Needy emaSwati condemned to persistent hunger
By Vuyisile Hlatshwayo
Despite the eSwatini government’s grand promises of inclusivity, its E59 million Farm Input Subsidy Programme (FISP) has become a tool that benefits only the wealthy, leaving behind thousands of people with disabilities (PWDs) and the elderly who lack the financial means to participate. Initially launched in 2014, with funding from India, the programme was designed to help vulnerable populations cope with the rising costs of farm inputs and tractor hire. However, instead of serving those in need, it has benefited well-off individuals, excluding PWDs and the elderly who rely on modest social grants of E400 and E500 a month, respectively.
The programme sets a steep threshold of E5,700 for beneficiaries – an amount that is out of reach for low-income earners, vulnerable groups and the unemployed who depend on subsistence farming for survival. In rural areas, where farming is the main source of food and income for 75 per cent of families, wealthy individuals are quick to register for the subsidised farm inputs, leaving the truly vulnerable behind. This has created a loophole that unscrupulous individuals have exploited, diverting the benefits meant for the poor.
The Inhlase Centre for Investigative Journalism can reveal that FISP also inadvertently benefits illegal cannabis farmers. In a WhatsApp interview, Minister of Agriculture Mandla Tshawuka confirmed that the farm input subsidy scheme money does not only go to planting maize and beans as intended but also umtfunti wetinkhunkhu, ‘as we know it does.’ Umtfunti wetinkhunkhu is a siSwati name for cannabis. The cannabis farmers also use farm inputs like fertilisers to boost harvests of their illicit cash crop, dubbed the Swazi gold.
In an attempt to remedy the situation, the ministry has now introduced, the minister says, an Agricultural Information System (AIS) to monitor farm locations and ensure the programmes integrity. However, the misuse of resources highlights the systemic flaws in the system.
Lack of Criteria
FISP was supposed to operate on a means test to ensure that only those with genuine need could access the subsidies. However, Minister Tshawuka admitted that the programme’s first-come, first-served approach has led to the exclusion of the PWDs and the elderly. He acknowledged that those with financial means can secure farm inputs before the funds run out, leaving the vulnerable groups in the cold. He lamented the lack of criteria for this system, which, he said, disadvantages those who struggle financially.
Pointing out the scheme’s deficiencies in an interview with Inhlase, he said: “Currently, there’s no selection criteria other than using the first come, first served basis. This is a problem as those who’ve funds pay before the needy. That may mean that bogogo (elderly women) who depend on social grants and some disabled people who struggle to raise their contributions may be shut out when funds are depleted in the scheme. Those who’ve money benefit more and before the less fortunate when, in fact, the scheme was designed with the vulnerable in mind.”
For the 2024/25 season, beneficiaries must contribute 50%, amounting to E5,700 of the total cost of the farm inputs to receive maize seeds, LAN fertiliser, NPK fertiliser, pesticides and herbicides. This subsidy is intended to ensure food security by increasing maize yields, but the moneyed elite are the ones benefiting from it. In fact, the National Maize Corporation (NMC) announced that the FISP registration had closed less than a month after it began. NMC chief executive officer, Mavela Vilane, told Inhlase that this indicated how wealthier individuals could access the subsidised inputs before the funds ran out.
He told Inhlase that the enthusiasm was high in the input subsidy such that in under 30 days, 5,633 farmers had already paid. Of the 5633, 5463 paid for maize while 170 paid for beans.
According to Prohibition Partners, a global organisation specialising in cannabis issues, eSwatini, known for high quality cannabis in southern Africa, cultivates between 8,000 10 000 hectares of cannabis. This is despite the Royal Eswatini Police Service (REPS) enforcement of the Opium and Habit-forming Drugs Act No. 37 of 1922 and also the Pharmacy Act No.38 of 1929 to eradicate illegal cannabis farming in the country.
In the REPS Performance Report of July- September 2024, the police reported that they destroyed 309 hectares of dagga fields with a street value of over E273 million. From August 14 to 16, 586 dagga plants valued at E380 900 were reportedly destroyed, and another 37.5 hectares valued at E26 250 000. In the other police raid from September 9 to 13, they destroyed 655 dagga plants valued at E425 750 and 11 hectares valued at E7 700 000. Such police crime statistics show that the cannabis farmers are undeniably part of the country’s moneyed elite.
Exclusion of PWDs
Of the 146,554 persons with disabilities, according to the National Population and Housing Census of 2017, most were excluded from this vital programme, highlighting the country’s failure to comply with its laws and international obligations promoting inclusivity. The Persons With Disabilities Act No.16 of 2018 guarantees equal rights and opportunities for PWDs. But their exclusion from the FISP raises questions about the government’s commitment to these laws. Eswatini is a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and has committed to the 2024-2028 National Disability Plan of Action (NDPA), emphasising inclusion. The inclusion of PDWs prioritised by the United Nations Social Development Goals (UNSDGs) Agenda 2030 is encapsulated in the SDGs tagline “No one is left Behind.”
While the continued exclusion of PWDs from the farm subsidy programme exposes the gap between policy and practice, the exclusion of PWDs from FISP is but the tip of the iceberg.
Nathi Dlamini, a Stukie Motsa Foundation (SMF) member, is an example of the many PWDs who are shut out of the programme. Surviving on odd jobs and a modest social grant, Dlamini finds it impossible to contribute the E5 700 required for the FISP. He points out that the E400 monthly grant is insufficient to meet even basic needs, let alone afford farm inputs.
“Depending on a E400 social grant makes it very difficult for us to access the farm input subsidy. We navigate significant life challenges, such as our E400 grant being too little to cover our necessities. Not to mention, we should buy the sunscreen lotion to protect our fragile skin. Worse still, a majority of us are unemployed. Yet, we’ve got to provide for our own families,” he states.
Similarly, Bongani Makama, president of the Federation of the Disabled in Swaziland (FODSWA), stresses that the financial barrier to the E5 700 is simply insurmountable for most PWDs already struggling to make ends meet.
“Most PWDs can’t afford the upfront E5,700 payment required as a 50% contribution to the farm inputs subsidy. Receiving a E400 grant monthly, it’d take us more than one year to raise this exorbitant amount from savings. It’s, in fact, not possible because 85 per cent of us living in rural areas are poor and jobless,” he says.
Makama also criticises the government for its failure to consider the unique challenges faced by the PWDs, who often live in poverty and lack access to job opportunities. He points out that many PWDs cannot access agricultural training workshops, which are often not held in accessible locations and do not provide necessary means for transportation or sign language interpreters.
He notes that PWDs constitute most people suffering from hunger in rural areas and questions what would happen if the PWDs saved their E400 monthly to access the subsidy. He expresses disappointment that the politicians and policymakers have failed to develop a vision to fight poverty for vulnerable groups through agricultural reforms. He also criticises the former for using the PWDs and the elderly as the voting fodder during the elections.
When asked to compare the local disability social grant with those of their counterparts in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries, Makama points out that eSwatini PWDs, who get E400, are worse off. He mentions that their South African counterparts receive R2,180 per month, while the Namibians receive N$ 1,400, which equals E1,396.89 per month. The Mozambican counterparts across the border a six-member-household receive MZN5 000 (Meticas), which amounts to E1 433.43. He envies them because they also have free access to healthcare services, while the locals have to pay to access healthcare services.
Landlessness
The FODSWA leader elaborates that the FISP exclusion problem is compounded by landlessness. He reveals that they are denied access to communal land under the supervision of chiefs on behalf of the king. He blames boNdabazabantu (King’s liaison officers) for sitting on their land dispute cases. An Inhlase investigation into the delays found that bondabazabani powers are centred on conciliation, and their decisions have no force of law. Chief Justice Bheki Maphalala, represented by Supreme Court Judge Majahenkhaba Dlamini, once explained, in his 2022 paper on the Eswatini National Courts Employees’ Workshop, that bondabazabantu do not issue judgments but mediate to reach a consensus between involved parties.
FODSWA members reported three land dispossession cases to the organisation last year, according to Makama. One was by ex-FODSWA chief Mandla Metfula, who emerged victorious in a protracted land wrangle.
“There are people who still believe that persons with disabilities have no right to own land. Upon the death of a relocated neighbour who had sold me a piece of land in the Emfabantfu area, his spouse and offspring returned to evict me. I proved them wrong by following the right land acquisition procedure and informing the inner council. Although there was a clique that tried to frustrate me, I beat them hands down when they challenged me at Umphakatsi. It’s easy because I’d a witness, bank proof of payment and signed land purchase papers,” he recalls vividly.
Makama, who still lives at his Mhlumeni parental home, takes a swipe at the organisers of agricultural training workshops who do not cater for the needs of PWDs. He bitterly complains that everyone is busy promoting agriculture in the country, but no one questions whether the PWDs access the farm input subsidy and farming training.
“These organisers don’t provide transport and sign language interpreters for PWDs in the training workshops. Worse still, most of the Tinkhundla buildings, where these training workshops take place, are not accessible to us.”
Sharing the same sentiments, SMF founder Sen. Stukie Motsa, also the PWDs representative in the legislature, calls on the government to ensure inclusive service delivery. She appreciates the inclusion efforts to improve the lot of PWDs but points out that much still needs to be done to meet the disability-inclusive UNSDGs Agenda 2030. She urges the eSwatini Government to re-design FISP to address the financial challenges facing the PWDs.
A 2019 University of Eswatini (UNISWA) Luyengo Campus commissioned study on The Benefits of Farm Input Subsidy Programme recommends that policymakers develop clear, open and transparent selection criteria for distributing agricultural subsidies to beneficiaries firmly in deep need and less experienced farmers.
The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), which specialises in food security and nutrition analysis, shows that about 243,483 emaSwati, representing 20 per cent of the population, faced acute food insecurity (IPC Phase 3 [Crisis]) and above between June 2024 to September 2024. The number of food insecure people is expected to increase to 269,594 in IPC Phase 3, with an additional 34,161 individuals classified as IPC Phase 4 [Emergency] between October 2024 to March 2025. This is attributed to increased food prices, prolonged dry spells, and reduced incomes.
Inhlase reached out to Siboniso Nkambule, Principal Secretary in the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office, whose ministry houses the disability unit and social welfare department, but had not received a reply by the publication deadline.
