Accelerating Food Production in sub-Saharan Africa, Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, 1987. ‘%ee also D. Bryceson, ‘Nutrition and the commoditization of food in sub-Saharan Africa’, Social Science in Medicine. Vol 28. No 5, 1989, pp 425-440.

Prospects for maize in Eastern and Southern Africa

Maize remains a popular staple throughout most of Eastern and Southern Africa despite a growth in wheat consumption. The reason may well be that maize is easy to process relative to other traditional crops, as well as having a well-established production technology. Maize typically exhibits a smaller income elasticity of demand than either wheat or rice but is positive throughout the region.5’ Thus it is likely that the demand for increased supplies of maize will continue into the future, even if the proportion of other cereals in the diet grows.

While there are few hard data on maize consumption patterns, the FAO suggests that two general trends may be observed:

(1) White maize consumption continues to rise in absolute terms in many countries.

(2) The per capita consumption of white maize is higher in rural than in urban areas.52

Given the unreliable nature of the database on food production and consumption in the region, it would be surprising if there was consensus on the dimensions of the calorie gap in the region. However, there is agreement that many families are unable to feed themselves today, and that the proportion of households in this category is growing. Kumar draws on data from 12 African countries to show a pattern of chronic undernutrition in about one quarter of the preschool child population.53 Her analysis suggests that the main nutritional problem in sub-Saharan Africa is in the rural rather than the urban areas, and is related closely to year-to-year food availability.s4 In part, this nutritional problem may



55A. Diallo, G. Edmeades, C. Tang, J. Deutsch and M. Bjarnason, ‘Breeding strategies to overcome constraints and increase maize productivity in sub-Saharan Africa’, paper presented at the Internation- al Symbo&um on the Role of Biology in Resolvino the Food Crisis in Africa, Yamousgoukoro, C8te d’lvoire, 26-30 July 1989. 56D. McCall, personal communication, 1989. 57M. Collinson, Farm Management in Peasant Agriculture, Praeger, New York, 1972; M. Collinson, ‘Farming systems research in Eastern Africa: the experience of CIMMYT and some national agricultural research services. 197681’, MSU Inter- national Development Paper No 3, Depart- ment of Agricultural Economics, East Lansing, Ml, 1982; E. Gilbert, D. Norman and F. Winch, ‘Farming systems research: a critical appraisal’, MSU Rural Develop- ment Paper No 6, Department of Agricultu- ral Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 1980; D. Norman, D. Baker, G. Heinrich and F. Worman, ‘Tech- nology development and farmer groups: experience from Botswana’, Experimental Agriculture, Vol 42, No 3, 1988, pp 321- 331. 58AT Wilson, D. Wanchinga and M.J. Blackie, ‘An initiative to support agricultural research for the midaltiiu’de ecology of the SADCC region where maize is an important crop’, a report submitted to a special meeting of the SACCAR Board held in Malawi, December 1987.

be ascribed to the fact that maize yields, being highly sensitive to both total rainfall and rainfall distribution, vary markedly between years.

Southern and Eastern Africa are at a critical juncture of their agricultural histories, as agricultural systems based on a tradition of land abundance become overwhelmed by the emerging land shortage. The popularity of maize as a food staple is well established in the region. The crop can be grown over many of the agroecologies of Southern and Eastern Africa and has a potential well beyond current national achievements. While the performance of maize as a crop, in general terms, has not been helped by credit and marketing systems which fail to meet the needs of many, if not most, smallholders in the region, the absence of technologies which address the problems faced by large numbers of smallholders is also a dominant constraint (see Diallo et al

for a review of current breeding strategies to overcome constraints to maize productivity in sub-Saharan Africa generally) .”

With increasing populations and shortened fallow periods, raising output for most smallholders requires the use of higher levels of inputs. The central problem of maintaining soil fertility under permanent cultivation has been addressed in other parts of the world by exploiting biological nitrogen fixation, through blue-green algae in South-east Asia and through pasture legumes in Europe.“6 There is no comparable widely adopted technology in Eastern and Southern Africa. Many smallholders in the region cannot afford to purchase fertilizer or to acquire the extra labour (or draught power) needed to increase productivity. Studies from throughout the region show that 6&80% of smallholders are without a ready source of sufficient crop nutrients for sustainable cropping. Countries in Southern and Eastern Africa face a growing population of resource-poor producers. Collinson’s pioneering work has been supported by numerous studies showing that many in this group are either unable or unwilling to adopt technologies that involve a significant increase in production risks.‘7 Smallholders are extremely sensitive to the cash requirements of improved technologies and thus will reduce their use of these technologies sharply as farm commodity prices fall, unless there is a comparable fall in input prices. Alternative- ly, smallholders may switch quickly to alternative crops as relative commodity prices change.

Many of the available improved maize technologies were developed for large-scale producers and demand cash and capital. Input costs, particularly of those inputs with a high import content such as fertilizer and herbicides, have risen, as a proportion of the farm level maize price, in many countries of Southern and Eastern Africa in recent years. Ironically, there have been few advances in low-input technologies for maize; the problems associated with late planted maize, weed management and poor stand establishment remain largely untouched from the smallholder perspective. 58 The available solutions typically require investments in labour or capital beyond the reach of the growing numbers of resource-poor, low-productivity subsistence producers. Im- portantly also, where improved technologies have been adopted by smallholders, close investigation suggests that adoption may be lower, and less sustainable, than the aggregate figures indicate. Further declines in maize production are likely unless other ways are found to enhance the purchasing power of rural households.

394 FOOD POLICY October 1990

maize, food self-sufficiency and policy in east and southern africa

Documents