Editorial Comment: GMB’s success restores farmers’ confidence

four months.
The GMB has been in the news largely for the wrong reasons in the past couple of years, and it is refreshing to note that the parastatal is on the path to recovery.
There were times we were confused as to the mandate of the GMB, with farmers complaining of late payments for maize deliveries and late disbursement of inputs while some GMB officials were being caught in maize scams.
The nation really wondered what had gone wrong with the GMB, which used to be a professionally run parastatal only a few years ago, attracting even the attention of other countries to the extent that it would be invited to rehabilitate grain silos in those countries.
Quite a number of its officials were sadly caught in corrupt activities, with some even appearing in the courts of law to answer to charges of corruption.
It now appears the bad things that board had become associated with are now a thing of the past as reflected in the profit recorded.
The figure of just over US$250 000 may appear too insignificant given the size of the GMB but still means a lot, considering the parastatal is coming from years of making losses.
We want to urge the board to consolidate on the gains achieved so far and to continue sprucing up its house, in the process restoring confidence.
Many people had lost confidence in the GMB, with farmers accusing it of working towards sabotaging the land reform programme.
It had become increasingly difficult to defend the parastatal as it was failing to pay farmers on time.
Farmers were failing to go back to the land because the board had not paid them and so they could not buy inputs.
Indeed, the GMB would naturally blame Treasury for the late payments, which did not make sense to farmers because they would have done business with the GMB.
We, however, remain optimistic that the parastatal has now opened a new chapter in the manner in which it conducts business.
We expect it to make more money from its commercial activities and be able to buy grain from farmers and replenish the Strategic Grain Reserve.
Treasury will still have a role to play in providing funds towards buying grain for the SGR but let the GMB lead the way in generating its own funds.
It has shown that it has the ability to make money from handling and storage fees and other business strategies. We also want to commend the parastatal for having in stock enough grain to feed the nation for the next four months. Most farmers retain grain for household consumption and sell the surplus.
With maize no longer a controlled crop, it is incumbent upon the GMB to do everything possible to restore farmers’ confidence in doing business with the board. All that farmers want from the parastatal is timely payments and once this is achieved they will sell to the board and not private buyers known to rip them off.
Because of problems that had become common at the GMB, most farmers were contemplating moving away from maize production to other cash crops, a move that would obviously impact hugely on the SGR.
We are hoping the positive developments taking place at the GMB will make many farmers reverse their decision on maize production.