CHAPTER 7: THE GENDERED ASPECTS OF ACCESS TO AND UTILISATION OF
7.9. Use of fertilisers and chemicals
The participants would have liked to use fertilisers but this was and often influenced by the availability of finances to purchase. The Presidential scheme that had been introduced provided relief with regards to input availability, to some extent, but this was limited to a very small portion of the field. The participants said they were learning to use cow dung as manure, which they considered more accessible. This was a practice that was also encouraged by CADS.
The participants understood the importance of fertiliser and advised that when they had no access to finance to purchase this input, they simply reduced the area they planted crops.
Reduction in area planted was very common amongst all the participants but it was more pronounced amongst the widowed women. Nyashadzashe, a widow aged 66 explained,
We appreciate the importance of fertiliser but it is also very expensive. Most of us here rely on our children who work in the urban areas to send us money to purchase the
164 fertiliser. The soils are also getting tired so at times the fertiliser may do more harm than good. We have to balance the two. (Nyashadzashe, female participant, date of interview 12 July 2016).
7.10.1. Sources of inputs
The participants were also asked on their sources of inputs. Inputs included seed, fertiliser and farm implements. These were noted to be self-supply, support by Non-Governmental Organisations and the Presidential scheme.
7.10.2. NGO supported inputs
There were several schemes through which NGOs had supported farmers in Goromonzi. Those provided by NGOs had to meet a selection criterion which included availability of labour, ability to make a part contribution towards the value of the inputs. One of the criteria was that they needed to have someone with an identity card. By default, men ended up being the ones registered as they readily had these cards. The participants also advised that such programmes were not for lazy people as there were results expected of the cropping season. In this regard the community was also instrumental in working with the local leadership to identify participants who would not bring shame to the community when they failed to produce desired results of successful crops. The male leaders in the community were also the ones who seemed to be the most commonly selected. Fungai who was a lead farmer in Ururu village explained that,
“you don’t count people and forget to count yourself, which is foolishness. We are all desirous of these benefits and it is only fair that as members of the community that work hard, we should also enjoy what is provided to the community. After all, being in these committees and being lead farmers is a lot of hard work and we need to ensure that we are rewarded somehow. These NGOs don’t pay us anything for advancing their work. I believe even the chief also agrees with me on this”. (Fungai, male participant, date of interview, 15 August, 2015).
The participants also noted that some community members had been sluggish in coming on board schemes where they had to contribute as they had become sceptical. This was because some had lost money in different financial scams. Some had borrowed money from micro- finance institutions and failed to repay. They were therefore very wary as households had lost property in lieu of the loans. Some had failed to quality because they thought it was a welfare
165 programme. When the selection for the beneficiaries was therefore done, they had lied and said they had no assets or labour, which rendered them unsuitable as the programme targeted viable farmers who could produce and contribute to their households. This was also a means of reducing dependency.
7.10.3 Presidential scheme
Under the Presidential scheme, government acquired inputs worth US$200 million to benefit 1, 6 million households in 2014. Most of the farmers had been able to register through the influence of the local committees which had been set up to administer such programmes. The coverage was meant to be universal. However, not all the households had benefitted. They noted the cumbersome process through which they had to go in order to register for the allocation. This included registering with the local chief/community leader then being vetted for consideration. It seemed to be easier for those who knew the committee members to have better access to such programmes. Some were also discouraged because not all who qualified had been provided with inputs.
7.10.4 Self-supply
Participants noted that they provided for their own seed through the retention of seed from the previous season. This was a common practice across all the participants. They did however indicate that the quality of the seed was compromised at each season. Their aim was to retain seed for not more than two seasons. All the participants advised that they retained seed from the previous season except for Lucas. He noted that, “I try to buy fresh seed each year because I know it may seem to be expensive but I can at least get a good harvest”. (Lucas, a male participant, date of interview, 13 June, 2016). For those households with children working in the urban areas, it was easier for them to have these send them money to purchase inputs. This applied to all the participants.
Farm implements such as hoes were not bought per agricultural season. These were accumulated over a period of time and maintained as and when necessary. There was no farmer who had a tractor. Draught cattle were common among the participants but it was emphasised that this belonged to the male household members and women had access to use.
166