Government-led agricultural mechanization service centers in Zambia: Understanding access, utilization, benefits and constraints among smallholder farmers

Agricultural mechanization is integral to national governments' efforts to transform and improve smallholder production systems. This is because of the potential for agricultural machinery and equipment to reduce drudgery, enhance land and labor productivity and improve rural livelihoods. The use of agricultural machinery and equipment reduces the cost of production, enhances timely operations, improves the efficiency of input use, and supports the adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices. In Zambia, this movement has been dubbed Mechanize360 and is anchored on the first ever National Agriculture Mechanization Strategy (NAMS) launched in 2024. The NAMS aims to improve farmers’ access to a broad range of high-quality, efficient agricultural mechanization services across the entire agri-food value chain. In support of the NAMS objectives to increases access to mechanization services, the government has introduced agricultural mechanization centers of excellence and mechanization service centers, that among other things, provide mechanization hire services to farmers. Agricultural mechanization centers of excellence are housed at either Agricultural Colleges, Farm Training Institutes (FIs) or Agriculture Research Stations. Mechanization service centers are mostly located at Farmer Training Centers (FTCs). For consistency, we refer to both as agricultural mechanization service centers (AMSCs) because they provide machinery hire services for farmers in addition to other services. The centers are equipped with different types of farm machinery ranging from two- and four-wheel tractors, and attachments such as disc ploughs, harrows, rippers, boom sprayers, shellers, threshers, trailers, fertilizer applicators, etc. The machines are available for hire to farmers for a fee. As at the time of the survey, 50 centers had been established and equipped under a government – owned mechanization management model. However, since the rollout began in the 2023/2024 agricultural season, there has been no follow-up assessment of the performance of these service centers. We qualitatively evaluated smallholder farmers’ perceptions of the government-led agricultural mechanization centers and synthesized experiences and challenges, identifying opportunities to improve the delivery of machinery-hiring services. This assessment was conducted in 2025 under the Sustainable Intensification of Smallholder Farming System in Zambia (SIFAZ) project. We used qualitative surveys involving 20 gender – disaggregated focus group discussions (10 with men and 10 with women) with about 200 farmers, and 10 key informant interviews with managers of the hiring centers. Fieldwork was conducted in 10 agricultural camps across six districts and four active government – led agriculture mechanization service centers in the Eastern, Northern, and Southern provinces of Zambia. Data were analyzed inductively using NVivo (version 15). The findings revealed several early benefits associated wit the government-led mechanization service centers. Farmers found these centers reliable, while the structured pricing mechanisms protected farmers from price discrimination and exploitation. The presence of well-trained, disciplined, and professional machine operators in the government mechanization centers was associated with efficient maintenance and utilization of the different machinery and equipment. We document a clear gender pattern in the perceived benefits of agricultural mechanization: women emphasized time savings and reduced physical burden, with freed time redirected toward childcare, other activities, and resting. Men focused on expanding cultivated areas and exploiting the productivity gains associated with mechanization. Women also reported empowerment effects, notably reduced reliance on male labor. Together, these factors encourage farmers’ utilization of the government mechanization services. However, key constraints emerged at the time of the survey. These included limited availability of machinery that could not match the high demand for equipment. In some instances, there were mismatches between available machinery and equipment at the centers and what was needed by farmers. Other challenges included low awareness among farmers and frequent, prolonged equipment breakdowns due to shortages of spare parts, lengthy service payment procedures, and long waiting periods after securing a booking, driven by high demand. From a policy and sustainability angle, there is an apparent divergence in what is being implemented under the AMSCs which is government led, and the NAMS which is promoting private ownership while government provides an enabling environment. Although the Zambian government considers AMSCs as catalytic, serving the purpose of proving the business case for agriculture mechanization service provision in Zambia, it is not clear how long this implementation model will last and whether it crowds – in or crowds – out private sector investment n the sector. The paper concludes by offering practical recommendations to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of government-led mechanization centers in Zambia, considering the failures of similar past interventions, and the need to harmonize AMSCs with the NAMS by potentially transitioning them to private ownership. We emphasize a need for a conducive and enabling policy and institutional environment that crowds in private sector investments in the mechanization subsector and/or facilitate establishment of public private partnerships.