Zambia does not have a long history or experience of post-harvest extension activity. Extension on cassava generally has been neglected and apart from those farmers in contact with the Roots and Tubers Improvement Project in Mansa District it would appear that few receive advice from extension on post-production aspects of cassava. In the case of maize, post-harvest advice was deemed unnecessary in a system which relieved producers of the technical problems associated with storage of hybrid varieties. Extension staff were, and still are to some extent, predominantly engaged in advising on crop and animal production; the various crop diversification schemes continue to place emphasis on production issues.
Extension workers have a heavy work-load and are expected to advise on a whole range of topics. It is not surprising, therefore, that some extension staff show a particular lack of knowledge or understanding of post-harvest issues or have a limited perception of post-harvest advice, tending to limit their activities to the promotion of improved storage structures for maize. The lack of knowledge among some field staff is recognised and the problem is being addressed by making specialist advice available at the District Agricultural Office level. However, it is the District Agricultural Engineer (or occasionally the Crops Husbandry Officer) that has responsibility for post-harvest matters, thus perpetuating the view that post-harvest problems are essentially engineering-based.
MAFF recognises that there is a serious shortage of extension staff and that they lack mobility. On average one extension worker is expected to cover between 500 and 800 households and, at best, will have only a pedal cycle. Thus, the establishment of regular contact relationships with farmers is exceedingly difficult and extension workers have to rely on meetings with groups of contact farmers as a means of information dissemination. Given all these constraints, it is not surprising that post-harvest extension is extension is weak.
In view of the heavy work load and the shortage of staff it is perhaps understandable that extension is pursued more or less on a T &V approach, with extension workers tending to deliver a single message rather than discussing a range of options, especially as far as post-harvest activities are concerned. However, the need for a change of approach has been recognised and attempts are being made to introduce a more participatory approach particularly through projects such as the SPFS and the Luapula Livelihoods and Food Security project based in Mansa.
A number of NGOs working in both the crop production and post-production sectors also provide extension advice to farmers. In some cases the NGOs work through MAFF extension staff but they may also have their own extensionists. Whilst acknowledging the valuable contribution made by these organisations there is a risk that farmers will receive conflicting advice or information, especially when the NGOs activities are not co-ordinated with those of MAFF. For example, some NGOs are promoting improved storage using brick bins in areas where MAFF is recommending the adoption of improved mud-plastered or cement-plastered basket structures in relation to LGB control programmes. Moreover, in some areas, new crops have been introduced without consultation with MAFF. The first that local extension workers learn of the new crops is when farmers approach them for advice on how to deal with particular production or post-production problems. Often the extension workers are ill-equipped to answer the queries, as indeed may be the staff at the District Office.
7.1.1 Gender Issues in Extension
Although women are major players in both the production and post-production sectors for maize and cassava they tend to benefit less than men from the extension service. GRZ recognises the importance of addressing the gender imbalance and the need to fully integrate women into the development process. At national level the Gender in Development Division has been created within the National Commission for Development Planning (NCDP). Its main responsibilities are to identify the major issues related to homogeneous gender development and to elaborate a National Gender Policy (NGP). Once finalised, the NGP should provide appropriate guidelines for the participation of both women and men in all areas of activities, ensuring at the same time an equal benefit to both genders. Even though it is not concerned with specific areas of activities in the agricultural sector, the NGP aims to promote access by women to extension and financial services, and to land rights.
Within MAFF two units concerned with gender issues have been established: the Gender and Rural Sociology Unit and the Women and Youth Unit. The former, (operating within the Policy Section of the Planning Division) advises other MAFF departments on gender issues and their consideration in policy making. The Unit is represented at provincial level in the Provincial Agricultural Offices. The Women and Youth Unit operates within the Department of Agriculture, Field Services Division, Extension Branch and its main role is to support rural women in agricultural and related activities. At field level the presence of the unit is reportedly weak. The majority of the extension staff are men and support to rural women is thus inadequate.
The results of village and individual interviews indicate that women rarely receive advice from male extension officers and thus feel marginalised. This is a particular problem in Mansa and Kaoma Districts where 35% and 32% of households respectively are female-headed as a result of male migration to Copperbelt and South Africa.
Notwithstanding these difficulties, women appear more aware than men about the present problems and are more active in searching for appropriate solutions, for example through the formation and activities of women’s clubs.
Farmers need advice not only on technical post-production issues but also on the implications and operation the liberalised market. MAFF has recognised the need to strengthen the linkages between extension and marketing staff to meet this need. A start was made in 1994 with the introduction of a campaign to promote the opportunities of the liberalised market and the advantages of on-farm storage, through posters, leaflets, advertisements, radio broadcasts etc. In the following year a programme of ‘theatre groups’ to provide messages to farmers about on-farm storage and marketing issues was conducted in Eastern and Central Province. It would appear that the idea of theatre groups has not been followed up.
More recently, a training manual on improved storage and marketing in the context of a liberalised grain market has been produced for extension staff at district level with the assistance of a short FAO/MAFF project ‘Extension support to small-scale farmers on maize marketing and storage.’ It is expected that this will provide a basis for training of lower level field extension staff and farmers. Training of field level extension staff is proceeding but it would appear that emphasis is being given to methods of improved storage rather than marketing aspects. None of the farmers interviewed during this mission had participated in a training course and it was claimed that no advice had been provided by extension workers on new marketing arrangements.
The Agricultural Market Information Centre (AMIC) provides information on prices of agricultural commodities and market developments at national and provincial level. At district level, information is displayed on large chalk boards and updated weekly. The boards are located outside the MAFF Offices mainly for convenience and access by traders and farmers is difficult. It is claimed that the information is passed on to farmers via extension staff but in reality this is not a reliable channel of communication.
The National Agricultural Information Service (NAIS) is responsible for providing market information through radio and TV broadcasts and printed material. However, there is a need to improve the quality of the radio service and the structure of the programmes to reflect the demands of the audience. Farmers complained that programmes were unstructured and they were not sure when, or if, market information would be given. Sometimes information was out of date and usually material was presented so quickly that it was difficult to make notes.