Zambia is facing a series of interconnected challenges that threaten its food system. These issues stem from crippling debt, industrial agricultural policies, and extreme weather events worsened by climate change.
State of Emergency
In February 2024, the Zambian President declared a state of national disaster and emergency, due to an ongoing drought in the country threatening national food security (ACAPS 2024).
- In just the first half of the year, almost half of the maize (one million hectares) was lost to drought.
- The price of maize had risen by 30%, nearly double the five-year average, driving up food prices and making affordable food less accessible.
- About six million people are at risk of acute food shortages and malnutrition, with close to 10 million directly affected.
- There were increasing power outages, due to a lack of water to sustain hydroelectric power generation, which threatened major economic activities, primarily mining – the largest contributor to Zambia’s export revenues (World Bank 2019).
Many blame these crises on the government’s decision to export maize in 2022/2023 to generate foreign exchange, which left the country with low reserves (Chishya 2024). Additionally, drought has worsened soil erosion, polluted land and water, and led to a steep decline in agricultural biodiversity.
Impact of Crippling Debt
Zambia’s crippling debt has forced the government to allocate up to 80% of its revenue to external debt repayments, leading to a financial default. Over time, this relentless debt burden has severely weakened the state’s ability to fund essential public services such as education, healthcare, and basic infrastructure. As a result, these services have become increasingly fragile, leaving the country less able to withstand multiple shocks like the Covid-19 pandemic and the sharp rise in costs for imported food and fertilizers.
Debt is just another form of brutal extraction from Africa that follows slavery, colonialism and dispossession, feeding financial institutions greater profits year after year no matter the human and environmental costs. However, African governments must also assume some responsibility for taking loans and then squandering them in ways that have not benefited their populations.
Failing Agricultural Policy and the FISP
During this ongoing debt crisis, Zambia’s agricultural policy has focused on providing subsidized conventional agricultural inputs through the Farm Input Subsidy Programme (FISP). But FISP and industrial agriculture that it promotes are partially responsible for the current crisis.
The FISP, originally intended to support small-scale farmers, has instead been captured by elites and agro-industries, both local and international. Smallholder farmers, organized by the Rural Women’s Assembly (RWA) in 2021, have criticized the FISP for being corrupt, ineffective, and not serving the needs of farmers on the ground (Andrews 2021). FISP is focused on maize production with hybrid seeds and synthetic fertilizers which has led to soil degradation and biodiversity loss, which are critical for sustainable farming. It has also led to economic dependency on external inputs, further weakening the resilience of farmers.
Farmers need appropriate support that not only boosts food and nutritional security, creates decent livelihoods, and delivers meaningful opportunities, but also protects the ecological base of production. Current practices under FISP are failing to meet these needs.
Consequences for Farmers and the Environment
Producers naturally want to protect the land and resources their livelihoods depend on, but they face limited options. A downward spiral of soil degradation and ecological decline pushes farmers to seek new lands for cultivation or abandon farming altogether in favor of urban migration. This land-use change, especially the clearing of natural lands and forests for farming and settlement, is a major driver of biodiversity loss and climate change (Sentinel 2021).
As the primary food producers in Zambia, smallholder farmers make an essential contribution to the public good and must continue to receive support. But the short-term approach of providing damaging inputs from one season to the next must make way for a longer term approach that can systematically support farmers to regenerate the soil, conserve biological resources, and diversify production based on local need and preference. This is the path to building the urgently needed resilience and adaptive capacity that will allow smallholder farmers and their communities to survive and thrive in the midst of the turmoil of our times.