Profile of Zambia’s Smallholders: Where and Who are the
Potential Beneficiaries of Agricultural Commercialization? Africa Region Working Paper Series No. 113
June 2008
Abstract
Understanding the heterogeneity of Zambia’s rural households and their different potential as agricultural producers is critical to designing strategies for commercially viable smallholders. The objective of this paper is to help contribute to efforts to identify who and where are the Zambian smallholders that have the highest potential to benefit from agricultural commercialization, and to identify other groups of rural households that require alternative strategies for poverty reduction. This paper draws on the existing literature (both quantitative and qualitative analyses) to try and classify higher and lower potential households. It seems that many rural households can not be expected to directly benefit from agricultural commercialization and will require safety nets. Other smallholders might be able to achieve food security and more diversified incomes over time. Even smallholders with potential to be more market-oriented will require significant assistance to make the transformation into commercial farmers. This paper should be viewed as the beginning of a process to better identify the potential of different households to help policymakers design differentiated policies and investment strategies that can be targeted based on these differences
Authors’ Affiliation and Sponsorship
Paul B. Siegel, Consultant, The World Bank.
The Africa Region Working Paper Series expedites dissemination of applied research and policy studies with potential for improving economic performance and social conditions in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Series publishes papers at preliminary stages to stimulate timely discussion within the Region and among client countries, donors, and the policy research community. The editorial board for the Series consists of representatives from professional families appointed by the Region’s Sector Directors. For additional information, please contact Paula White, managing editor of the series, (81131), Email: [email protected] or visit the Web site: http://www.worldbank.org/afr/wps/index.htm.
The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author(s), they do not necessarily represent the views of the World Bank Group, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent and
should not be attributed to them.
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Profile of Zambia’s Smallholders: Where and Who are the Potential Beneficiaries of
Agricultural Commercialization?
Paul B. Siegel *
June 2008
(*) This paper was originally prepared as a background document for the Zambia Smallholder Agricultural Commercialization Strategy (SACS) for Environment, Rural, and Social Development Unit, AFTS1, Africa Region, The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TThis paper was originally prepared as a background document for the Zambia Smallholder
Agricultural Commercialization Strategy (SACS). See: World Bank (2007) ―Zambia Smallholder
Agricultural Commercialization Strategy.‖ Report No. 36573-ZM. Washington, D.C. January 9,
2007. Guidance for the paper was provided by Alex Mwanakasale (AFTS1), Agricultural Officer
based in Lusaka, Zambia and. Paavo Eliste (AFTS1) served as Task Team Leader (TTL) for the
Zambia SACS and provided valuable suggestions and support for publication of this paper. Any
errors are solely the responsibility of the author, as are any opinions. More information on the
Zambia SACS can be received from Paavo Eliste, who can be contacted at
ABBREVIATIONS
ACP Agriculture Commercialization Programme
ASIP Agricultural Sector Investment Program
CAS Country Assistance Strategy
CEM Country Economic Memorandum
CF Conservation Farming
CLUSA Cooperative League of United States of America
CSO Central Statistics Organization
FHH Female-Headed Household
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
FSP Food Security Programme
GRZ Government of the Republic of Zambia
Ha Hectare
HH Household
HYV High Yielding Variety
Kg Kilogram
Km Kilometer
LCMS Living Conditions Monitoring Survey
MACO Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives
MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Fisheries.
MHH Male-Headed Household
MSU Michigan State University
Mt Metric Tons
NGO Non-governmental Organization
PAM ` Programme Against Malnutrition
P&VA Poverty and Vulnerability Assessment
PHS Population and Health Study
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
PSIA Poverty and Social Impact Assessment
SACS Smallholder Agricultural Commercialization Strategy VAC Vulnerability Assessment Committee
ZK Zambian Kwacha
4
Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 2
ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 6
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 7
I. SPATIAL OVERVIEW .................................................................................................... 9
I.A. Characteristics of Zambia’s Agro-Ecological Zones ..................................................... 9 I.B. Road/Rail Infrastructure and Population Centers ........................................................ 12 I.C. Distribution of Smallholder Households ...................................................................... 13 I.D. National Livelihood Zone Map .................................................................................... 13 I.E. Stylized Classification of High/Low Potential Areas and Rural Households .............. 16
II. PROFILE OF RURAL POVERTY ............................................................................... 18
II.A. Quantitative Poverty Profile – based on World Bank (2007) ...................................... 18 II.B. Qualtitative Poverty Profile – based on Parker and Mwape (2005) ............................. 25 II.C. Participatory Assessment: Kefa Village – based on Skonsburg (2003) ....................... 31 II.D. Smallholder Model – based on Siegel and Alwang (2005) ......................................... 32 II.E. Classification of Rural Households – based on Pinder and Wood (2003) ................... 34 II.F. Hard to Measure Factors: Culture and Attitudes.......................................................... 35 II.G. Summary of Key Points on Profile of Rural Poverty ................................................... 36 II.H. Where and Who are the Potential Beneficiaries of Agricultural Commercialization? 37
III. POTENTIAL FOR SMALLHOLDERS MOVING INTO HIGHER VALUE.......... 39
III.A. Higher Value Agricultural Activities ........................................................................... 39 III.B Conservation Farming .................................................................................................. 41 III.C. General Observations ................................................................................................... 41
IV. IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL BENEFICIARIES FROM AGRICULTURAL
COMMERCIALIZATION IN ZAMBIA ...................................................................... 43
V. CONCLUDING COMMENTS ...................................................................................... 46
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 47
ANNEX .......................................................................................................................................... 49
Map 1 Agro-Ecological Zones of Zambia ................................................................................... 10 Map 2 See http://www.fews.net/livelihoods/files/zm/profiling.pdf (page 5) Or see
http://www.fews.net/livelihood/zm/Baseline.pdf ............................................................. 10
List of Tables
Table I. 1 Major Agro-Ecological Zones of Zambia and Agricultural Potential ..................... 11
Table I.2 Zambia’s Major Cities and Urban Areas ................................................................. 12
Table I.3 Distribution of Smallholder Households by Province and Agro-ecological Zone ............................. 13
5
Table I. 4 Population by Livelihood Zone ............................................................................... 15
Table I. 5 Typology of Agricultural Producers in Zambia ....................................................... 16
Table I. 6 Typology of Agricultural Producers in Zambia: From the PRSP ............................ 16
Table I. 7 Stylized Classification of High/Low Potential Areas and Households ................... 17
Table II. 1 Headcount Poverty Estimates, 2002-2003 LCMS ................................................... 19
Table II. 2 Headcount Poverty Estimates Rural/Urban, and Province, ..................................... 20 Table II. 3 Self-Assessed Poverty Status of Zambians, 2002-2003 LCMS............................... 20 Table II. 4 Demographic Characteristics of Rural Households, by Consumption Quintile ...... 21 Table II. 5 Principal Economic Activity of Rural Household Heads, ....................................... 23 Table II. 6 Mean Shares of Income by Source for Rural Households, ...................................... 23 Table II. 7 Mean Area of Crop Land Used for Food and Non-Food Crops, by Household ...... 24 Table II. 8 Crop Production Patterns and Livestock Ownership of Rural Households, ............ 24 Table II. 9 Livestock Ownership: Rural Households, by Province: .......................................... 25 Table II.10 Key Characteristics of 3 Wealth Categories by Agro-Ecological Zone .................. 27 Table II. 11 Stylized Classification of High/Low Potential Areas and Households ................... 38 Table II. 12 Smallholder Households Classified by Agro-Ecological/Livelihood Zone ............. 38 Table IV. 1 Potential Winners and Losers from GRZ’s Agricultural Commercial. Policies ...... 43
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
here is optimism that a dynamic agricultural sector in Zambia can lead to diversified
production and exports, increased employment and income, and improved food security. The
overwhelming majority of Zambia’s agricultural producers are asset-poor smallholders who use
simple technologies and cultivation practices. However, it is important to recognize that Zambian
smallholders are not a homogeneous and monolithic group, and that being a rural resident is not
synonymous with being a smallholder. Thus, not all rural households who produce some crops
and livestock should be considered ―smallholder farmers‖ when examining potential of the
agricultural sector. There are distinct differences in smallholder households that need to be taken
into account. In fact, it seems that a significant proportion of Zambian smallholders can not be
expected to transform into market-oriented production units (in the short or even longer term),
while other smallholders are better positioned to be market oriented. Understanding the
heterogeneity of Zambia’s rural households and their different potential as agricultural producers
is critical to designing strategies for commercially viable smallholders.
The objective of this paper is to help contribute to efforts to identify who and where are the
Zambian smallholders that have the highest potential to benefit from agricultural
commercialization and to identify other groups of rural households that require alternative
strategies for poverty reduction. This paper draws on the existing literature (both quantitative and
qualitative analyses) to try and classify higher and lower potential households based on different
key factors. As such, this paper should be viewed as the beginning of a process to better identify
the potential of different households to help policymakers design differentiated policies and
investment strategies that can be targeted based on these differences.
Based on the classifications presented in this paper, some rural households can be considered to
be located in ―higher economic potential‖ or ―lower economic potential ― areas, and some
households can be considered to have higher or lower potential based on their asset portfolios.
The widespread poverty and challenges facing Zambia’s rural residents have masked, to some
extent, the differences among households grouped together as ―smallholders‖. As shown in this
paper, many rural households can not be expected to directly benefit from agricultural
commercialization and will require safety nets. These ―ultra poor‖ households should benefit
from the increased availability (and possibly lower cost and increased quality) of agricultural
products produced by other rural households. Other smallholders might be able to achieve food
security and more diversified incomes over time. Importantly, even smallholders with potential to
be more market-oriented will require significant assistance to make the transformation into
commercial farmers.
T
7
INTRODUCTION
Zambia’s recent Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), Country Assistance Strategy (CAS),
and Country Economic Memorandum (CEM) view the agricultural sector as a potential engine
for broad based rural growth and poverty reduction. There is optimism that a dynamic
agricultural sector can lead to diversified production and exports, increased employment and
income, and improved food security. This optimism vis-a-vis Zambia’s agricultural sector is
based on the country’s abundant agricultural potential, to the extent that Zambia’s agricultural
sector has been referred to as a ―sleeping agricultural giant‖ (see McPherson, 2004, p.328-329).
Although Zambia’s agricultural sector has significant untapped potential, it is characterized by
structural problems and risks that thwart realization of this potential - especially for smallholders.
The overwhelming majority of Zambia’s agricultural producers are asset-poor smallholders who
use simple technologies (hand hoes and oxen) and cultivation practices (minimal purchased
inputs such as hybrid seed or fertilizer). They mainly produce rain-fed maize, groundnuts, roots
and tubers, mostly for own consumption on five or less hectares (most smallholders cultivate less
than 2 hectares) and productivity tends to be low. Most smallholders lack access to functioning
input and output markets and support services, and it is estimated that less than 50% sell crops in
any given year. At the other extreme are large scale commercial farms using modern inputs and
with access to domestic and global input and output marketing chains, and sometimes vertically
integrated with agro-processing. Larger-scale commercial farmers use hired labor and contribute
to national agricultural production and exports, but their relative small numbers and reliance on
labor-saving technologies limit their poverty reducing potential through labor linkages. However,
there has been a recent trend of outgrower schemes (different forms of contract farming) that
directly link smallholders with larger commercial farmers (or national/international agri-business
firms) through the supply of inputs, credit and technical assistance and the marketing of outputs.
The proliferation of outgrower schemes is largely a response to the collapse of state-supported
agricultural systems (e.g., input supply, guaranteed output markets, credit, technical assistance)
and the lack of private market networks to fill the void.
The dualistic structure within the Zambian agricultural sector is increasingly being recognized
and increasingly being considered when formulating rural development strategies and designing
projects (see Siegel and Alwang, 2005). Furthermore, Siegel (2005) notes that: ―It is also
important to recognize that Zambian smallholders are not a homogeneous and monolithic group,
and that being a rural resident is not synonymous with being a smallholder. That is, not all rural
households who produce some crops and livestock should be considered ―smallholder farmers‖
when examining the potential of the agricultural sector. There are distinct differences in
smallholder households’ asset portfolios (broadly defined to include productive, social and
locational assets), income generating potential, livelihood strategies and well-being outcomes that
need to be taken into account. Thus, there seems to be a phenomena of ―dualism within dualism‖,
whereby a significant proportion of Zambian smallholders can not be expected to transform into
market-oriented production units (in the short or even longer term), while other smallholders are,
in fact, better positioned to be market oriented.‖ Understanding the heterogeneity of Zambia’s
rural households and their different potential as agricultural producers is critical to designing
strategies for commercially viable smallholders.
Some rural households can be considered to be located in ―higher economic potential‖ or ―lower
economic potential ― areas, and some households can be considered to have higher or lower
8
potential based on their asset portfolios. The widespread poverty and challenges facing all of
Zambia’s rural residents have masked, to some extent, the differences among households grouped
together as ―smallholders‖. As will be shown, many rural households can not be expected to
directly benefit from agricultural commercialization and will require safety nets. These ―ultra
poor‖ households should benefit from the increased availability (and possibly lower cost and
increased quality) of agricultural products produced by other rural households. Other
smallholders might be able to achieve food security and more diversified incomes over time.
Importantly, even smallholders with potential to be more market-oriented will require significant
assistance to make the transformation into commercial farmers.
When considering the potential for agricultural commercialization in Zambia, it is also critical to
consider attitudes towards agriculture. Some note that the greatest constraint facing Zambian
smallholders is the lack of a more business oriented approach to farming, since most of them
view agriculture as a way of life and not as a business (e.g., Chiwele and Sikananu, 2004). In
Zambia some smallholders have experience with commercial agriculture, but that does not mean
that they are commercial smallholders. There is a history of dependency by smallholders on
others to carry out the commercial activities associated with agricultural production and
marketing while they focus on the productive activities. The services that smallholders receive
through outgrower schemes are very similar to services they received in the past from
government-programs that provided inputs, markets for outputs, credit and technical assistance.
In both cases there has been a focus on getting smallholders engaged in commercial activities and
less attention to providing commercially-oriented smallholders with a essential entrepreneurial
skills.
The objective of this paper is to contribute to efforts to help identify who and where are the
Zambian smallholders that have the highest potential to benefit from agricultural
commercialization and to identify other groups of rural households that require alternative
strategies for poverty reduction. This paper draws on the existing literature (both quantitative
and qualitative analyses) to try and classify higher and lower potential households based on
different factors. As such, this paper should be viewed as the beginning of a process to better
identify the different potential of different households to help policymakers design differentiated
policies and investment strategies that can be targeted based in these differences.
Section I presents a Spatial Overview, followed by Section II and a Profile of Rural Poverty from
a household perspective. Section III focuses attention on the Potential for Smallholders Moving
into Higher Value Crop Activities and Conservation Farming, and Section IV brings together
information in previous sections for Identifying Potential Beneficiaries from Agricultural
Commercialization in Zambia. A short conclusion is presented in Section V.
9
I. SPATIAL OVERVIEW
Crop and livestock patterns are influenced by locational factors such as agro-ecological zones and
the existence (or absence) of accessible road/rail infrastructure and markets, and proximity of
population centers. Below is a brief spatial overview of Zambia that focuses on the major agro-
ecological zones, road/rail infrastructure and population centers. A rough estimate of the share of
smallholder households living in each agro-ecological zone is also presented. Livelihood zones
are then presented, whereby these locational factors are combined with household-specific assets
of residents. We then explore some stylized household typologies based on locational and
household-specific assets, and income generating and consumption activities. An estimate of the
percent of population living in the livelihood zones associated with commercial agriculture is
presented. The spatial overview points to the profound differences in rural areas with respect to
economic potential and helps understand the spatial distribution of rural poverty and strategies to
reduce rural poverty. This section ends with a presentation of some stylized classifications of
households based on differences in locational factors and household assets.
I.A. Characteristics of Zambia’s Agro-Ecological Zones
There is often reference to 3 major agro-ecological zones in Zambia (see table 1.1 and map 1.1).
Zone I is a low-rainfall area in the southern portion of the Southern and Western Provinces. It
primarily borders Zimbabwe and is one of Zambia’s hottest, driest and poorest regions. It
includes the valleys of the Zambezi and Luangwa rivers, where soils are sandy and fertility is
poor. Zone 1 also includes a major game management area (Luangwa Valley), where farming
households attempt to coexist with wildlife. Maize, sorghum, groundnuts, sunflowers and
cowpeas are cultivated, and the fishing industry (though now in decline) has drawn many to the
area. Mats and baskets are made from reeds and sold to traders who visit the area for this
purpose. This zone constitutes about 12% of Zambia’s land area.
Zone II is a medium-rainfall belt running east-west through the center of the country on the
plateau of the Central, Lusaka, Southern and Eastern Provinces. It is an area with relatively good
soils and receives more rainfall than Zone I. It has the most favorable agro-ecological conditions
in terms of rainfall, soil quality, and absence of tse-tse fly. There is also ample irrigation
potential. This allows for a diverse mix of crop and livestock enterprises. Because of its proximity
to Lusaka and other urban centers, Zone II has received more assistance from government, NGOs
and donor organizations, and is the geographic focus of outgrower schemes and conservation
farming. Maize is the staple crop, but a wide variety of other crops are grown; including beans,
groundnuts, sorghum, cassava, millet, sweet potato, sunflower, cotton, rice, tobacco, paprika
along with vegetables (e.g., tomatoes and onions) and fruits (e.g., bananas, citrus fruits and
guavas). This zone constitutes about 42% of Zambia’s land area.
It is important to note that within Zone II there is a low-rainfall area in the western part of the
country that corresponds mostly to central/northern parts of Western Province (which Chiwele
and Sikanu (2004) refer to as Zone IIB). Note the different shades of blue in Zone II in map 1.1. This area is often considered a part of Zone II, but is differentiated by lower rainfall and sadier
soils, poorer road and market infrastructure, high risk of droughts, mainly sorghum and millet as
staple crops along with cassava, with some maize also being grown. This drought-prone area is
also suited to extensive livestock production, cashew nuts, and timber.
10
Zone III is a high-rainfall area in the north of the country in Copperbelt, Luapula, Northern and
NorthWestern Provinces. It includes the mines of the Copperbelt area, which is relatively
urbanized and was once a source of prosperity for the nation. The decline of the copper industry
has caused an unemployment problem in this area. Zone II contains major river systems, such as
the Luapula and Mansa rivers, as well as numerous lakes. The major crops produced are cassava,
maize, groundnuts, millet, sorghum, beans and sweet potatoes; and small-scale fishing and fish-
trading is also a source of income. Because of the abundance of water in this area, there is
potential for irrigation and for fishing. This zone constitutes about 46% of Zambia’s land area.
Map 1 Agro-Ecological Zones of Zambia
Zambezi
Kaoma
Mongu
Kalomo
Choma
Monze
Mazabuka
Kafue
Mumbwa
Kabwe
Rufunsa
Kapiri Mposhi
Serenje
Mkushi
Ndola
Luanshya
Kitwe
Solwezi
Mwinilunga
Petauke
Chipata
Mpika
Lundazi
Isoka
Nakonde
Mbola
Kasama
Luwingu
Mansa
LUSAKA
Kafue R.
LAKE KARIBA
ZAMBE
E
ZI R
IVR
Lu
.a
pu
ta R
LakeMweru
LakeTanganyka
Lake Bangwelu
Kabompo
Sesheke
Livingstone
Chingola
TCI401-42/ZAMBIA-AGROECO
Kaboomp R.
Cham
besh
i R
.
Luang
wa R
.
Lun
ga R
.
ZAMBEZI V RI ER
Kafue R.
I
III bII a
II a
III
III
0 80 160 240 Km
International boundaryMain roadsRivers
Agroecological Regions
Luangwa-Zambia Rift Valley
Central, Southern and Eastern Plateaux
Western Semi-arid Plains
Northern High Rainfall Zone
I.
II a.
II b.
III.
Source: FAO (2005)
Map 2 See http://www.fews.net/livelihoods/files/zm/profiling.pdf (page 5) Or see
http://www.fews.net/livelihood/zm/Baseline.pdf
11
Table I. 1 Major Agro-Ecological Zones of Zambia and Agricultural Potential
Provinces
Covered
Rainfall Soil Quality,
Agricultural
Potential
Growing
Season
Major
Agricultural
Activities
Agricultural Potential
Crop
Potential
Livestock
Potential
Zone I Most of
Southern
Province
and parts
of Western
and Eastern
Provinces
600-
800mm
Soils:
Shallow
Sands
80-120
days
Maize limited
by rainfall.
Sorghum, millet,
sunflower,
cassava, cotton,
tobacco.
Livestock
limited by tse-
tse fly.
Poor Limited by
existence of
tse-tse fly
and
trypanosomi
asis
Zone II Most parts
of Central,
Eastern,
Lusaka,
Southern
Provinces,
parts of
Western
Province
800-
1000mm
Soils:
Moderately
leached sandy
loams
100-140
days
Maize,
groundnuts, and
wide range of
crops and
livestock.
Good Absence of
tse-tse fly
and
trypanosomi
asis
Zone III Northern,
Luapala,
Copperbelt,
Northweste
rn
Provinces
1100-
1700mm
Leached and
acidic sands
120-150
days
Maize, bananas,
coffee, tea.
Limited by high
acid soils.
Moderate Limited by
existence of
tse-tse fly
and
trypanosomi
asis
Source: Siegel (2005).
Climatic Risks
Over 90% of smallholder crop production is rainfed, so rainfall is a critical factor for selecting
crops, their planting time, the timing and intensity of input and labor use, and subsequent yields.
Yield fluctuations from unpredictable rainfall are a major risk to smallholders. Since 1990, about
three out of every 5 years have essentially been drought years in Zambia (Bwalya, 1999).
Droughts occurred in 1991/2, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 (World Bank,
2004). The occurrence and impact of droughts is not equally distributed over the country.
Southern and Western Provinces have been most severely impacted, but there are even
differences within these provinces and also areas in other provinces that have suffered from
droughts in recent years.
Area Comparative Advantage for Zone II
Average yields vary substantially among provinces. In general, yields are higher in Zone II for
most crops and conditions for livestock production are also more favorable. Higher yields are
due to more favorable agro-ecological conditions and the fact that much of this zone is located
along the ―line-of-rail‖ which allows for greater access to input and output markets. Smallholder
households in this area tend to have better access to infrastructure, higher use of inputs, and a
higher share of medium- and large-sized commercial farms using improved technologies. The
existence of medium- and larger-commercial farms in the area is beneficial to smallholders
through labor linkages and the existence of outgrower schemes, and also through demonstration
effects. This is important with respect to Zones I and III, which are characterized by a virtual
absence of medium- and larger-commercial farms.
12
I.B. Road/Rail Infrastructure and Population Centers
Besides agro-ecological factors, other important spatial factors influencing rural economic
potential include proximity to the road/rail infrastructure and proximity to major urban centers
and markets1.
Major Road/Rail Infrastructure
The major ―line-of-rail‖ runs from copper mine areas in the Copperbelt through Lusaka and on to
Livingstone in Southern Province. The road infrastructure along the ―line-of-rail‖ route is in
fairly good condition. Most large commercial farms are located close to the ―line-of-rail‖. There
is also a railroad line (and road network) that connects Lusaka to Tanzania and runs through
Mpika and Kasama in Northern Province. In addition there is a fairly good road network
connecting Lusaka to Chipata in Eastern Province. There are also road networks to Mongu in
Western Province and Solwezi and Mwinilunga in Northwestern Province and Manza in Luapula
Province. In general, the primary road/rail network does not cover large areas of the country,
especially outside the ―line-of-rail‖. Also, there is a lack of coverage of secondary and tertiary
rural roads.
Population Centers
Zambia is one of the most urbanized countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. There are 8 urban centers
in Zambia with more than 100,000 inhabitants – all located on the ―line-of-rail‖. See table I.2.
The major urban centers are Lusaka, the capital which is an administrative and commercial
center, and the group of cities in the Copperbelt that historically served the mines in that area.
The urban areas of Lusaka and the Copperbelt both have about 1.7 million residents. Only 2
cities with 100,000 inhabitants are located outside of Lusaka and the Copperbelt – and they are
also on the ―line-of-rail‖. Kabwe is between Lusaka and the Copperbelt and Livingstone at the
southernmost point of the ―line-of-rail‖ bordering Zimbabwe. Together these 8 urban centers
account for almost 40% of Zambia’s total population.
Table I.2 Zambia’s Major Cities and Urban Areas
City City Population Urban Area Population “Copperbelt”
Urban Population
Lusaka 1,218,200 1,720,800
Ndola 347,900 590,000 590,000
Kitwe 305,000 786,100 786,100
Kabwe 213,800 213,800
Chingola 150,500 150,500 150,500
Mufilira 131,000 131,000 131,000
Luanshya 124,800 124,800 124,800
Livingstone 108,100 108,100
Total 2,599,300 3,824,300 1,782,400
Source: Zambia 2005 Population Update http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/Zambia.htm
1 See map: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/zambia
13
I.C. Distribution of Smallholder Households
There are several estimates of the actual number of smallholder households in Zambia. The
following table presents an estimation of the distribution of smallholder households among the
provinces based on a survey conducted by the Programme Against Malnutrition (PAM) in 2001,
and shares of food insecurity. The respective shares of households by agro-ecological zone were
estimated by the author.
Table I.3 Distribution of Smallholder Households by Province and Agro-ecological Zone
Province Share of
Smallholder
HHs in
Province
Share of
Smallholder
HHs in
Province that
are Food
Insecure
Estimated
Share of
Smallholder
HHs in
Zone I
Estimated
Share of
Smallholder
HHs in
Zone II
Estimated
Share of
Smallholder
HHs in
Zone III
Hectares
(ha) per
Household
Central 8.7% 69% 8.7% 3.23
Copperbelt 4.9% 56% 4.9% 3.18
Eastern 24.2% 75% 10.0% 14.2% 2.20
Luapula 13.2% 70% 13.2% 2.61
Lusaka 2.1% 57% 2.1% 1.98
Northern 17.4% 71% 17.4% 6.54
Northwestern 6.1% 79% 6.1% 1.70
Southern 13.1% 69% 5.0% 8.1% 2.40
Western 10.3% 79% 7.0% 3.3% 1.75
Total 100% 69% 22.0% 36.4% 41.6% 3.05
Source: Chiwele and Sikananu (2004) shares of smallholders by province and food insecure.
Source: Hectares per household, Siegel (2005).
Note: Estimated share of smallholder households by zone were “guesstimated” by the author.
There is widespread food insecurity through all provinces and agro-ecological zones. The lowest
levels of food insecurity are in the 2 most urbanized provinces – Lusaka and Copperbelt. Almost
¼ of all smallholder households reside in Eastern Province. As can be observed in the next
chapter, the highest share of rural poor lives in Eastern Province – which is partly in Zone II and
partly in Zone I. It is important to note that it is estimated that less than 40% of smallholders
reside in the more favored agro-ecological zone II, and that more than 40% of smallholders reside
in the high rainfall Zone III, which we will see is mostly characterized by lower population
densities and lack of access to infrastructure and markets. Also, it should be noted that about
22% of smallholder households reside in drought-prone Zone I which accounts for about 12% of
Zambia’s land area. On average, rural households in Zambia have access to approximately three
hectares of land. This amount of land should allow households, in most areas, to produce enough
food staples and other foods to cover consumption needs. Access to land and the quality of land,
however, varies by province (and also within provinces).
I.D. National Livelihood Zone Map
The Zambia Vulnerability Assessment Committee (VAC) produced a National Livelihood Zone
Map (see Zambia, 2004 and http://www.fews.net/livelihoods/files/zm/profiling.pdf page 5)2 that
divides the country into zones based on common factors influencing rural livelihoods, such as: a)
agronomic potential, b) vulnerability to climatic risks such as droughts and floods, c) access to
roads and markets, d) major agricultural production systems and flows of agricultural inputs and
2 Or, see http://www.fews.net/livelihood/zm/Baseline.pdf
14
outputs, and e) household assets. The livelihood zone map delineates geographical areas within
which households share similar production and marketing patterns and similar distribution of
household assets.3 We refer to the livelihoods zones map as Map 2
4.
Table I.3 presents the estimated total population (rural and urban) of each livelihood zone. A brief
description of each livelihood zone is presented in the Annex. The basic information on
livelihoods was drawn from the VAC Final Report (Zambia 2004), but has been ―repackaged‖ for
this paper. An important observation that can be made from the national livelihood zone map is
the heterogeneity of conditions facing Zambian smallholders, as reflected in many different
livelihood zones. The livelihood zone map also provides some insights into the location of higher
and lower potential areas for commercial agriculture and higher and lower potential beneficiaries
from efforts to promote smallholder commercialization.
There are 27 livelihood zones that have been identified. Some of the zones have similar codes
because of similarities in some conditions. But differences in agronomic potential, droughts or
floods, access to roads and markets, or orientation of market flows might differ within areas
thereby indicating the need to consider different livelihood strategies.
The livelihood zones most associated with a higher prevalence of commercial smallholder
agricultural activities (and large-scale commercial farmers) are livelihood zones 4A (Central
Maize-Cotton, 5A Line of Rail Commercial Farming, 5B Eastern Province Cash Crop, 7B
Chongwe-Nyimba Plateau, and 13 Mkushi Commercial Block. In general, these livelihood zones
coincide to: a) Agro-Ecological Zone II, and b) the ―line-of-rail‖ road and market infrastructure,
Together these zones account for about 3,604,000 out of an estimated 9,900,000 Zambians (about
36% of all rural and urban residents). The combination of small and large commercial farmers,
relatively good agro-ecological and infrastructure conditions, and the proximity to major urban
markets make this the most ―dynamic‖ agricultural area in Zambia at the present time.
Other livelihood zones that have some commercial smallholder areas include 3A Mufumbwe
Kasempa, 3B Muchinga Escarpment, 4B Chama-Lundazi, 7A Kazungula-Mwandi Plain, 7C
Luano Valley, and 11A Gwembe Valley, 12B Mabwe-Petauke Valley. It is interesting to note
that several livelihood zones are characterized by high rainfall, low population density, casasava
and other food staples and cross-border trade with Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, and
Tanzania that do not pass through the ―line-of-rail‖ (such as Zones 1B, 2B, 15B, 16B).
Furthermore, there is tourism potential that can provide livelihoods to rural households and also
provide markets for expanding agricultural production (e.g., Zones 4B, 11B, 15C).
Wealth Breakdowns
In addition to the livelihood zones, the VAC carried out a wealth breakdown analysis among
households in several rural communities in 4 different livelihood zones. The following range of
wealth breakdowns was found in the selected communities (they vary somewhat among the
respective zones, hence the ranges):
3 Livelihood zone boundaries do not follow administrative boundaries. Instead, a river or mountain or watershed may
be the boundary for a livelihood zone. Thus, an administrative zone might contain different livelihood zones and a
livelihood zone can cover several administrative zones. 4 See http://www.fews.net/livelihoods/files/zm/profiling.pdf page 5, or
http://www.fews.net/livelihood/zm/Baseline.pdf
15
Poor and Very Poor Households: 40-60%
Middle Households: 20-30%
Better-off Households: 10-20%
It can be observed, about 1/2 of rural households are considered poor or very poor in the
respective livelihood zones. In general all of the poor and very poor households cultivated less
than 1 ha of food staple crops and possibly had some chickens. The middle and better-off
households tended to cultivate more than 2 ha and land and engage in both food and cash crops
and grow enough staple foods for own-consumption, and also have (small and large) livestock.
Table I. 4 Population by Livelihood Zone
Zone
Code Zone Name Population
4A Central Maize-Cotton 255,000
5A Line of Rail Commercial Farming 2,403,000
5B Eastern Province Cash Crop 807,000
7B Chongwe-Nyimba Plateau 90,000
13 Mkushi Commercial Block 69,000
Subtotal of Population 3,604,000
1A Northwest High Rainfall 201,000
1B Tuta-Luapula Corridor 596,000
2A Copperbelt Mining 1,665,000
2B Northern Province Plateau 979,000
3A Mufumbwe Kasempa 295,000
3B Muchinga Escarpment 63,000
4B Chama-Lundazi Rice 317,000
6 Sioma Plain 374,000
7A Kazungula-Mwandi Plains 197,000
7C Luano Valley 187,000
9 Mulobezi Woodlands 18,000
10A Zambezi West Bank 262,000
10B Zambezi East 99,000
11A Gwembe Valley 278,000
11B Lake Kariba Fishing 13,000
12A Chiawa-Zambezi Lowlands 106,000
12B Mambwe-Petauke Valley 118,000
14 Zambezi Floodplain 70,000
15B Luapula Valley 247,000
15C Luangwa-Mfuwe Valley 90,000
16A Luapula Northern Wetlands 163,000
16B Kaputa Rice 30,000
Total Population 9,990,000
Source: Zambia (2004)
16
I.E. Stylized Classification of High/Low Potential Areas and Rural Households
The traditional classification of Zambia’s agricultural producers is presented in Table I.5.
Table I. 5 Typology of Agricultural Producers in Zambia
Approx.
# of
Producers
Approx
Farm Size
Technology,
Cultivation
Practice
Market
Orientation
Location Major
Constraints
Small-Scale
Producers
800,000 hhs < 5ha
(with majority
cultivating 2
or less ha of
rain-fed land)
Hand hoe,
minimal
inputs,
household
labor
Staple foods,
primarily
home
consumption
Entire country Remoteness,
seasonal labor
constraints,
lack of input
and output
markets
Emergent
Farmers
50,000 hhs 5 - 20 ha Oxen, hybrid
seed and
fertilizer, few
with irrigation,
mostly
household
labor
Staple foods
and cash
crops,
primarily
market
orientation
Mostly line-
of-rail
(Central,
Lusaka,
Southern
Provinces),
some Eastern,
Western
Provinces
Seasonal
labor
constraints,
lack of credit,
weak market
information
Large-Scale
Commercial
Farms
700 farms 50 – 150ha Tractors,
hybrid seed,
fertilizer,
some
irrigation,
modern mang.,
hired labor
Maize and
cash crops
Mostly
Central,
Lusaka,
Southern
Provinces
High cost of
credit,
indebtedness
Large
Corporate
Operations
10 farms 1000+ ha High
mechanization,
irrigation,
modern mang.,
hired labor
Maize, cash
crops, vertical
integration
Mostly
Central,
Lusaka,
Southern
Provinces
Uncertain
policy
environment
Source: Siegel and Alwang (2005), adapted from World Bank (2003b) and Francis, et al., (1997).
In this classification, all 800,0000 small-scale producers are grouped into a single category, and
only 50,000 farmers are referred to as ―emergent farmers..
For the PRSP, a different classification of agricultural producers was presented (see table I.6)
Table I. 6 Typology of Agricultural Producers in Zambia: From the PRSP
Farming
Characteristics
Small scale Emergent Medium Scale Large Scale
# of farmers 459,000 119,200 25,230 > 40
Crops grown Food crops Food/cash crops Food/cash crops,
livestock
Cash crops,
livestock
Production focus Subsistence Commercial/subsistence Commercial and
own consumption
Commercial
From: World Bank (2002). Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives: Agriculture Bulletin 2000.
In this classification of agricultural producers, it is assumed that there are 578,200 smallholders
with about 20% (119,200) assumed to be emergent and the other 80% are grouped together as
small-scale.
17
Differences from the typologies of agricultural producers indicate some uncertainty about the
numbers and classifications of smallholders.
Despite the difficulties incumbent on trying to classify agricultural producers, it is important to
try and identify similarities and differences among ―smallholders‖. Some rural households can be
considered to be located in ―high potential‖ or ―low potential ― areas, and some rural households
can be considered to have higher or lower potential based on their asset portfolios. Noting the
need to classify Zambian smallholders based on locational factors (e.g., agro-ecological potential,
proximity to roads and markets), in a very stylized manner, Siegel (2005) presented a simple 2x2
typology of conceptualize four types of smallholder households to conceptualize these
differences. See table 1.7:
Table I. 7 Stylized Classification of High/Low Potential Areas and Households
Household (HH) Asset Portfolio
High Low
Location-Specific
Assets (agricultural
potential and access to
markets)
High High-High
―High Potential Area/
High Potential HHs‖
High-Low
―High Potential Area/
Low Potential HHs‖
Low Low-High
―Low Potential Area/
High Potential HHs‖
Low-Low
―Low Potential Area/
Low Potential HHs‖ Source: Siegel (2005)
Household Type A: ―High Potential Area/High Potential HHs‖
households mostly located in Agro-Ecological Zone II near line-of-rail (corresponds
mostly to Livelihood Zones: 4A, 5A, 5B, 7B, 13), with ample labor/land and oxen.
Household Type B: ―High Potential Area/Low Potential HHs‖
households mostly located in Zone II near line-of-rail, with high dependency ratio,
female-headed, not educated household head, and hand-hoe
Household Type C: ―Low Potential Area/High Potential HHs‖
households mostly located in zones I and III away from line-of-rail, with oxen and
low depency ratio
Household Type D: ―Low Potential Area/Low PotentialHHs‖
households mostly located in Zones I and III away from line-of-rail, with high
dependency ratio, female-headed, not educated household head, and hand-hoe
Clearly, the best candidates for market-oriented smallholder agricultural activities would be in
HH Type A. A key question is: to what extent can we identify, quantify, and locate the stylized
types of households (also there are different ways to disaggregate rural areas and households?
Similarly, at a recent conference held by MACO and the Food Security Research Project
(managed by MSU) on the agricultural sector in December 20045, another classification of
smallholders was presented:
HH Type #1: Welfare Cases: smallholders not succeeding as farmers, rural households
not in agriculture,
5 Conference: ―Improving the Performance of the Food and Agriculture System in Zambia – Planning the Way
Forward.‖ Sponsored by Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives in collaboration with Food Security Research
Project, Livingstone, December 3-5, 2004.
18
HH Type #2: Lower Middle Range: food self-sufficient, lack commercial opportunity,
HH Type #3: Higher Middle-Range: food self-sufficient, have commercial potential, and
HH Type #4: Better-off Households: produce surplus food staples, grow cotton and
tobacco.
There are numerous ways to try and classify Zambia’s smallholders. But the examples presented
above helps us conceptualize these differences. It also focuses attention on the fact that very
different strategies are needed to deal with different types of smallholder households. From the
livelihood zone maps and the wealth breakdowns and the preliminary attempts to classify rural
areas and households (above), it can be observed that a significant proportion of smallholder
households should not expect to directly benefit from smallholder commercialisation in the short
run. On the other hand, there are areas of the country that seem to have higher potential for
increased smallholder commercialization. Besides area potential, it is important to focus attention
on the assets, livelihoods and income/consumption of smallholders. This is done in the next
chapter in the poverty profile.
II. PROFILE OF RURAL POVERTY
In this chapter we present results from some recent analyses of rural poverty in Zambia. First, we
present results from a quantitative poverty analysis based on the 2002-2003 Living Conditions
Monitoring Survey (LCMS) prepared for the recent Zambia Poverty and Vulnerability
Assessment (P&VA) (World Bank, 2005). This is followed by a fairly detailed summary of
results from a qualitative poverty analysis carried out in 18 communities in 3 agro-ecological
zones by Parker and Mwape (2005) for the P&VA, and a brief summary of results from a
participatory assessment in a village carried out for the recent Poverty and Social Impact
Assessment (PSIA) by Skonsburg (2004). There is also a brief summary of results from a
quantitative analysis of smallholders carried out for the PSIA by Siegel and Alwang (2005).
Finally we present a classification of smallholder households based on the GRZ Post Harvest
Survey based on Pinder and Wood (2003).
II.A. Quantitative Poverty Profile – based on World Bank (2007)
Location of Poverty
Although Zambia is more urbanized than most Sub-Saharan African countries, it is still
predominantly a rural country. In the 2000 national census, from which the LCMS sampling
frame and weights are derived, 6.5 million of its nearly 10 million residents lived in rural areas.
This fact combined with the higher poverty rate in rural Zambia means that poverty is
concentrated in rural areas. About 72% percent of Zambia’s poor live in rural zones. There is a
high level of poverty in rural areas, with 62% of households below the standard poverty line and
40% below the core poverty line (poverty rates are based on food and non-food consumption
poverty line, core poverty rates are based on a food consumption poverty line).
Poverty and Core Poverty Rates
Demombynes (2005) measured two types of poverty headcounts. Poverty figures were calculated
primarily using the ―total‖ poverty line, which is equal to the consumption level sufficient to meet basic
needs for both food and non-food consumption. Additionally, ―core‖ poverty rates were determined using
a lower core poverty line, which is defined as the food component of the total poverty line. In analyses
conducted in other countries, core poverty rates are sometimes referred to as rates of extreme or severe
poverty. See World Bank (2005) for more details on the poverty lines.
19
In rural areas, poverty is highest among the small farm households that form the bulk of the rural
population, while non-agricultural households in rural areas have poverty rates similar to those of
medium-size farming households (but their core poverty rates are much higher which indicates
the extreme differences in non-agricultural livelihoods). Table II.1 shows separate headcount
rates by urban and rural areas within each province, and the corresponding breakdown of where
the poor are located.
Table II.1 Headcount Poverty Estimates, 2002-2003 LCMS
Poverty Core Poverty
National 0.56 0.36
Rural 0.62 0.40
Urban 0.45 0.28
Type of Household
Small Farm 0.63 0.41
Mid-Size Farm 0.47 0.24
Large Farm 0.30 0.13
Rural Nonagricultural 0.46 0.34
Province
Central 0.54 0.32
Copperbelt 0.52 0.35
Eastern 0.56 0.34
Luapula 0.67 0.47
Lusaka 0.47 0.29
Northern 0.75 0.54
Northwestern 0.61 0.37
Southern 0.47 0.25 Source: World Bank (2005)
Notes: a) Poverty is based on food and non-food consumption poverty line, core poverty is based on food
consumption poverty line.
b) For rural areas households were divided into small-scale farmers (< 5 ha), medium-scale
farmers (5-20 ha), large-scale farmers (20+ ha), and rural agricultural. Across provinces, there is substantial variation in poverty. The lowest poverty rates are found in
Lusaka and Southern Provinces, but even in these Provinces about 47% of the population has
consumption insufficient to meet basic needs. Northern Province stands out as having the highest
poverty rate at 75% with 54% core poverty. Also, there are very high poverty and core poverty
rates in Luapula (67% poor, 47% core poor) and Northwestern Provinces (61% poor, 37% core
poor).
The urban poor are highly concentrated in just two provinces, Lusaka and Copperbelt, home to
20% of Zambia’s poor, while the smaller urban areas of the remaining provinces account for only
an additional 8% of the nation’s poor (and about 1/4 of all the country’s urban poor). The rural
poor are more widely distributed throughout the country. They are most concentrated in Eastern
Province (13% of poor) and Northern Province (15% of poor); home to 28% of the nation’s poor.
See table II.2.
20
Table II. 2 Headcount Poverty Estimates Rural/Urban, and Province,
and Shares of Poor
Province Rural Urban
Fraction of
National Poor
Living in
Province
Fraction of
National Poor
Living in
Province's
Rural Areas
Fraction of
National Poor
Living in
Province's
Urban Areas
Central 0.55 0.52 0.10 0.08 0.02
Copperbelt 0.65 0.48 0.15 0.04 0.11
Eastern 0.58 0.34 0.13 0.13 0.01
Luapula 0.70 0.48 0.09 0.08 0.01
Lusaka 0.63 0.43 0.12 0.03 0.09
Northern 0.78 0.59 0.17 0.15 0.02
Northwestern 0.64 0.37 0.06 0.06 0.01
Southern 0.51 0.32 0.10 0.09 0.02
Western 0.53 0.40 0.07 0.06 0.01 Source: World Bank (2007)
Besides measuring poverty using a defined consumption/income poverty-line, respondents for the
2002-2003 LCMS were asked how they self-assess themselves in terms of ―very poor‖,
―moderately poor‖ and ―not poor‖. Only 5% of those surveyed reported that they are ―not poor‖,
with more in urban than rural areas. Some 52% of rural households reported being ―very poor‖
versus 37% of urban households. But, 55% of urban households reported they were ―moderately
poor‖ compared to 45% of rural households. See table II.3.
Table II. 3 Self-Assessed Poverty Status of Zambians, 2002-2003 LCMS
Self-Assessed Poverty
Status
All Zambia Rural Urban
Very Poor 47% 52% 37%
Moderately Poor 48% 45% 55%
Not Poor 5% 3% 8%
Total 100% 100% 100% Source: World Bank (2005, p.35).
Rural Household Demographics
Below we review the demographic characteristics of rural households, contrasting poorer
households with better-off households. Some basic mean demographic characteristics of rural
households are shown in table II.4.
21
Table II. 4 Demographic Characteristics of Rural Households, by Consumption Quintile
Quintile of National Distribution
Average
of All
HHs
Quintile #1
(Poorest
20%)
Quintile
#2
Quintile
#3
Quintile
#4
Quintile #5
(Richest
20%)
Mean HH size 5.3 6.5 6.2 5.5 4.7 3.7
Medium age of HH
head (years)
40 44 43 39 37 35
% of female headed
HHs
24% 27% 23% 23% 25% 24%
Mean schooling of
household head
5.3 4.4 4.9 5.1 5.5 6.2
Dependency ratio 1.15 1.35 1.33 1.25 1.06 0.80
Youth dependency
ratio
1.07 1.26 1.24 1.17 .98 .72
Old-age dependency
ratio
.08 .09 .09 .08 .09 .08
Share of HHs with 1
generation
12% 3% 5% 6% 15% 29%
Share of HHs with 2
generations
65% 65% 67% 72% 66% 58%
Share of HHs with 3
generations
22% 29% 27% 21% 18% 13%
Share of HHs with 4
generations
1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0%
Source: World Bank (2005)
Note: Calculations of the mean were done at the household level, weighted by household sampling weights.
Consequently, the figures are means of households rather than means of individuals.
Household size is highest among poorer households, averaging 6.5 for the poorest quintile, and is
sharply lower in the richest quintile. Poorer households also tend to be headed by older
individuals. The median age of household heads in the poorest quintile is 44 years, compared to
35 for heads of the richest rural households. There is a strong association between education
levels of household heads and household consumption. The relationship is consistent across the
distribution. It is strongest at the top: households in the top quintile have an average of 0.7 year of
schooling more than those in the next quintile.
The frequency of female-headed households varies much less consistently by consumption level.
Although female headship is highest among the very poorest—among whom women make up
27% of household heads -- moving up the income distribution there is no clear relationship
between the two variables.
Additional information about household demographics includes dependency ratios and the
number of generations found in each household. The denominator for the dependency ratios is the
number of adults in the household, defined as those age 15-64. The youth dependency ratio is the
mean number of children per adult, the old-age dependency ratio is the number of elderly per
adult, and the sum of the two is the household dependency ratio. The youth dependency ratio is
high; the average rural Zambian household has 1.07 children per adult, and the ratio is highest for
the poorest households. The old-age dependency ratio is only 0.08 and varies little by quintile.
Almost all rural Zambians live in multi-generational households. Two-thirds live in households
with two generations, and 23 percent live in households with three or more generations present.
22
The richest rural households, which are smaller on average, also are less likely to have three and
more likely to have just one generation.
Access to safe water. Only 34% of rural Zambian households have access to what would
generally be considered a safe source of water: a water tap, a borehole, or a protected well. The
remaining households rely on water taken directly from a river or lake, piped from a river or lake,
or taken from an unprotected well. Even among rural households in the top quintile, only 44%
have access to safe water.
Access to sanitation. Two-thirds of rural residents use a pit latrine, and almost all others have no
toilet facilities at all. Surprisingly, households in the poorest quintiles are slightly more likely
than better-off households to have their own pit latrines.
Access to household energy. The overwhelming majority of rural households use firewood they
collect for cooking. Better-off households are slightly more likely to use other fuels, chiefly
charcoal. Collecting of firewood can be a time consuming activity for women and girls.
Access to housing. 77% of households report owning a residential building. Homes of
households in the richer quintiles are slightly more likely to be made of concrete brick and less
likely to be made of mud brick. Mud floors are found in the homes of most rural Zambians at all
consumption levels. About 19% of households in the wealthiest quintile have concrete floors,
compared to 8% of those in the poorest quintile. Homes of better-off households are more likely
to have roofs of iron or asbestos, rather than grass or straw. But even among those in the richest
quintile, 80% have grass or straw roofs.
Access to markets, transport and public services. There is surprisingly little variation in median
distances to markets and public transport by quintiles. This suggests that wealthier households are
not highly concentrated by community but rather that rich and poor households are fairly
interspersed. Access to public services is mixed. While median distances to a middle-level basic
school (grades 1-7) and a health facility are five kilometers, median distances to a police station
(19 km) and post office (25 km) are much higher. The extent to which markets are accessible to
rural households is unclear. More than half report being within five kilometers of public
transportation, but it is not possible to evaluate whether available transportation could serve to
transport agricultural products to a market. The median distance to a food market is only 9
kilometers, but it is not known if these markets are integrated with the national economy. Median
distances seem large for the nearest bank (48 km), public phone (40 km), and agricultural input
markets (25 km) selling equipment and fertilizer needed for modern agriculture.
Asset ownership. Ownership of basic agricultural tools—an axe and hoe— is nearly universal
among households in all quintiles. Most durable consumer goods are owned by only a small
fraction of households. Exceptions are a bicycle (owned by 35% overall) and radio (34%). What
is most striking in the table is that there are few assets with sharply differentiated ownership rates
among rich and poor.
Principal economic activity. Agriculture is overwhelmingly the dominant activity in rural areas.
In 80% of rural Zambian households, the principal activity of the household head is farming.
People at the top of the distribution are slightly less likely to be engaged in agriculture; 71% of
household heads in the richest quintile report farming as their main activity. Only 9% of
individuals live in households where the head is engaged mainly in wage work, with a smaller
percentage among the poorest households. See table II.5.
23
Table II. 5 Principal Economic Activity of Rural Household Heads,
by Consumption Quintile
Quintile of National Distribution
Activity Average
of All
HHs
Quintile #1
(Poorest
20%)
Quintile
#2
Quintile
#3
Quintile
#4
Quintile #5
(Richest
20%)
Farming 79% 82% 84% 80% 79% 71%
Fishing 2% 4% 2% 3% 3% 1%
Wage Work
(incl. Piece work)
11% 8% 8% 10% 10% 16%
Self-Employed 6% 4% 4% 4% 6% 10%
Other 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: World Bank (2005)
A breakdown of economic activities by males and females above the age of 20 did not exhibit
large differences in the share for farming (67% males, 71% females) or self-employment (5%
males, 4% females), but males were much more likely to work in wage work or piece work (10%
males versus 2% females) and females were more likely to work in productive but unpaid family
labor (16% females versus 6% males).
Sources of income. Another way to look at economic activity is to examine household sources of
income. Table xx shows a breakdown of the various income sources. The total income measure
includes the value of the household’s own production consumed. Consumption of own production
accounts for just over half of average rural household income for rich and poor households alike.
The other large categories of income are food crop sales, salary, and remittances (6% of income
in the average household), non-farm business income (10%), and ―other income‖ (11%) Salary
and non-farm business income are more important for better-off households. See table II.6.
Table II. 6 Mean Shares of Income by Source for Rural Households,
by Consumption Quintile
Quintile of National Distribution
Activity Average
of All
HHs
Quintile #1
(Poorest
20%)
Quintile
#2
Quintile
#3
Quintile
#4
Quintile #5
(Richest
20%)
Consumption of
own production
55% 57% 55% 54% 55% 52%
Food crop sales 6% 7% 6% 6% 6% 5%
Non-food crop sales 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 2%
Livestock and other
ag income
2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3%
Non-farm business 10% 11% 10% 10% 13% 11%
Remittances 6% 7% 6% 6% 7% 6%
Other 12 13% 12% 12% 11% 9%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: World Bank (2005)
Land use patterns. Average total land worked varies little by quintile, but better-off households
average more than twice as much non-food cropland as the poorest households. The smaller
households in the richest quintile also work twice as much total land per capita as the poorest
households. See table II.7.
24
Table II. 7 Mean Area of Crop Land Used for Food and Non-Food Crops, by Household
Quintile of National Distribution
Average
of All
HHs
Quintile
#1
(Poorest
20%)
Quintile
#2
Quintile
#3
Quintile
#4
Quintile
#5
(Richest
20%)
Hectares of food crops 1.08 0.97 1.11 1.11 1.05 1.16
Hectares on non-food crops 0.11 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.12
Hectares of all crops 1.19 1.02 1.20 1.26 1.16 1.28
Hectares of all crops per
capita
0.25 0.16 0.21 0.24 0.28 0.36
Source: World Bank (2005)
Table II.8 presents a further breakdown of household crop and livestock activities. Most
households in all quintiles grow at least some maize. Substantial fractions of households also
grow cassava, millet, sweet potatoes, and groundnuts. There is substantial differentiation in crop
choices by rich and poor for cassava, which is grown by half of the poorest households but just
over a quarter of the richest households, and hybrid maize, grown by 11% of the bottom quintile
and 28% of the top. Among the relatively few households with non-food crops, cotton and
sunflower are dominant. Nine percent of those in the poorest quintile grow at least some non-food
crops, compared to 13% overall.
Table II. 8 Crop Production Patterns and Livestock Ownership of Rural Households,
by Consumption Quintile
Quintile of National Distribution
Activity Average
of All
HHs
Quintile #1
(Poorest
20%)
Quintile
#2
Quintile
#3
Quintile
#4
Quintile #5
(Richest
20%)
At least one food crop 93% 94% 96% 95% 92% 89%
Local Maize 59% 54% 63% 62% 62% 54%
Hybrid Maize 19% 11% 15% 19% 21% 28%
Cassava 38% 50% 45% 39% 33% 28%
Groundnuts 40% 40% 44% 45% 38% 32%
Mixed Beans 16% 18% 18% 16% 15% 12%
Millet 16% 24% 20% 16% 12% 11%
Sweet Potato 30% 30% 33% 32% 29% 26%
At least one cash crop 13% 9% 14% 16% 15% 13%
Cotton 9% 6% 7% 10% 10% 9%
Tobacco 1% 0% 2% 2% 1% 1%
Paprika <1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Sunflower 5% 3% 6% 5% 5% 4%
Any Livestock 71% 69% 73% 74% 72% 66%
Cattle 16% 11% 13% 18% 19% 19%
Goats 18% 17% 20% 18% 17% 16%
Chickens 64% 64% 69% 66% 65% 58%
Pigs 8% 7% 10% 8% 8% 8% Source: World Bank (2005)
In table II.8 we observe livestock ownership by quintile, and 71% of rural households reported
the ownership of some livestock. A clear difference by quintile is seen only for cattle ownership:
25
19% of households in the top quintile having cattle compared to 11% of those in the bottom
quintile. These differences are more profound by province than by quintile. See table II.9. It can
be observed that cattle are much more likely to be found in Central, Eastern, Lusaka, and
Southern Provinces – Agro-Ecological Zone II. Again we observe a strong correlation between
assets, livelihoods and location.
Table II. 9 Livestock Ownership: Rural Households, by Province:
Percentage of Households Owning Each Type of Livestock
All
Rural
House-
holds
Central Copperbelt Eastern Luapula Lusaka North-
ern
Nwest-
ern
South-
ern
West-
ern
Any
Livestock
71 77 53 74 68 60 76 69 73 66
Cattle 18 20 4 23 1 15 7 6 31 27
Goats 18 21 7 18 13 23 19 16 33 3
Pigs 8 2 2 17 2 6 11 6 10 4
Sheep 1 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 1
Chickens 64 70 51 67 61 54 72 63 63 58
Ducks
and
Geese
5 6 5 5 12 6 4 3 3 5
Guinea
Fowls
4 5 0 5 2 4 3 3 8 1
Other
Poultry
3 4 2 3 1 4 3 1 6 1
Source: World Bank (2005)
II.B. Qualtitative Poverty Profile – based on Parker and Mwape (2005)6
Parker and Mwape (2005) report on a qualitative study carried out in villages and settlements of
all three of Zambia’s major agro-ecological zones. Two districts were randomly selected in each
zone7, and 3 villages were visited in each district. A total of 18 villages were visited. Villages
were purposively selected to reflect the range of conditions that is typical of each of these three
zones. Within each village, the village committee was requested to invite approximately 30
residents to the discussions, which took about one week in each village.
Zambian villages do not appear to be characterized by wide discrepancies in levels of wealth (in
contrast to most rural communities in the world). Nearly every villager was defined as ―poor‖ to
some extent, but there are recognized differences between three categories: the very poor, the
poor and the better off. Even those households defined as better off, however, were viewed as
vulnerable to falling into poverty and their future well-being was uncertain. This was true even of
traditional leaders. In most study sites, the village headman or local chief was one of the
wealthiest individuals in the village, but this did not prove to be true in every case.
Although wide differences in household wealth levels exist in rural Zambia, the really wealthy
households were not found to be residing in the rural villages. Thus, rural elites were not found
6 Parker, B. and F. Mwape (2004). ―Rural Poverty and Vulnerability in Zambia, 2004: A Qualitative Study.‖ Paper
prepared for DFID and The World Bank, Social Protection Unit. mimeo. 7 Zone I: Luangwa and Siavonga Districts, Zone II: Katete and Mumbwa Districts, Zone III: Mpika and Mansa
Districts.
26
controlling local resources or denying them to the poor and powerless. Instead, a generalized
condition of economic uncertainty and material scarcity prevails in the villages. A type of social
and economic egalitarianism ―collective poverty‖ characterizes these communities. Another
consequence of this lack of wealth differentiation is that there are relatively few households with
enough resources and generating sufficient surpluses to hire poorer neighbors or provide them
with loans or other assistance in times of need. But, the better-off households do occasionally
provide emergency loans or assistance to the poor, or buy their surplus produce. In general,
however, they can only offer a day’s casual agricultural labor (ganyu), paid in food or in kind.
Characteristics of the 3 wealth categories (see table II.10):
Very Poor Households:
The very poor lack the meager assets normally found in rural homes and some of the basic
necessities of life. Food insecurity was mentioned as a primary aspect of extreme poverty in all
three zones. The very poor are often unable even to eat the two meals a day typically consumed
by the moderately poor. They have no stored grain and may be forced to go without meals for a
full day or for days. In addition, they do not have adequate clothing and may possess no bedding.
They are housed in mud huts with thatched roofs. They are unable to educate their children due
to their inability to meet minor expenses such as books and school supplies, uniforms, and fees
charged by the local parent-teacher association (PTA). In some areas (such as the poorest areas
of Zone 1), they do not own any livestock, while in slightly better-off areas (such as many found
in Zone 2), they are likely to own a single goat or 2-3 chickens. In all three zones, ownership of
livestock was an important criterion for separating better-off from the poorer households.
Particularly in Zones I and III, the very poor were said to have no identifiable source of income.
In drought-prone Zone I, households with labor and access to inputs are often unable to cultivate
due to lack of water. Most rely on seasonal casual agricultural labor in the fields of better-off
neighbors. They thus provide the labor pool that is available to better-off households with a
shortage of agricultural labor. The very poor were described as those who are always in search of
daily casual work or ganyu. Some of the very poorest are unable even to perform ganyu.
Typically, these are the labor deficient households headed by the elderly, the disabled, or
abandoned or widowed women caring for small children. Households are similarly constrained
when the only healthy adult is caring for a chronically ill family member. See table II.10.
Ganyu Labor
Daily casual work or ganyu is labor that is paid in kind or with a day’s supply of food.
Casual agricultural work of this kind is not a reliable source of income or food, since it
tends to be available only seasonally.
27
Table II.10 Key Characteristics of 3 Wealth Categories by Agro-Ecological Zone
ZONE I
The Poorest The Less Poor The Better-Off
Inadequate food
Poor clothing
Lack of bedding
No livestock
Mud/thatch house
No visible source of income
Aged, chronically ill, disabled
Work for others (ganyu)
Keep orphans
Illiterate
Unable to send children to school
Have steady source of
income
Have a skill (brick
making, mat weaving)
Own chickens and goats
Do not own cattle
Usually food sufficient but
occasionally food short
Always food secure/three meals per
day
Own cattle (as well as pigs, goats,
chickens)
Have house of permanent materials
Own farming implements (plough)
Have off-farm income source
(fishing, jobs)
Hire casual labor
Have stored grain (granary)
Have many wives
ZONE II
The Poorest The Less Poor The Better-Off
Food insecure all year (miss meals)
Use hand hoe for farming
Cultivate little
Lack agricultural inputs
Work for others
Own a few small livestock (fowl,
goats)
Grass-roofed house with dirt floor
No remittances from outside village
Old, orphans, widows, ill or
handicapped
Cultivate 2-5 ha of land
Use either hoes or ploughs
Own small livestock (a
few also own cattle)
Employed as driver, tailor,
etc. or own small shop in
village
House has concrete floor
Own cattle (as well as smaller
livestock)
Own vehicles
Farm using draught animals or
tractors
Adequate food at all times
Hire agricultural labor
Brick house with iron roof
ZONE III
The Poorest The Less Poor The Better-Off
Food insecure at all times
Own no livestock
Have land, not able to cultivate it
Poor clothing
Work in exchange for food
No remittances
Poor access to public resources
(schools, markets)
Sometimes food insecure
Own hoe (some own
ploughs but no oxen)
Own small livestock
Food secure always
Own farm implements (ploughs)
Own oxen, cattle and cart
Own bicycle, radio, a shop
Able to educate all children
Some receive remittances from
outside village
Employs others (ganyu)
House has iron roof Source: Parker and Mwape (2004)
Moderately Poor Households:
The moderately poor, or less poor, were said to be basically food secure; although they might
experience occasional food shortages during the lean season, they are normally able to maintain
an acceptable level of consumption. Their homes are usually thatched with grass but, unlike the
poorest, may have a cement floor. They possess a few assets in the form of beds, cooking pots,
livestock (usually smaller livestock such as goats and chickens) and basic farm instruments.
They are likely to possess a hoe, but rarely a plough and never oxen. Reliance on hand hoe
agriculture limits the amount of land they can cultivate, but since they are able to farm, they are
considered to have a reliable source of income. Some households were placed in this category
because a member had a skill such as carpentry, brick-laying or bicycle repair. In river areas,
households in this group are sometimes able to make and sell mats or basketry made from reeds.
28
Better-Off Households:
In all three zones, fewer than 10 of the 30 households categorized in the wealth ranking exercise
were assigned to the ―better off‖ group. In some villages of Zone I, only 2-3 households were
classified as ―better off.‖ The better off households usually own cattle and ―luxury goods‖ such
as radios and bicycles. They live in homes built of burnt brick and roofed with corrugated iron.
The better off households are food secure and can eat as many as three meals a day. They are
able to educate their children through secondary school, since they can afford school fees,
uniforms, and transport (or occasionally boarding fees).
Better-off households possess livelihoods that are more reliable than those of the moderately poor
and very poor. They have ploughs and draft animals, or in Zone II, maybe even a tractor. They
are thus able to cultivate a larger area and, since households in this category can afford to buy
inputs, they produce enough maize to fill a granary and often can sell surplus produce. They
often operate a small shop in the village, and they sell or trade produce, fish, etc. outside the
village. Although a few moderately poor households may hire ganyu labor, it is the better off
who usually employ members of other households to assist with planting, weeding and
harvesting. These relationships generally do not develop into long-standing patron-client
relationships, as they are usually ad hoc and temporary. These relatively wealthier villagers do
not, therefore, constitute a reliable source of credit, employment or emergency assistance to the
families they have employed. However, this does indicate the existence of labor and credit
linkages that can expand over time as the household succeeds.
The Importance of Livestock:
After basic food security, the factor most mentioned when informants were distinguishing poorer
from better-off households was possession of livestock, particularly cattle, pigs, goats and sheep.
Domestic animals were described as both an indicator and a source of higher economic standing.
The ability to plough using draught animals can dramatically increase a household’s productive
capabilities. Cattle, therefore, were described as the most desirable livestock asset; although they
are susceptible to disease and beyond the means of the average poor household. Small livestock
are a common means of attempting to cushion against shocks and shortfalls in consumption; since
they can be sold to smooth consumption, pay school fees or buy medicines, etc.
Oxen Use
Oxen use can help raise average yields and save labor at critical points in the cropping cycle. Such
innovations can help smallholders plant more land without resorting to hired labor, or be constrained by
household labor availability. Increasing land under production by smallholders is one of the keys for
agricultural growth to be poverty reducing. Nationally, it is estimated that only about 25% of smallholders
use oxen (Haggeblade and Tembo, 2003), but oxen are unevenly distributed throughout the country. For
example, oxen use is virtually non-existent in Northern and Northwestern Provinces.
29
Explanations for Wealth Differences
Informants suggested that the better-off are often those receiving remittances from urban
relatives, especially educated adult children, who were employed in well-paying jobs. The
moderately poor and better off were also said to possess either a remunerative skill or a
productive asset, such as a sewing machine, that could be used to generate income. In other
cases, the better off were recent immigrants (such as retirees) who arrived in the village with
some capital to invest in agriculture, horticulture, or livestock.
The very poorest were often described as the ―new poor‖—households that have lost a
breadwinner or are elder- or female-headed as a result of HIV/AIDS or other diseases, and
individuals returning to their natal villages because they have been retrenched, have retired witho
Risks and Vulnerability
Informants indicated that the number of households that had experienced declining
income/consumption during the past five years is much larger than the number that had managed
to improve their economic standing. Informants were asked to describe events that have caused
households to lose income/consumption. The events, which differed somewhat by agro-ecological
zone, were:
Zone I: Droughts, damage to crops by wildlife, floods, loss of livestock to disease (and attendant
loss of draught power), chronic illness in the household, laziness, and death of the household
head.
Zone II: Floods, droughts, inability to purchase fertilizer/inputs, human and animal diseases,
death of a breadwinner, theft of livestock, and cost of health care
Zone III: Droughts, floods, cholera outbreaks, crop destruction by pests, livestock diseases,
chronic illnesses, death of adult members of the household, fire, and violent crime/theft.
It was found that covariate shocks such as droughts, damage to crops by wildlife or pests, floods,
etc. were mentioned most of often as the critical risks faced by rural households. Idiosyncratic
shocks, however, particularly those resulting from diseases in humans and livestock, also trap
households in poverty; and households described as the poorest were mostly those that had lost
labor power to HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, cholera or other fatal illnesses. Households employ a
range of defensive and preventive strategies to reduce the risk of destitution in the event of
shocks, such as stockpiling grain, breeding small animals for sale, crop substitution, multiple
plantings etc. Removing a child from school is considered to be a last resort coping mechanism.
Rural Poverty and Vulnerability in Zambia
In a recent survey of several rural areas in Zambia carried out for C-SAFE, distinct spatial and
household differences were identified. A major conclusion was that: ―Rural households have
very few assets. In the survey, about 80% of households were classified as asset poor or very
poor. Households with limited assets are vulnerable, not only because of their relative poverty,
but also because they have few items to divest should they be forced to spend money on food
or emergencies (C-SAFE, 2003, p.45).‖
30
In many communities there seems to be less reliance on the extended household to provide
assistance in times of trouble than in the past. In addition, some traditional extended family
leveling and support mechanisms, such as communal meals, have broken down entirely.
Voluntary labor sharing between related households can still be found, but it is being gradually
replaced by ganyu arrangements. As part of the extended family tradition, Zambians have often
fostered children from related households. This tradition, too, is said to be on the decline.
Families feel the need to concentrate scarce resources on the feeding and education of their own
children, and they are less certain that their investment in nieces and nephews will be repaid.
Changes in Zone II: Outgrower Schemes and Conservation Farming
Most of the positive changes mentioned by informants were concentrated in Zone 2, the growth
of: a) contract farming or outgrower schemes, and b) conservation farming. In Zone 2, many
participants indicated that several private firms operate out-grower schemes to produce high value
cash crops, such as cotton, paprika, tobacco, etc. According to participants, these firms provide
inputs, train farmers on how to produce these crops, and offer a guaranteed market for the
products. Zone II informants noted that many households are taking advantage of these
opportunities. However, some people reported difficulties in working with out-grower schemes.
The field activities are labour intensive and sometimes beyond the capabilities of individual
households. Furthermore, cultivators have no say in establishing the grade and the price of the
product.
Another positive development that has primarily benefited Zone II is the Conservation Farming
(CF). Although Conservation Farming was initially concentrated in Zone II, efforts were made
under the FAO-FSP to expand it to Zone I. After a year of implementation, the results were found
to vary significantly according to soil quality and rainfall patterns. Some farmers in both Zone I
and Zone II expressed positive views about CF, but results were apparently better in Zone II.
However, complaints were heard from both zones. CF requires digging basins before the
beginning of the annual rains, and then planting maize within the basins. Some informants found
the effort of digging in dry, hard soils to be beyond their capacities, given the lack of tools.
Others reported that their basins had dried up or become water-logged. Clearly, CF is not a
universal panacea that is suitable to all parts of Zambia, but comments from informants were
more often favorable than unfavorable. It should be noted that CF techniques do not deliver their
full benefits for several seasons and that most trials are only one to two seasons old.
Changes in Zones I and III: Crop Diversification
In Zones I and III, no formal out-grower schemes were reported by study participants. It may be
assumed, therefore, that these opportunities are generally unavailable outside Zone II. Many
Zone III farmers reported that they have reduced or abandoned maize cultivation in favor of
cassava and millet; and a few cultivators in Zone I have ceased producing maize in favor of
sorghum. Cassava does not require fertilizer, it is a traditional crop in Zone III, and (although
difficult to process) it is easy to grow in this ecological zone. Sorghum is drought-resistant and
hence more appropriate to Zone I, a low rainfall area. A number of Zones II and III farming
households have also begun to intensify their investment in horticulture. This was said to have
improved the nutrition and food security of those households, as well as providing cash income if
markets can be found for the fruits and vegetables they produce. Some farmers in Zones I and III
have joined outgrower schemes where such arrangements are available.
31
Maize is Still the Choice of Smallholders
However, the majority of study participants from all zones expressed a desire to continue in
maize cultivation. Smallholder households that have abandoned it would still prefer to cultivate
maize– it is thought to be more palatable, more nutritious and far easier to process – but they find
it increasingly beyond their capacity. Maize is the staple crop of the country, and rural Zambians
feel that no meal is complete without it. Furthermore, they are familiar with maize cultivation but
may lack information on the requirements for growing other crops. The versatility of maize
appears to make it a safer choice for the risk-averse poor. It is a subsistence crop, a cash crop and
a safety net. Although produced primarily for own-consumption, maize surpluses can be sold as
a cash crop or, if an acceptable market price is not found, can be stored and consumed during lean
periods. Also, it produces fodder for livestock and can be eaten early (green) in the season if
alternative food is not available. Other crops offer few of these advantages. For example, markets
for sorghum, cassava and millet are smaller and unpredictable.
II.C. Participatory Assessment: Kefa Village – based on Skonsburg (2003)8
A rapid participatory assessment was undertaken in Kefa Village located in Eastern Province in
2003 (see Skonsberg, 2003). The findings reflect changes taking place in much of rural Zambia
since the early 1990s. It was found that:
a) Demise of the GRZ extension system that provided farmers with technical support,
subsidized credit, seeds and fertilizer, and the lack of public or private sector to
replace these services.
b) Land issues tend to be debated, but land reform per se is not an issue for the
community (only 25 percent of interviewed residents said they did not have enough
land).
c) Land is not equally distributed (advantaged groups include clan members,
wealthier farmers and long-time residents).
d) Soil fertility problems are increasing the need for fertilizer and improved seeds.
However, farmers do not have cash or credit to buy improved seeds and fertilizer.
e) Seeds and credit are sometimes available from agents of the cotton and tobacco
buyers.
f) Seeds and fertilizer are rarely available in a timely manner.
g) On average, a household cultivates about 1 ha maize and 0.4 ha groundnuts,
primarily for home consumption. The major binding constraint tends to be
available household labor, not land.
h) Livestock numbers, especially cattle, populations are declining due to drought and
illness.
i) Small livestock (e.g., chickens and goats) are gaining in importance.
j) Water scarcity is a major problem.
8 Skjonsberg, E. (2003) ―A Report on 25 Years of Rural Change in Kefa Village, Eastern Province, Zambia.‖
Background Report for Zambia PSIA. Prepared for Social Development Department. The World Bank: Washington,
D.C. mimeo.
32
k) Lack of fertilizers is claimed to be the biggest problem. When people say that
there is a ―lack of fertilizer‖, this includes the lack of suppliers and the high cost of
fertilizer when available.
l) GRZ programs for subsidized fertilizer do not reach Kefa farmers or reach them in
insufficient quantities.
m) Lack of fertilizer and water scarcity are driving cropping choices. Cotton
production has increased because it needs less fertilizer and water, and because and
agents for cotton processors tend to provide advances of inputs and guaranteed
markets)
n) There is also a lack of output markets. ―One big problem that we all have is where
to sell our produce. There is no market so instead we just have to sell it one by
one.‖
o) Increased problems with malaria, HIV/AIDS, and orphans.
p) Increased dependence on assistance from donors and NGOs (church groups).
q) Persistence of beliefs in witchcraft and fatalistic attitudes.
The findings from Kefa Village indicate that there are many factors that influence the
opportunities and constraints faced by smallholders, including important social and cultural
factors. Also, it is apparent that for most households, conditions worsened over time. Results
from the assessment at Kefa Village are very consistent with the findings reported by Parker and
Mwape (2004).
II.D. Smallholder Model – based on Siegel and Alwang (2005)
Siegel and Alwang (2005) used a stylized single-period linear programming (LP) model of
smallholder households in rural Zambia to examine potential impacts on land and labor use, and
income-generation of suggested land tenure reforms, changes in fertilizer policy, and
infrastructure investments, and also impacts of HIV/AIDS.9 Major findings include:
a) Because of a ―safety-first‖ objective function10
, smallholders’ primary objective is
to produce their own staple foods for home consumption, especially in remote
areas. These food security concerns and subsequent livelihood strategies imply a
significant (real and opportunity) cost to smallholders and sub-optimal use of
assets.
b) Using hoes and oxen, smallholder households can only cultivate about two to four
hectares of land, respectively, before household labor constraints become binding.
Increased access to land would therefore not benefit most households unless hired
labor became available at a relatively low cost. Labor-saving technology may
substitute for labor and allow for improved labor allocation.
9 The smallholder model is an update of Alwang and Siegel (1994) and Alwang, Siegel and Jorgensen (1996). The
model has an objective function, model activities, and constraints for different resources, with labor disaggregated by
month, over a one-year period. The model maximizes returns from agricultural production given fixed assets, subject
to the available technologies and technical constraints. The model only considered labor income from on-farm
agricultural activities, assumed to be carried out only household members. 10 The ―safety-first‖ objective function means that smallholders first make their production decisions based on
providing staple foods for home consumption, and then allocate remaining resources to other activities.
33
c) Technologies such as conservation farming can help spread out labor demand more
evenly though the year. However, the ―entry costs‖ of such technologies may be
prohibitively expensive for the majority of resource-poor smallholders.
d) Higher official market prices for fertilizer and lower prices for maize have made
hybrid maize production less economically attractive for smallholders. Lower
maize/fertilizer ratios and the continued lack of dependable input supplies have
slowed the adoption of improved technologies and encouraged a ―retreat‖ to semi-
subsistence farming, especially in remote areas.
e) For most smallholders, there are relatively low returns to farming—less than $1 per
person per day. This low return to labor makes it difficult to generate surpluses
that could be saved or invested in improved technologies, and thus contributes to a
cycle of poverty.
f) Market liberalization and commercialization increases the need for cash, other
liquid assets, or credit. The scarce amounts of cash available and the high returns to
cash suggest that demand for credit will likely be robust and the returns relatively
high.
g) I mproved infrastructure should, in theory, lower transport and transaction costs, and
increase the commercial orientation of smallholders. However, lower costs might
not compensate for the decline in output prices and rise in input costs that
smallholders have faced over time.
h) Remoteness leads to less land under cultivation, lower returns per household
member and lower returns to land. Improved transport should benefit remote
households and encourage more intensive and extensive utilization of land, and
higher income-earning potential.
i) Improved infrastructure increases confidence in markets. Such confidence could,
over time, reduce the tendency of smallholders to allocate scare resources to
production of staple foods for own consumption. The combination of less
remoteness and increased confidence in the market can lead to significant
improvements in household well-being.
j) The food security constraint severely lowers household returns, and its ―removal‖
should allow smallholders to produce higher-value crops instead of traditional low-
value staple crops. Over time, these households might adopt improved
technologies and possibly increase their demand for land.
k) HIV/AIDS and other serious illnesses will likely continue to negatively impact
household welfare. Labor reductions lead to less land under cultivation and more
staple foods as a share of total crops. Purchased inputs increase as a share of the
total value of production, indicating some substitution of purchased inputs for
scarce labor.
From the above discussion of results of the smallholder model, and consistent with findings of
many other studies – a major aspect of successful commercial smallholder agriculture in Zambia
is improving the efficiency and intensity of household labor in order to expand the amount of land
under production. In addition, it is important to identify farming systems – farm and off-farm
agricultural (crops and livestock) and non-agricultural activities that are based on a more even
spread of labor throughout the year. Improved efficiency in land preparation using oxen or
tractors and improved water management through conservation and/or irrigation is also needed.
34
II.E. Classification of Rural Households – based on Pinder and Wood (2003)11
Based on the GRZ’s 2000 Post Harvest Survey, there were 830,000 rural households dependent
on agriculture. Assuming an average of between 5-6 people per household, these 830,00
households approximately account for the estimated 4,600,000 rural poor and ultra poor persons
in Zambia.
Pinder and Wood (2003) have classified these 830,000 smallholder households into 3 groups:
1) The very poorest and most vulnerable households who suffer chronic food
insecurity and require long-term social protection and support (200,000 ―sub-
subsistence‖ smallholders)
2) The very poor households that have potential to achieve a poor but sustainable
livelihood, marketing a small surplus viable in a year of a reasonable amount of
rain, with the eventual possibility of joining an outgrower scheme (300,000
‖marginal smallholders‖)
3) The poor households with potential to become, or which have already become
commercially viable small-scale farmers, either joining an outgrower scheme or
marketing their surplus in the domestic market (330,000 ―viable‖ or ―emergent
smalllholders‖. This includes about 30,000 households with 10 hectares or more.
In this classification, Pinder and Wood (2004) estimate that about ¼ of smallholder households
are ―sub-subsistence’ households. In a recent study on the ―incapacitated poor‖ in Zambia,
several estimates were presented, but most were in the range of 15-20% (Milimo and others,
2004). On the other and, they assume that about 35% of smallholders are ―marginal‖ and 45%
are ―viable/emergent‖. Based on all the other evidence presented in this chapter, the estimates
seem high for ―viable/emergent‖ smallholders. So, instead of focusing on the precise distribution
of households in each group, it is important to focus on the characteristics of the respective
households groups knowing that they all represent significant shares of the smallholder
population.
Below are some salient characteristics of each group:
Sub-subsistence Smallholders: smallholder households that are not commercially viable
farmers and are unlikely to ever become so. They represent the most vulnerable social groups.
Ultra poor, often female headed households, or elderly or child headed households, the
chronically sick and/or disabled – with less than sufficient to feed themselves throughout the
year. They are usually far distant from main rail and road routes, occupy the least arable land in
the community, and they have no resources on which to call in event of a ―shock‖ (e.g., drought,
death, sickness). They usually provide seasonal unskilled labor to large farm estates and
outgrowers’ holdings. The term ―farmer‖ might be a misnomer for this group since they are
simply surviving by whatever means they can, frequently as casual laborers on larger farms and
estates, more often on food relief. They are likely to continue to need social protection measures
in the foreseeable future.
11 Pinder, C. and Wood, D. ―The Socio-Economic Impact of Commercial Agriculture on Rural Poor and Other
Vulnerable Groups.‖ Working Document. DFID. February 2003.
35
Marginal Smallholders: smallholder households who could, potentially become self-sufficient
in food and capable of producing a small marketable surplus. Many are bordering on ultra poor,
but they have some resources on which to call – e.g., greater physical strength and better health,
slightly more and better land closer to means of irrigation, some small savings or livestock to use
as collateral for informal or micro-loans. Again, they often reply on obtaining causal work on
larger farms and estates. Some of these households benefit from their location in a more favored
agro-ecological zone and/or better access to roads and markets – which make transactions costs
for both production and consumption lower. Some in this group have failed to participate in an
outgrower scheme or failed while participating in an outgrower scheme, or who do not live in an
area where outgrower schemes exist; they grow for subsistence and the local market, and provide
seasonal labor to the estates and outgrowers.
Viable/Emergent Smallholders smallholder households who are poor but potentially, or already
commercially viable small scale farmers. They often have assets that are used inefficiently
because of conditions such as lack of access to markets because of poor infrastructure, or inability
to raise small loans for investment because they do not hold title to their land. As a result they
are vulnerable to exploitative buyers (e.g, they are unable to store their surplus and are forced to
sell it when prices are low, or they are forced to accept a low price from the only trader who
passes through the area). They have the potential to participate, or may well be participating
already in outgrower schemes, or they are functioning as commercially viable independent small-
scale farmers selling to the domestic market
II.F. Hard to Measure Factors: Culture and Attitudes
There are many ―hard to measure‖ factors that influence the potential for agricultural
commercialization. Most notable, are cultural and attitudinal factors associated with farming.
Many lament the fact that the greatest constraint facing Zambian smallholders is the lack of a
more business oriented approach to farming. Most smallholders view agriculture as a way of life
and not as a business. Other cultural and attitudinal factors affect Zambian smallholders – as
noted in the qualitative studies by Parker and Mwape (2004) and Skonsburg (2003). Culture and
attitudes about farming also linked to locational factors (and historical factors) in much of Zambia
(Francis and other, 1997; Milimo, Shilito and Brock, 2000).
As noted by Chiwele and Sikananu (2004, p.71-2): ―Unfortunately in Zambia, agriculture is
mostly taken as a way of life rather than as a business such that entering into markets is not well
planned for. Helping farmers to take a more commercial approach to their activities is important
and must be deliberately promoted.‖ ―Two elements necessary in commercializing smallholder
agriculture are raising the entrepreneurial skills and reorienting the mindset of small producers
towards markets as well as adopting policy actions that help the markets work for the poor. ―
In Zambia some smallholders have experience with commercial agriculture, but that does not
mean that they are commercial smallholders. Smallholders in Zambia have a history of
dependency on others to carry out the commercial activities associated with agricultural
production while they focus on the productive activities. In many ways, the services that
smallholders receive thorough outgrower schemes are very similar to the services they received in
the past from government-supported programs that provided inputs, markets for outputs, credit
and technical assistance. In both cases there was a lack of development of commercially-oriented
smallholders rather than smallholders engaged in commercial activities.
The reluctance of poor and vulnerable households to invest in new and potentially risky ventures
is well known. Parker and Mwape (2004) note that: ―In this context, the mistrust rural Zambians
36
display toward new crops is based primarily on the difficulties they encounter in identifying
markets for these commodities, and on the wide fluctuation in market prices. These uncertainties
undermine the willingness of smallholders to invest in crops that cannot be stored and eaten if
unsold.‖
Also, with respect to outgrower schemes, Parker and Mwape (2004) note: Although the study did
not find communities that had refused contract farming outright, many said they would engage in
it only as long as it took to achieve a short-term goal such as roofing their house with iron
sheeting. The explanation may lie in the complaints heard from some villagers who had
undertaken these contracts. They feel that the labor required to produce these crops is harder and
more strenuous than that required to produce the preferred crop, maize. They also feel they get
too little payment for the harvested crop, and that they are often cheated. For example, the
payment for a paprika crop is determined by its quality or ―grade.‖ It is the contractor who
judges the grade, however; and there is no incentive for him to assess it as top quality. There is a
conflict of interest, therefore, in this arrangement. Nevertheless, these schemes were generally
described favorably as options that have raised some household incomes.‖
II.G. Summary of Key Points on Profile of Rural Poverty
From the various analyses presented above, there are some common issues about smallholders
that affect their potential for poverty reducing commercialization:
a) In rural areas, there is a remarkable homogeneity of conditions. The vast majority
of rural households are poor in terms of income/consumption poverty measures.
Thus, smallholders tend to be asset-poor and various shades of ―poor‖.
b) Rural households, including those who rank higher in terms of consumption, own
consumption of agricultural production contributes a major share to household
income/consumption.
c) In general, poorer households are constrained by the availability of labor and not
the availability of land. Household well-being is closely correlated to the
availability of household labor.
d) Households without a healthy adult are particularly disadvantaged. The poorest
households are those headed by an elder, child, widow or chronically ill person –
are usually unable to work for others or even to cultivate their own lands
e) There is a lack of human capital – notably entrepreneurial skills, and a lack of
affordable and dependable access to credit and input/output markets.
f) Locational factors such as agro-ecological zone, access to infrastructure and
proximity to population centers have a major influence on livelihoods. Factors
such as culture and attitudes are also important and often associated with locational
factors.
g) There are 3 basic groups of smallholders: 1) sub-subsistence, 2) marginal, and 3)
emergent/viable based on a combination of locational factors and household-
specific assets.
h) There is a need for at least 3 distinct strategies for smallholders households in
different areas of the country that include safety nets, a focus on food security and
natural resource management (e.g., conservation Farming), outgrower schemes and
other market-oriented activities. There is also a need to consider rural labor
37
markets and migration to rural towns and urban centers.
Different spatial and sectoral approaches and strategies are needed to deal with the different types
of rural households, with many requiring social protection and safety nets.
1. The very poorest and most vulnerable households will require long-term social
protection and safety net support. The needs of this group are for free or cheap
farming inputs, for example food relief and PAM, and agricultural and input packs
(fertilizer and seed). Most households in this group are almost certain to need
social protection measures on a long-term basis.
2. The very poor households that have the potential to achieve a poor but sustainable
livelihood, regularly marketing a surplus, with the eventual possibility of joining an
outgrower scheme. The approach to this group should be one of enabling and
supporting them through to a position of food security and viability (possibly
through applying Conservation Farming techniques), eventually capable of
producing a small marketable cash crop in addition to meeting their subsistence
needs. Eventually some may be able to join outgrower schemes. Others will
provide labor to emergent smallholders and/or find employment in rural non-
agricultural activities. Others will out-migrate to rural towns or urban areas.
3. Poor households with potential to become, or which have already become,
commercially viable small-scale farmers, either by joining an outgrower scheme or
marketing their surplus in the domestic market. The approach to this group should
be one of enabling and supporting them through to achieving stronger commercial
viability so that they increases profitability and maintain their viability, and do not
slip back to the previous group. The types of support and enablement they need
will be different to what is needed for the previous group: more support in
developing export market linkages, improved technology and infrastructure that
leads to greater efficiency and lower transaction costs in order to strengthen
comparative advantage. There is a need for pro-active methods to organize these
smallholders and improve their entrepreneurial skills.
II.H. Where and Who are the Potential Beneficiaries of Agricultural Commercialization?
There are different estimates on how many smallholders currently participate in outgrower
schenmes or other forms of contract farming. Some estimates indicate about 150,000-200,000
smallholders participating in cotton, tobacco, paprika, and vegetables. Outgrower schemes have
been rising rapidly and is the channel through which small farmers are participating in export
markets, particularly cotton. It is expected that before 2010, as many as 25% of the small farmers
would be participating in contract farming (Chiwele and Sikananu, 2004). This is then an
estimate of the number of small farmers with links to both input and output markets.
Thus, it seems that about 20-25% of all smallholder households currently participate in outgrower
schemes and there are others who have some past experience or are considering joining. From
the various classifications of rural households presented in this paper, it seems that about 30-40%
were classified as having more potential to be viable commercial smallholders. As pointed out
throughout the paper, it would seem that most of the households participating in outgrower
schemes are located in Agro-ecological Zone II (which is home to almost 40% of rural
households) or in Livelihood Zones 4A (Central Maize-Cotton, 5A Line of Rail Commercial
38
Farming, 5B Eastern Province Cash Crop, 7B Chongwe-Nyimba Plateau, and 13 Mkushi
Commercial Block -- which zones account for about 3,604,00 out of an estimated 9,900,000
Zambians (about 36% of all rural and urban residents).
It is important to note that in discussions about Zone II and the equivalent livelihood zones, we
have not specifically addressed the need to consider the major urban areas of the Copperbelt,
home to about 1.8 million persons (consumers of agriculural products), in a broader spatial rural
development strategy that would include these urban markets that are well-connected by road/rail
infrastructure to the ―line-of’rail‖ high-potential agricultural areas. Also, the Copperbelt urban
areas are linked to markets in neighboring countries.
In any case, below we explore various ways to disaggregate smallholder households. The
suggested next step would be to discuss this issue with stakeholder in Zambia to try and allocate
the estimated number of households to the different groups, using, for example the following
classification schemes(or some other means of grouping smallholder households).
Table II. 11 Stylized Classification of High/Low Potential Areas and Households
Household (HH) Asset Portfolio
High Low
Location-Specific
Assets (agricultural
potential and access to
markets)
High High-High
―High Potential Area/
High Potential HHs‖
High-Low
―High Potential Area/
Low Potential HHs‖
Low Low-High
―Low Potential Area/
High Potential HHs‖
Low-Low
―Low Potential Area/
Low Potential HHs‖
The simple 2x2 typology in table II.11 generates the following classification of households:
HH Type #1: Welfare Cases: smallholders not succeeding as farmers, rural households
not in agriculture,
HH Type #2: Lower Middle Range: food self-sufficient, lack commercial opportunity,
HH Type #3: Higher Middle-Range: food self-sufficient, have commercial potential, and
HH Type #4: Better-off Households: produce surplus food staples, grow cotton and
tobacco
Alternatively, table II.12 classifies households based on the 3x3 classification by agro-
ecological/livelihood zone and household assets:
Table II. 12 Smallholder Households Classified by Agro-Ecological/Livelihood Zone
and Agricultural Potential
ZONE 1
The Poorest (―sub-subsistence‖ The Less Poor (―marginal‖) The Better-Off (viable/emergent‖)
ZONE 2
The Poorest The Less Poor The Better-Off
ZONE 3
The Poorest The Less Poor The Better-Off
TOTAL
The Poorest The Less Poor The Better-Off
39
III. POTENTIAL FOR SMALLHOLDERS MOVING INTO HIGHER VALUE CROP ACTIVITIES AND CONSERVATION FARMING
The major positive innovations in recent years for Zambia’s smallholders have been the move
into higher-value crop activities and conservation farming. Below are some excerpts from Siegel
and Alwang (2005) and Siegel (2005) about the lessons to be learned from these innovations as
they relate to agricultural commercialization.
Traditional smallholder crops in Zambia such as local maize, groundnuts and cotton tend to have
low input costs, but also relatively low returns. Given the lack of dependable input and output
markets and high prices of inputs relative to outputs, the low-input low-return strategy adopted by
many smallholders is an economically rational strategy, especially those located in remote areas.
In most cases, labor and credit constraints dominate land constraints. Suitable farming systems
must be identified depending on location-specific agro-ecological conditions, access to
infrastructure and markets, and household-specific assets.
Crops grown on relatively small landholdings, while contributing to food security and
supplementing household income, can not be expected to make substantial contributions to
poverty reduction. That is, growing rain-fed staple food crops on less than 2 hectares of land can
not create sufficient income for smallholder households to exit poverty. An alternative is clearly
needed. Higher-valued crops might yield higher returns, but also do not necessarily provide
enough income by themselves to reduce poverty much - especially considering when extra labor
and cash requirements needed to obtain higher returns. Since most rural households are labor
constrained and not land constrained, expanding land under cultivation is also an alternative
strategy that should be explored. The majority of smallholders, are risk-averse and firmly
committed to production of staple crops primarily for own-consumption. Due to lack of access to
markets and market price instability, the poor tend to view crop diversification as likely to
increase the vulnerability of their households. Private sector initiatives, particularly outgrower
schemes (and contract farming), have been popular with smallholders when and where they have
been available (mainly in agro-ecological Zone II).
Outgrower schemes can offer a solution to the problems of securing inputs (including credit) and
market access. At least for some crops in some areas and for some types of producers. A recent
report by DFID concludes that: ―Outgrower schemes could never cover the main food and
industrial grain, legume, and oil seed crops on a large scale, and so are often not relevant for the
large mass of poorer smallholders. Despite the many exciting trends in this area, it must be
remembered that the poorest producers face such daunting livelihood challenges that they will be
unable and unwilling to participate in the higher risk, specialized, input-intensive technologies
required for much cash crop production (DFID, 2002, p.18).‖ Furthermore, most outgrower
schemes are limited to more favorable agro-ecological regions with good access to roads and
airports. ―For example, Zambia’s largest horticultural exporter Agriflora is only able to take on
outgrowers within a 50 km radius of its Lusaka operations (DFID, 2002, p.14).‖12
III.A. Higher Value Agricultural Activities
Most traditional smallholder crops, such as local maize, groundnuts and cotton, might have low
input costs, but they also have relatively low returns to labor. The smallholder models by Siegel
12 Agriflora recently went out of business, the Zambia Export Growers Association (ZEGA) is assisting the smallholder
outgrowers establish alternative contractual arrangements.
40
and Alwang (2004) indicate net returns of $0.29 per person per day with hand-hoe technologies
and $1.06 per person per day with oxen technology, Likewise, detailed financial analyses of
returns to different smallholder crops by Keyser (2002) indicate very low returns to labor.
Budgets from Keyser (2002) for commercially oriented emergent and large-scale farmers show
higher returns, but initial investments and the operating costs for such enterprises require
substantial outlays. Higher-value crops like paprika and tobacco have higher cash input and labor
demands. Furthermore, many crops experienced stagnant or falling prices from the mid 1990s,
while input costs tended to rise. In any case, returns to labor have remained low and in many
cases declined, even in cases where there might have been improvements in yields. High cash
and labor requirements are a major constraint for smallholders.
Paprika is an example of a non-traditional higher value crop. It was first introduced into Zambia
in the early 1990s and quickly developed as a smallholder crop and important agricultural export.
Development of this sector was only possible due to investment decisions made by a few
entrepreneurs. These entrepreneurs identified a specific market potential and made long-term
investments to sustain their operations. This has required substantial investments in farmer
extension, input supply, marketing support, laboratory equipment, processing facilities,
construction of rural depots and negotiation with potential buyers around the world. Opportunities
in other areas exist, but success still depends on individual entrepreneurs who are willing to
respond to market signals and accept the risk and high cost of investing in new areas (Keyser,
Helsop, Abel, 1999, p. 39-40). Producers have experienced declining returns to labor despite
improvements in average yields. These are not good omens for increasing paprika production.
Keyser (2002) and Mwape (2003) claim that commercial agricultural producers in Zambia can
attain higher yields than small-scale producers. Higher returns per hectare, combined with the
fact that these returns are spread over more hectares demonstrate that small-scle farming can be a
profitable enterprise. Attainment of ―commercial‖ status requires knowledge of advanced
farming techniques and business and financial management skills. Financial barriers to entry can
be daunting, and the combination of huge outlays, the need to spread investments over large land
areas and the technical skill required to produce and market at a commercial level creates a
substantial barrier to entry into commercial farming. Even a smaller-scale commercial maize
farmer requires substantial financial resources: a basic, small-scale commercial farmer with a
single 60-horsepower tractor and basic cultivation implements (plows, harrows, cultivators,
fertilizer spreader and maize sheller) would incur more than $100,000 in fixed investments. ―The
realistic potential for poor people to diversify out of maize must be put in the context with the
discussion above – in terms of access to the necessary marketing and service infrastructure,
appropriate soil and ecological conditions and the potential for irrigation (DFID, 2002, p.14).‖
The rapid increase in cassava production, especially replacing maize in Northern and Western
Provinces is an example of adoption of a low-value staple food crop primarily for home
consumption. However, cassava has some potential to be a higher value crop if drying and
processing and marketing can be improved (Haggblade and Zulu, 2003). Dried and processed
cassava can also be used by smallholders as livestock feed in an integrated crop-livestock farming
system. ―Yet, considerable resources and efforts will still be required to master cassava
processing and marketing in (Malawi and) Zambia. And without such efforts, the cassava boom
will stall (Haggblade and Zulu, 2003, p.18).‖
41
III.B Conservation Farming
Conservation farming (CF) in Zambia is a locally adopted variant of traditional minimum tillage
technologies adopted in many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa (Haggblade and Tembo, 2003). CF
has gained popularity in the 1990s in response to market liberalization and the perceived needs to
increase fertilizer efficiency, better conserve and manage water resources, increase productivity,
and also to spread labor more evenly over the year. As applied in Zambia, CT involves a package
of several key practices: dry-season land preparation using minimum tillage (rather than plowing
after the first rains), crop residue retention (instead of burning), seed and fertilizer application in
fixed planting stations (rather than spreading), and nitrogen fixing crop rotations and fallows
(rather than continuous production of crops such as maize and cotton). CF technologies and
implements have been developed for hand-hoe and oxen land preparation. Minimum tillage is not
synonymous with ―low-input‖ agricultural production. In many cases there is need for increased
labor and outlays on improved seeds and fertilizers. This is a reason behind the fact that the
highest adoption rates of CF in Zambia have actually been by commercial and emergent farmers.
In 1998, MACO officially formally accepted CF as an official policy of GRZ, and increased
promotion efforts. One of the emerging ―success stories‖ has been the adoption of CF by many
smallholder cotton producers participating in the outgrower ―Dunavant Distributor System‖. In
fact, there is evidence that ―CF farmers often receive extra extension support as well as input
packages of high-yielding variety (HYV) seeds and fertilizers to which most conventional
farmers have not had access in the decade and a half following the collapse of Zambia’s input
supply and credit systems. Even under conventional tillage, higher fertilizer and HYV seed use
will increase output (Haggblade and Tembo, 2003, p.3).‖ Thus, it has been difficult to assess the
impacts of changes in tillage practices alone versus the package of different tillage practices and
use of improved inputs and increased input use.
A recent review of CF in Zambia (see Haggblade and Tembo, 2003) notes that it is hard to
estimate the number of smallholders that have adopted CF, because many adopt some
components and not others. Haggeblade and Tembo (2003, p.80) estimate that ―between 20,000
and 75,000 Zambian farmers currently benefit from increased yield and incomes under
conservation farming.‖ Although some donors and NGOs advocate conservation tillage, more
research is needed on the economics of conservation tillage, especially information on labor and
cash flows. More research is also needed into intra-household effects of adopting conservation
tillage technology, given the different labor demands (in terms of their timing and types of tasks)
for land preparation (that is generally carried out by males) and for other field operations that are
often carried out by women and children (Copesake, 1997, p.31). Thus, more information is
needed about conservation farming to assess its benefits and costs in the smallholder household
farming system.
III.C. General Observations
Smallholder agriculture has some potential in Zambia, but faces major constraints. A key priority
to benefit poor producers should be labor-saving technologies and better-functioning input and
output markets. Access to credit is also important because movement to higher-productivity
farming systems usually requires increased investments in inputs and working capital. Capacity
building and extension services are also critical. Remoteness is a problem that can be overcome
through investments in infrastructure, but complementary assets are lacking in low-productivity
remote areas. Deeply rooted Structural problems further exacerbate the problem. Issues such as
land reform, liberalization of fertilizer markets, and improving infrastructure need to be part of a
broader rural development strategy. The rural poor do not lack land, but the other complementary
42
productive resources that would allow them to respond to policies and investments that are aimed
at stimulating agricultural growth. Recent innovations in contract farming and conservation
farming for smallholders point to the potential when a more holistic technology-technical
assistance-credit-marketing approach is adopted. Improved transportation, communication and
storage infrastructure are all needed to assure timely access and minimal transaction costs for
inputs and outputs. Aggregated smallholder activities, to reap economies of scale, lower
transaction costs and improve bargaining power with the private sector are also critical; including
formation of cooperatives, and participation in outgrower schemes.
There is a need for appropriate technologies and farming systems that are suited to diverse agro-
ecological conditions, with technological innovations to increase labor productivity, and that are
financially and ecologically sustainable, To help smallholders, it is important that research and
extension also address natural resource management issues (e.g., environmental sustainability),
and to also provide technical assistance about prices, markets and business practices so that
smallholders can better participate in domestic and international markets. It is also important for
research and extension to provide technical assistance with respect to food consumption (e.g.,
nutrition, food preparation, improving energy efficiency and lowering pollution for cooking), and
activities linked agricultural activities (e.g., activities involved in input and output supply), and
non-agricultural activities (e.g., crafts and small enterprises).
Considering the potential for higher-value crops and conservation farming, Siegel and Alwang
(2004, p.30) conclude: ―… many smallholders are trapped in a ―low-level equilibrium.‖ Breaking
out of this trap will require adopting new technologies and cropping patterns, relatively large
investments in fixed assets and working capital. Additional modeling of smallholder adoption of
technologies, and subsequent returns from adoption would be beneficial. This line of research
will be more fruitful than focusing on how smallholders can survive using existing technologies
and cropping patterns. More research needs to be carried out to investigate the economics of
adopting higher value crops and/or for the adoption of conservation farming for staple and higher
value crops. There is a need to explicitly incorporate risks (e.g., climate and price risks) into the
modeling of smallholder agriculture and to better understand how the existence or absence of
risks and risk management instruments impact the transformation from subsistence-oriented
smallholders to market-oriented emergent farmers.‖
A critical issue that needs to be raised in any discussion on the future of Zambian agriculture is if
and how to exploit the vast potential for irrigation. The potential for expanding irrigation in areas
where it exists and introducing it to other areas needs much mote attention. Chiwele and Sikananu
(2004) devote a lot of attention to irrigation potential and how it can help different types of
smallholders in different areas achieve improved food security, crop and livestock diversification
and more intensive commercial agriculture.
More realistic expectations about the possbilities for smallholder transformation are needed. As
Whiteside (1998, p.1) noted: ―Donors and governments need to recognize that to achieve
sustainable increases in agricultural productivity will take decades, not years.‖ Improved
research and extension based on the assets held by smallholders and the new policy regime are
needed, including a ―basket of choices‖ that consider smallholder farming systems and off-farm
opportunities. Investments in transport and communication infrastructure can help lower
transaction costs.
There is a need for a more comprehensive and holistic approach to rural development, not just an
agricultural or commodity-specific strategy. What is really needed is a regional approach to rural
development, on that also considers the role of urban centers and secondary towns. As noted by
43
Chiwele and Sikananu (2004, p.68):―Zambia may need to learn from other countries on putting
up ―growth centers‖ … These centers would be provided with the vital infrastructure useful in
linking rural areas to the larger world. This strategy recognizes that although vital infrastructure
may not be taken at the doorstep of each and every smallholder, at least the distance to it can be
drastically reduced.‖
Despite the need for a more holistic approach to rural development, it is important to consider: a)
the limited implementation capacity of government and a lack of resources; (b) local government
decentralization in Zambia has still not been institutionalized.
IV. IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL BENEFICIARIES FROM AGRICULTURAL COMMERCIALIZATION IN ZAMBIA
A recent assessment of potential ―winners‖ and ―losers‖ from agricultural commercialization in
Zambia (by Pinder and Wood, 2003) reveals an important split among those referred to as ―small
and emergent farmers that are located in high potential areas or demarcated farm blocks and those
that are ―not located in high potential areas or demarcated farm blocks. The later are classified as
―potential losers‖ along with the ―poorest and most vulnerable households‖ (located in all areas) .
See table IV.1. Domestic and foreign consumers are also ―potential winners.‖ Pinder and Wood
(2003) note highlight a concern that expected investments in infrastructure will bypass those in
less favored areas.
Table IV. 1 Potential Winners and Losers from GRZ’s Agricultural
Commercialization Policies
Potential Winners Potential Losers Mixed Impact
Foreign owned estates producing
for European markets
Poorest and most vulnerable
households
Agricultural traders and suppliers
of services
Small and emergent farmers that
are located in high potential areas
or demarcated farm blocks
Small and emergent farmers that
are not located in high potential
areas or demarcated farm blocks
Domestic and overseas consumers
Source: Pinder and Wood (2003), Appendix E: Social Impact Analysis and Primary Stakeholder Analysis
The focus of this paper is the potential well-being of the ―poorest and most vulnerable
households‖ and ―small and emergent farmers‖. So, to briefly comment on the other specified
potential ―winners‖, ―losers‖ and ―mixed impacts‖. Foreign-owned estates producing for export
are potential winners and crucial for the success of agricultural commercialization. Domestic
consumers should definitely benefit from agricultural commercialization. Many poor households
will benefit from lower food prices and greater choice and also through labor linkages as labor in
agriculture or linked agricultural and non-agricultural activities. The mixed impact for traders
and suppliers is most probably correct, and certainly deserves more thought..
In this paper we have identified a group of livelihood zones that seem to correspond to the
―higher-potential areas‖. Throughout the paper it was emphasized that the area most like to
benefit from agricultural commercialization is located in Agro-ecological Zone II, and more
precisely in livelihood zones: We have identified these areas as:
Agro-ecological Zone II: Average yields vary substantially among provinces. In general, yields
are higher in Zone II for most crops and conditions for livestock production are also more
favorable. Higher yields are due to more favorable agro-ecological conditions and the fact that
44
much of this zone is located along the ―line-of-rail‖ which allows for greater access to input and
output markets. Smallholder households in this area tend to have better access to infrastructure,
higher use of inputs, and a higher share of medium- and large-sized commercial farms using
improved technologies. The existence of medium- and larger-commercial farms in the area is
beneficial to smallholders through labor linkages and the existence of outgrower schemes, and
also through demonstration effects. This is important with respect to Zones I and III, which are
characterized by a virtual absence of medium- and larger-commercial farm
―Dynamic‖ Livelihood Zones. The livelihood zones most associated with a higher prevalence of
commercial smallholder agricultural activities (and large-scale commercial farmers) are
livelihood zones 4A (Central Maize-Cotton, 5A Line of Rail Commercial Farming, 5B Eastern
Province Cash Crop, 7B Chongwe-Nyimba Plateau, and 13 Mkushi Commercial Block. In
general, these livelihood zones coincide to: a) Agro-Ecological Zone II, and b) the ―line-of-rail‖
road and market infrastructure, Together these zones account for about 3,604,00 out of an
estimated 9,900,000 Zambians (about 36% of all rural and urban residents). The combination of
small and large commercial farmers, relatively good agro-ecological and infrastructure
conditions, and the proximity to major urban markets make this the most ―dynamic‖ agricultural
area in Zambia at the present time.
The broader regional economy is also important to consider, and a regional approach (that
includes urban centres and secodary towns) is needed to plan major road and communication
infrastructure. It is important to note that in discussions about Zone II and the equivalent
livelihood zones, we have not specifically addressed the need to consider the proximity to major
urban areas of the Copperbelt, home to about 1.8 million persons (consumers of agriculural
products), in a broader spatial rural development strategy that would include these urban markets
that are well-connected by road/rail infrastructure to the ―line-of’rail‖ high-potential agricultural
areas. Also, the Copperbelt urban areas are linked to markets in neighboring countries.
Together the Copperbelt-Lusaka-Livingstone ―line-of-rail‖ and including a connection to Eastern
Province, the rural and urban households represent about ½ of smallholder households and more
than 80% and urban residents. So, rural and urban households in this this area should benefit
from agricultural commercialization as producers and consumers. As we have noted,
smallholder households are heterogeneous and only some seem positiooned to benefit from
agricultural commercialization. Most rural Zambian households are a ―shade of poor‖, and even
―better-off‖ households are poor. Furthermore the really wealthy households were not found to be
residing in the rural villages. Thus, rural elites were not found controlling local resources or
denying them to the poor and powerless. Instead, a generalized condition of economic
uncertainty and material scarcity prevails in the villages. A type of social and economic
egalitarianism ―collective poverty‖ characterizes these rural communities.
According to a recent study that was carried out in 18 communities over all three agro-ecological
zones, fewer than 10 of the 30 households categorized in a wealth ranking exercise were assigned
to the ―better off‖ group. In some villages of Zone I, only 2-3 households were classifiied as
―better off.‖ The better off households usually own cattle and ―luxury goods‖ such as radios and
bicycles. They live in homes built of burnt brick and roofed with corrugated iron. The better-off
households are food secure and can eat as many as three meals a day. They are able to educate
their children through secondary school, since they can afford school fees, uniforms, and
transport (or occasionally boarding fees). Better-off households possess agricultural livelihoods
(and maybe some other livelihood activities) that are more reliable than those of the moderately
poor and very poor. They have ploughs and draft animals, or in Zone II, maybe even a tractor.
They are thus able to cultivate a larger area (at least 2 ha but mostly greater than 5 ha) . Since
45
households in this category can afford to buy inputs, they produce enough maize to fill a granary
and often can sell surplus produce. Many participate in outgrower schemes and/or have
participated in the past. Most were dependent on government provided inputs, credit, markets
and technical assistance in the past. They often operate a small shop in the village, and they sell
or trade produce, fish, etc. outside the village. Although a few moderately poor households may
hire ganyu labor, it is the better off who usually employ members of other households to assist
with planting, weeding and harvesting. These relationships generally do not develop into long-
standing patron-client relationships, as they are usually ad hoc and temporary. These relatively
wealthier villagers do not, therefore, constitute a reliable source of credit, employment or
emergency assistance to the families they have employed. However, this does indicate the
existence of labor and credit linkages that can expand over time as the household succeeds.
Wealthy households were actually not found to be residing in the rural villages.
The big question is what share of smallholder households in the Agro-ecological Zone
II/Commercial Livelihood Zone are ―better-off‖ and able to benefit from agricultural
commercialization? And, also to identify smallholders who are ―marginal‖ and would benefit
from Conservation Farming and expanded irrigation to focus on food security concerns and to
produce a surplus. Over time they could become more commercially oriented. Then there is the
―sub-subsistence‖ or ―welfare‖ group that requires social protection and does not have the
physical ability to farm. But they can benefit as consumers and as workers in agricultural
processing or other post-harvest activities, or agro-industrial activites.
A wealth breakdown in several rural communities in 4 different livelihood zones. The following
range of wealth breakdowns was found in the selected communities (they vary somewhat among
the respective zones, hence the ranges):
Poor and Very Poor Households: 40-60%
Middle Households: 20-30%
Better-off Households: 10-20%
This indicates about 1/2 of rural households are considered poor or very poor in the respective
livelihood zones. In general all of the poor and very poor households cultivated less than 1 ha of
food staple crops and possibly had some chickens. The middle and better-off households tended
to cultivate more than 2 ha and land and engage in both food and cash crops and grow enough
staple foods for own-consumption, and also have (small and large) livestock. Another proposed
breakdown of smallholder households by Pinder and Wood (2003) is:
―Sub-subsistence smallholders‖ 200,000 households (24%)
―Marginal Smallholders‖ 300,000 households (36%)
―Viable/Emergent smallholders‖ 330,000 households (40%)
There is evidence that close to 25% of Zambian smallholders are currently participating in
outgrower schemes maybe another 5-10% practicing Conservation Farming (CF). These
―innovators‖ are mostly to found in Agro-ecological Zone II in the ―dynamic‖ livelihood zones.
In some cases, smallholders are participating in outgrower schemes and are also practicing CF.
So, these households would seem to be the primary producer beneficiaries from agricultural
commercialization. Of this 30% (+/-) of Zambian smallholder households some can be expected
to succeed as ―commercial farmers‖ over time. Possibly some ―marginal smallholder‖
households can also benefit as producers and as laborers for the commercial smallholders or
having other part-time incomes to complement agricultural production primarily for home
consumption. This labor-linkage is important. Also, there will probably be many smallholder
46
households that straddle between commercial and semi-commercial agricultural production.
These ―marginal smallholders‖ would produce primarily for own-consumption and mostly live in
remote areas or where transport costs make food staples relatively expensive to purchase.
―marginal smallholders‖ in higher potential areas have greater potential to transform into
commercial farmers. So they are potential ―winners‖.
However, unlike Pinder and Wood (2003), a negative impact on ―marginal smallholders‖ in lower
potential areas should not be expected. They are really potential ―winners‖ as producers and
consumers. The ―ultra-poor‖ should not be expected to be ―tillers of the soil‖. There is a
relatively high share of ―sub-subsistence‖ smallholders who are ―incapacitated poor‖ consisting
of elderly, crippled, infirm, orphans, HIV positive. These households require social protection
and should benefit from agricultural commercialization as consumers and as the social safety net
gets a boost from higher incomes of other rural households. Pro-active efforts need to be made
to guarantee that the design of programs supporting agricultural commercialization also benefit
the ―marginal‖ and ―sub-subsistence‖ smallholder households.
V. CONCLUDING COMMENTS
The objective of this paper is to help contribute to efforts to identify where and who are the
Zambian smallholders that have the highest potential to benefit from agricultural
commercialization and to identify other groups of rural households that require alternative
strategies for poverty reduction. This paper draws on the existing literature (both quantitative and
qualitative analyses) to try and classify higher and lower potential households based on different
factors. As such, this paper should be viewed as the beginning of a process to better identify the
different potential of different households to help policymakers design differentiated policies and
investment strategies that can be targeted based in these differences.
47
REFERENCES
Alwang, J. and P.B. Siegel (1994) ―Zambia Poverty Assessment, Volume III: Rural Poverty
Assessment,‖ Report No. 12985-ZA. Southern Africa Department, The World Bank,
Washington, D.C.
Alwang, J., P.B. Siegel and S. Jorgensen. ―Seeking Guidelines for Poverty Reduction Policies for
Zambia,‖ World Development. Volume 24, No. 11, pp. 1711-1723. November 1996.
Chiwele, D.K and R. Sikananu (2004) ―Agriculture Development and Food Security in Sub-
Saharan Africa: Builing a Case for More Support, A Case Study for Zambia.‖ Submitted to FAO,
Agriculture Policy Analysis Unit. September.
Copestake, J.G. (1997) ―Encouraging Sustainable Smallholder Agriculture in Zambia.‖
Agricultural Services Reform in Southern Africa Report R6452CA. Centre for Development
Studies, University of Bath.
C-SAFE (2003) ―Zambia Baseline Survey: Report of Findings.‖ Prepared by TANGO
International, Inc. In Collaboration with C-SAFE M&E Team. Lusaka.
DFID (2002) ―An Assessment of Trends in the Zambian Agricultural Sector.‖ Report prepared by
IDL . Somerset, UK.
Francis, P.A., J.T. Milimo, G.A. Njobvu, and S.P.M. Tembo (1997) ―Listening to Farmers:
Participatory Assessment of Policy Reform in Zambia’s Agriculture Sector.‖ The World Bank:
Washington, D.C.
Haggblade, S. and G. Tembo (2003) ―Conservation Framing in Zambia.‖ EPTD Discussion Paper
No. 108. International Food and Policy Research Institute (IFPRI): Washington, D.C.
see www. ifpri.org
Haggblade, S. and B. Zulu (2003) ―The Recent Cassava Surge in Zambia and Malawi.‖ Paper
presented at the WeNT, NEPAD, CTA Conference ―Successes in African Agriculture‖,
December 1-3, Pretoria.
Keyser, J.C. (2002) ―Zambia Financial Crop Models: Comparison of 1994-5 and 2001-2 Seasons
and Zimbabwe 2000-02 Seasons.‖ Report prepared for The World Bank: Washington, D.C.
mimeo.
Keyser, J.C., T. Helsop, and J. Abel (2001) ―Trade and Investment Opportunities in Agriculture.‖
Prepared for USAID Zambia Trade and Investment Enhancement Project (ZAMTIE) under
contract # 690-C-00-00-00283-00. Lusaka.
McPherson, M. (2004) ―The Role of Agriculture and Mining in Sustainable Growth and
Development in Zambia.‖ In Promoting and Sustaining Economic Reform in Zambia. Edited by
C.B. Hill and M. McPherson, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
48
Milimo, J.T., T. Shilito, and K. Brock (2000) ―The Poor of Zambia Speak.‖ Published by the
Zambia Social Investment Fund. Lusaka.
Milimo and others (2004) ―Incapacitated Poor Persons in Zambia: Report on a Study by
Participatory Assessment Group and Public Welfare Assistance Scheme‖. GTZ Social Safety Net
Project. Lusaka.
Mwape, F. (2003) ―Rural Household Models in Zambia‖. Consultant Report prepared for Social
Development Department. The World Bank: Washington, D.C. mimeo.
Parker, B. and F. Mwape (2004). ―Rural Poverty and Vulnerability in Zambia, 2004: A
Qualitative Study.‖ Paper prepared for DFID and The World Bank, Social Protection Unit.
mimeo.
Pinder, C. and Wood, D. (2003) ―The Socio-Economic Impact of Commercial Agriculture on
Rural Poor and Other Vulnerable Groups.‖ Working Document. DFID: London.
Siegel, P.B. (2005) Poverty Reducing Potential of Smallholder Agriculture in Zambia: Dualism
and Dualism within the Dualism.‖ Prepared for The World Bank Social Protection Unit as a
background paper for the Zambia Poverty and Vulnerability Assessment. February. Mimeo.
Siegel, P.B. and J. Alwang (2005) Poverty Reducing Potential of Smallholder Agriculture in
Zambia: Opportunities and Constraints.‖ Africa Region Working Paper Series, Number 85. The
World Bank. Washington, D.C. http://worldbank.org/afr/wps/index.htm
Skjonsberg, E. (2003) ―A Report on 25 Years of Rural Change in Kefa Village, Eastern Province,
Zambia.‖ Background Report for Zambia PSIA. Prepared for Social Development Department.
The World Bank: Washington, D.C. mimeo.
World Bank (2002) ―Zambia: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper and Joint Staff Assessment.‖
Report No. 24035-ZA. The World Bank: Washington, D.C.
World Bank (2004) ―Zambia Country Economic Memorandum: Policies for Growth and
Diversification.‖ Report No. 28069-ZA. Washington, D.C.
World Bank (2005)13
―Zambia: Poverty and Vulnerability Assessment.‖ Report No. 32573-ZM.
Draft. Washington, D.C. June 29, 2005. http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001457/index.php
Zambia (2004) ―Zambia Livelihood Map Rezoning and Baseline Profiling.‖ Final Report by the
Zambia Vulnerability Assessment Committee. October. Lusaka.
http://www.fews.net/livelihoods/files/zm/profiling.pdf
http://www.fews.net/livelihood/zm/Baseline.pdf
13 The final version is:
World Bank (2007) ―Zambia: Poverty and Vulnerability Assessment.‖ Report No. 32573-ZM.
Washington, D.C. August 20, 2007.
49
ANNEX
Description of livelihood Zones
Central Maize-Cotton Zone (Zone 4A): This is mostly Mumbwa District. Maize and cotton
growing is widespread. Game meat is very common. This area is not prone to drought as rainfall
is normally adequate and has moderate access to the market.
Line-of-Rail Commercial (Zone 5A): The main characteristics in this zone are the growth of
rainfed and irrigated crops. The soils are good and a lot of different crops are grown. Access to
agro inputs is good because of the proximity to towns. Access to markets is fairly good. In the
south west part of the zone where road infrastructure and the general terrain is poor (Kafue River
flat plains), fishing and game form the major sources of food and income. However the north-
eastern parts of the zone is characterised by commercial production of maize, cotton, tobacco,
sugarcane and grain legumes. The area has good infrastructure, thereby promoting trade. The
population is large and livestock diseases are common harzards. Lately the area has been prone to
drought. Deforestation is prominent due to charcoal sales and curing of tobacco.
Eastern Province Cash Crop (Zone 5B): Rainfall is high and the soils are fertile in this
livelihood zone, which is favourable for crop production (Cotton, Tobacco, Maize and
Groundnuts). Except around the main towns (especially Chipata), the area is sparsely populated.
Growth of food and cash crops (cotton, tobacco and groundnuts) is another characteristic. The
main sources of income are sale of crops, trading and wages.
Chongwe-Nyimba Plateau Zone 7B): Compared to many other parts of the country, the
Chongwe- Nyimba Plateau has good access to markets and is highly productive in terms of crops
and livestock. This livelihood zone is serviced by an all weather road, the Great East Road,
which leads to Chipata, the provincial capital. Normal rainfall is about 800 mm per year. The
Plateau is a smallholder farming zone, with maize produced as the staple crop, sweet potatoes and
pumpkins as supplements, and groundnuts as a component of both relish and snacks. Contract
farming of cotton has become the most important cash crop followed by localized production of
cassava. Goats are the main livestock reared, though cattle and pigs are also kept. In a year of
average production, farmers in the Chongwe-Nyimba Plateau produce a surplus of maize.
However, due to the poor feeder road infrastructure, households have difficulties accessing the
main markets to sell their crops and livestock at economic prices.
Mkushi Commercial Block (Zone 13): This livelihood zone has fertile land and receives
rainfall of 800-1000 mm per year, which makes it a high potential area for both crop and
livestock production. It is predominantly a commercial farming area, with large-scale farming
conducted by both local farmers and settlers from outside the country (especially South Africans
and Zimbabweans). The major crops grown are maize, wheat and tobacco, while the main
livestock raised are cattle. Despite the long distance to the major markets in Lusaka and
Copperbelt the infrastructure is quite good and this zone is a major source of tomatoes, bananas
and potatoes for Lusaka and Copperbelt Provinces. The local people around this commercial
farming area provide the main source of labour.
Northwest High Rainfall (Zone 1A): This livelihood zone is characterised by high rainfall and
is covered with dense rain forests. Forest products are important sources of food and income,
50
particularly game, timber and honey. The area was once the leading producer of pineapples in the
country, but production has declined since the closure of the processing plant in the late 1990s.
The zone is mostly rural and is sparsely populated.
Tuta-Luapula Corridor (Zone 1B): This livelihood zone receives rainfall of over 1200 mm per
year and lies at a low altitude. Since it lies on the border with Democratic Republic of the Congo,
there is a high level of cross-border trade. The zone is densely populated and the economy is
based on fishing and cassava production. The infrastructure to markets is average.
Copperbelt Mining (2A): This zone is highly urbanised, with wage employment (in mining,
manufacturing, banking, etc) and trading representing the main livelihood options for most
people. Staple food production is minimal. Copper mining is the main economic activity in the
zone, although due to the recent sale of mines, a number of people have been retrenched and have
migrated to other zones however new buyers of the mines are increasing operations in the
southern and eastern parts of the zone. Already a major copper mine, Kansenshi, has started
operating in the eastern part (around Solwezi district) while there are scaled up activities with
gemstone mining in the area around Mkushi district. Apart from mining other common livelihood
activities are charcoal burning and game, the zone has relatively good infrastructure.
Northern Province Plateau (Zone 2B): This livelihood zone covers a large part of Luapula and
Northern Provinces. It is sparsely populated and the soils are relatively fertile. Rainfall is well
above 1200 mm per year. Livelihoods are based on subsistence cultivation, limited livestock
keeping and trading in agricultural products. The infrastructure is poor in terms of road network.
The main chronic problems are crop pests and livestock disease. The major sources of income are
cross border trade with Tanzania, charcoal sales and wages.
Mufumbwe-Kasempa Zone (3A): This zone is self-sufficient in food production and is sparsely
populated. It has a good road network and rail system, except for Lufwanyama, Mufumbwe and
Kesempa districts in the western part. It is also a major forest reserve and is crossed by two
national parks. Timber, honey and game are the major sources of livelihood. In the eastern part
of the zone, there has been increased demand for land for agricultural purposes from retrenched,
retired and unemployed people. There are moderate numbers of commercial farms in the zone,
mostly growing maize, coffee and soya beans.
Muchinga Escarpment (Zone 3B)
This zone is moderately populated, the soils are relatively fertile and production of maize is a
common livelihood. The zone has the potential to grow into a major commercial agricultural
producing area as more area is being opened up in the form of farming blocks. The zone is close
to the Great North Road and Tazara Railway line, which links Tanzania and Zambia. As such,
significant petty trading in assorted merchandize takes place along the main road and railway.
Chama-Lundazi Rice Zone (Zone 4B): This zone mostly covers Chama and Lundazi Districts,
and includes a small area in Mambwe District. Small-scale farming is prominent in most of the
zone. Illegal hunting (poaching) is being done. Petty trade and rice production is prevalent in all
areas. Tourism in the zone is very active with good (efficient) air travel and several lodges which
provide jobs to locals too. The area is prone to droughts and floods. Casual labour is widely used
as a coping strategy.
Sioma Plain (Zone 6): This zone is a cropping (maize and cassava) and cattle rearing zone.
Incomes for most households come from limited crop and livestock sales and to some extent
51
timber sales. Cattle also provide manure, draught power and milk. Market channels are moderate
to difficult mainly because of poor infrastructure. Cattle are mainly sold through local butcheries
and main abattoirs by farmers and traders. Maize and cassava is purchased from the local market.
Kazungula-Mwandi Plain (Zone 7A): This livelihood zone has a generally semi-arid climate,
with periodic drought and flooding (especially in the valleys). The main economic activities
include crop and livestock production, formal employment, trading, curios (related to tourism),
fishing and sale of wild fruits. With the mushrooming of lodges/hotels along the Zambezi River
shores, employment opportunities for local people and even for people from outside the zone has
increased. Prostitution is common in high-risk areas such as Livingstone, Sesheke and other
border areas and is a means of earning an income. The road infrastructure of late has improved
with the completion of an all-weather road from Livingstone to Sesheke. A modern bridge across
the Zambezi River connecting Zambia (Sesheke) and Namibia has also been completed and is
likely to influence the livelihoods of most communities in terms of cross border trading, labour
based migration, and prostitution.
Luano Valley (Zone 7C): This zone covers the southern parts of Mkushi and Chibombo
Districts. Small-scale farmers occupy this area. The main crops grown are maize, tobacco,
cotton, cassava, and vegetables. The main livestock kept include cattle, goats, poultry and pigs.
The infrastructure in the zone is relatively good in some areas, providing access to markets on the
Great North Road, including Kabwe and Lusaka. However, in areas near the Luano valley, roads
are impassable and households there are constantly in need of food aid which is usually air lifted.
Crop pests and livestock diseases are the main hazards experienced in the area.
Mulobezi Woodlands (Zone 9): The zone receives little rainfall with plenty of Kalahari sands
which are generally infertile soils. It is sparsely populated, with the population concentrated
around the few fertile areas. Livelihood patterns are largely subsistence oriented. The zone has a
weak road network and market access is poor. The zone has plenty of forests which are major
sources of timber. Timber is sold to major towns within Zambia. In the 1990s, the business in
timber lead to establishment of some saw mills and a rail line, which provided major sources of
income. The saw mills and railway lines are currently undergoing privatization and activities have
temporarily slowed down. The major subsistence crop grown is maize, while the major livestock
are cattle and goats.
Zambezi West Bank (Zone 10A): The zone is sparsely populated, with a poor road network. It
is connected to the country by a pontoon on the Zambezi River and in times of high rainfall it is
inaccessible. There is limited electricity supply and telephone facilities in the area.. The main
crops are cassava, maize and sweet potatoes. The main types of livestock kept by households are
cattle, goats and poultry. Unskilled casual labour and petty trade are the main income sources for
poor households.
The zone has less developed infrastructure in terms of schools, agricultural, medical facilities, etc.
Moderate trade takes place with Angola in small livestock and fishing is common. Households in
this zone barter fish for maize with adjacent zones. The major crop is cassava
Zambezi East (Zone 10B): The zone is sparsely populated, with a poor road network, and is
dependent on thermal power for electricity. The main crops are cassava, maize, and sweet
potatoes. The main types of livestock kept by households are goats, cattle and poultry. Unskilled
casual labour and petty trade are the main income sources for poor households. The zone has well
developed social and economic infrastructure. The zone is also the major source of maize
consumed or traded in Zambezi West Bank (Zone 10A).
52
Gwembe Valley (Zone 11A): This livelihood zone is populated by Tonga people who were
displaced from the area that is now covered by Lake Kariba when the Kariba Dam was built in
the 1960s. Due to its relatively low altitude, the climate is mostly hot and dry, with average
rainfall of about 600-700 mm per year. The livelihood pattern in this zone is one of small-scale
subsistence agriculture and livestock rearing. The main food crops cultivated are sorghum, millet
and maize. These are grown for household consumption with only a little local trade within the
zone and no exports outside the zone. Cotton is the main cash crop and vegetable cultivation is
an income source for some households during the dry season. The main livestock kept are cattle,
goats and chickens and these are important income sources at household level. Cattle are also
essential for ploughing. The Gwembe Valley is prone to weather extremes where both droughts
and floods are regular problems.
Lake Kariba Fishing (Zone 11B): This is a small livelihood zone that borders Lake Kariba in
Southern Province. The population lives in small fishing camps and includes migrants from other
provinces. Fishing on the lake is the dominant economic activity, but very small-scale crop
production and livestock keeping is also practiced. The zone has a large concentration of
commercial fishing companies such as crocodile farms and kapenta (small fish) trade. This
activity is a major source of income for some households. The zone is also a major tourist
destination and has several lodges along the lakeshores. The lodges provide regular employment
to some households within the zone.
Chiawa-Zambezi Lowlands (Zone 12A): This livelihood zone receives less than 700 mm
annual rainfall and is prone to a number of periodic hazards, including drought, flood and damage
of crops by wild animals. Traditionally, the farming system is sorghum-based and households
generally do not produce enough food to sustain themselves throughout the year. Other crops
grown include cassava, maize and bananas. Goats and pigs are the main livestock kept. Sources
of cash income include fishing, trading and crafts.
Mambwe-Petauke valley (Zone 12B)
The livelihood of this zone is mainly maize production at subsistence level. Cotton production is
done through contract farming and game is another major source of food and income in the zone.
Zambezi Floodplain (Zone 14): This is a low-lying wetland that floods yearly. The floods are
excessive with a frequency of one in ten years, destroying crops and infrastructure. Households
grow maize, rice and sorghum and keep cattle and pigs. Pigs are kept mainly for sale. The area
is dissected by the Zambezi River, offering opportunities for fishing and water transport. There is
the potential to produce two crops of maize per year in this livelihood zone.
Luapula Valley (Zone 15B)
This zone is predominantly a cassava growing area. The major sources of income for most
households is cross border trade with the Democratic Republic of Congo, fish trading is another
important source of food and income because of relatively good road infrastructure, there is
significant trade, in fish and cassava, with other zones.
Luangwa-Mfuwe Valley (Zone 15C)
The zone lies in the valley and experiences very high temperatures and periodic droughts, which
has affected its agricultural activities. As a result of poor climatic conditions, most cropping
activities are limited to the riverbank, which exposes them to the risk of flooding. The zone is
53
mainly in the game management area and therefore crops including livestocks are frequently
attacked by wild animals. The major source of livelihood is fishing, game and employment at
numerous tourist game resorts and lodges
Luapula-Northern Wetlands (Zone 16A): This livelihood zone is at very low altitude and is
dominated by wetlands and islands. There is a lot of fishing and rice production and is
characterised by a low population density.
Kaputa Rice (Zone 16B): This livelihood zone is at very low altitude and is dominated by
wetlands and highlands. There is a lot of fishing and rice production. The zone has a low
population density with major settlements for refugees that cross from the Democratic Republic
of Congo (DRC). The proximity of the DRC has provided opportunities for cross-border trade in
fish and maize meal which is sold or battered for second-hand clothes and other petty
commodities.
54
Africa Region Working Paper Series
Series # Title Date Author
ARWPS 1 Progress in Public Expenditure Management in
Africa: Evidence from World Bank Surveys
January 1999 C. Kostopoulos
ARWPS 2 Toward Inclusive and Sustainable Development in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo
March 1999 Markus Kostner
ARWPS 3 Business Taxation in a Low-Revenue Economy: A
Study on Uganda in Comparison with Neighboring
Countries
June 1999 Ritva Reinikka
Duanjie Chen
ARWPS 4 Pensions and Social Security in Sub-Saharan Africa:
Issues and Options
October 1999 Luca Barbone
Luis-A. Sanchez B.
ARWPS 5 Forest Taxes, Government Revenues and the
Sustainable Exploitation of Tropical Forests
January 2000 Luca Barbone
Juan Zalduendo
ARWPS 6 The Cost of Doing Business: Firms’ Experience with
Corruption in Uganda
June 2000 Jacob Svensson
ARWPS 7 On the Recent Trade Performance of Sub-Saharan
African Countries: Cause for Hope or More of the
Same
August 2000 Francis Ng and
Alexander J. Yeats
ARWPS 8 Foreign Direct Investment in Africa: Old Tales and
New Evidence
November 2000 Miria Pigato
ARWPS 9 The Macro Implications of HIV/AIDS in South
Africa: A Preliminary Assessment
November 2000 Channing Arndt
Jeffrey D. Lewis
ARWPS 10 Revisiting Growth and Convergence: Is Africa
Catching Up?
December 2000 C. G. Tsangarides
ARWPS 11 Spending on Safety Nets for the Poor: How Much,
for
How Many? The Case of Malawi
January 2001 William J. Smith
ARWPS 12 Tourism in Africa February 2001 Iain T. Christie
D. E. Crompton
ARWPS 13 Conflict Diamonds
February 2001 Louis Goreux
ARWPS 14 Reform and Opportunity: The Changing Role and
Patterns of Trade in South Africa and SADC
March 2001 Jeffrey D. Lewis
ARWPS 15 The Foreign Direct Investment Environment in
Africa
March 2001 Miria Pigato
ARWPS 16 Choice of Exchange Rate Regimes for Developing
Countries
April 2001 Fahrettin Yagci
ARWPS 18 Rural Infrastructure in Africa: Policy Directions
June 2001 Robert Fishbein
ARWPS 19 Changes in Poverty in Madagascar: 1993-1999 July 2001 S. Paternostro
J. Razafindravonona
55
Africa Region Working Paper Series
Series # Title Date Author
David Stifel
ARWPS 20 Information and Communication Technology,
Poverty, and Development in sub-Saharan Africa and
South Asia
August 2001 Miria Pigato
ARWPS 21 Handling Hierarchy in Decentralized Settings:
Governance Underpinnings of School Performance
in Tikur Inchini, West Shewa Zone, Oromia Region
September 2001 Navin Girishankar A.
Alemayehu
Yusuf Ahmad
ARWPS 22 Child Malnutrition in Ethiopia: Can Maternal
Knowledge Augment The Role of Income?
October 2001 Luc Christiaensen
Harold Alderman
ARWPS 23 Child Soldiers: Preventing, Demobilizing and
Reintegrating
November 2001 Beth Verhey
ARWPS 24 The Budget and Medium-Term Expenditure
Framework in Uganda
December 2001 David L. Bevan
ARWPS 25 Design and Implementation of Financial
Management Systems: An African Perspective
January 2002 Guenter Heidenhof H.
Grandvoinnet
Daryoush Kianpour
B. Rezaian
ARWPS 26 What Can Africa Expect From Its Traditional
Exports?
February 2002 Francis Ng
Alexander Yeats
ARWPS 27 Free Trade Agreements and the SADC Economies February 2002 Jeffrey D. Lewis
Sherman Robinson
Karen Thierfelder
ARWPS 28 Medium Term Expenditure Frameworks: From
Concept to Practice. Preliminary Lessons from
Africa
February 2002 P. Le Houerou
Robert Taliercio
ARWPS 29 The Changing Distribution of Public Education
Expenditure in Malawi
February 2002 Samer Al-Samarrai
Hassan Zaman
ARWPS 30 Post-Conflict Recovery in Africa: An Agenda for the
Africa Region
April 2002 Serge Michailof
Markus Kostner
Xavier Devictor
ARWPS 31 Efficiency of Public Expenditure Distribution and
Beyond: A report on Ghana’s 2000 Public
Expenditure Tracking Survey in the Sectors of
Primary Health and Education
May 2002 Xiao Ye
S. Canagaraja
ARWPS 33 Addressing Gender Issues in Demobilization and
Reintegration Programs
August 2002 N. de Watteville
56
Africa Region Working Paper Series
Series # Title Date Author
ARWPS 34 Putting Welfare on the Map in Madagascar August 2002 Johan A. Mistiaen
Berk Soler
T. Razafimanantena
J. Razafindravonona
ARWPS 35 A Review of the Rural Firewood Market Strategy in
West Africa
August 2002 Gerald Foley
P. Kerkhof, D.
Madougou
ARWPS 36 Patterns of Governance in Africa September 2002 Brian D. Levy
ARWPS 37 Obstacles and Opportunities for Senegal’s
International Competitiveness: Case Studies of the
Peanut Oil, Fishing and Textile Industries
September 2002 Stephen Golub
Ahmadou Aly Mbaye
ARWPS 38 A Macroeconomic Framework for Poverty
Reduction Strategy Papers : With an Application to
Zambia
October 2002 S. Devarajan
Delfin S. Go
ARWPS 39 The Impact of Cash Budgets on Poverty Reduction
in Zambia: A Case Study of the Conflict between
Well Intentioned Macroeconomic Policy and Service
Delivery to the Poor
November 2002 Hinh T. Dinh
Abebe Adugna
Bernard Myers
ARWPS 40 Decentralization in Africa: A Stocktaking Survey November 2002 Stephen N. Ndegwa
ARWPS 41 An Industry Level Analysis of Manufacturing
Productivity in Senegal
December 2002 Professor A. Mbaye
ARWPS 42 Tanzania’s Cotton Sector: Constraints and
Challenges in a Global Environment
December 2002 John Baffes
ARWPS 43 Analyzing Financial and Private Sector Linkages in
Africa
January 2003 Abayomi Alawode
ARWPS 44 Modernizing Africa’s Agro-Food System: Analytical
Framework and Implications for Operations
February 2003 Steven Jaffee
Ron Kopicki
Patrick Labaste
Iain Christie
ARWPS 45 Public Expenditure Performance in Rwanda March 2003 Hippolyte Fofack
C. Obidegwu
Robert Ngong
ARWPS 46 Senegal Tourism Sector Study March 2003 Elizabeth Crompton
Iain T. Christie
ARWPS 47 Reforming the Cotton Sector in SSA March 2003 Louis Goreux
John Macrae
ARWPS 48 HIV/AIDS, Human Capital, and Economic Growth
Prospects for Mozambique
April 2003 Channing Arndt
ARWPS 49 Rural and Micro Finance Regulation in Ghana:
Implications for Development and Performance of
June 2003 William F. Steel
David O. Andah
57
Africa Region Working Paper Series
Series # Title Date Author
the Industry
ARWPS 50 Microfinance Regulation in Benin: Implications of
the PARMEC LAW for Development and
Performance of the Industry
June 2003 K. Ouattara
ARWPS 51 Microfinance Regulation in Tanzania: Implications
for Development and Performance of the Industry
June 2003 Bikki Randhawa
Joselito Gallardo
ARWPS 52 Regional Integration in Central Africa: Key Issues June 2003 Ali Zafar
Keiko Kubota
ARWPS 53 Evaluating Banking Supervision in Africa June 2003 Abayomi Alawode
ARWPS 54 Microfinance Institutions’ Response in Conflict
Environments: Eritrea- Savings and Micro Credit
Program; West Bank and Gaza – Palestine for
Credit and Development; Haiti – Micro Credit
National, S.A.
June 2003
Marilyn S. Manalo
AWPS 55 Malawi’s Tobacco Sector: Standing on One Strong
leg is Better than on None
June 2003 Steven Jaffee
AWPS 56 Tanzania’s Coffee Sector: Constraints and
Challenges in a Global Environment
June 2003 John Baffes
AWPS 57 The New Southern AfricanCustoms Union
Agreement
June 2003 Robert Kirk
Matthew Stern
AWPS 58a How Far Did Africa’s First Generation Trade
Reforms Go? An Intermediate Methodology for
Comparative Analysis of Trade Policies
June 2003 Lawrence Hinkle
A. Herrou-Aragon
Keiko Kubota
AWPS 58b How Far Did Africa’s First Generation Trade
Reforms Go? An Intermediate Methodology for
Comparative Analysis of Trade Policies
June 2003 Lawrence Hinkle
A. Herrou-Aragon
Keiko Kubota
AWPS 59 Rwanda: The Search for Post-Conflict Socio-
Economic Change, 1995-2001
October 2003 C. Obidegwu
AWPS 60 Linking Farmers to Markets: Exporting Malian
Mangoes to Europe
October 2003 Morgane Danielou
Patrick Labaste
J-M. Voisard
AWPS 61 Evolution of Poverty and Welfare in Ghana in the
1990s: Achievements and Challenges
October 2003 S. Canagarajah
Claus C. Pörtner
AWPS 62 Reforming The Cotton Sector in Sub-Saharan Africa:
SECOND EDITION
November 2003 Louis Goreux
AWPS 63 (E) Republic of Madagascar: Tourism Sector Study November 2003 Iain T. Christie
D. E. Crompton
AWPS 63 (F) République de Madagascar: Etude du Secteur
Tourisme
November 2003 Iain T. Christie
D. E. Crompton
58
Africa Region Working Paper Series
Series # Title Date Author
AWPS 64 Migrant Labor Remittances in Africa: Reducing
Obstacles to Development Contributions
Novembre 2003 Cerstin Sander
Samuel M. Maimbo
AWPS 65 Government Revenues and Expenditures in Guinea-
Bissau: Casualty and Cointegration
January 2004 Francisco G. Carneiro
Joao R. Faria
Boubacar S. Barry
AWPS 66 How will we know Development Results when we
see them? Building a Results-Based Monitoring and
Evaluation System to Give us the Answer
June 2004 Jody Zall Kusek
Ray C. Rist
Elizabeth M. White
AWPS 67 An Analysis of the Trade Regime in Senegal (2001)
and UEMOA’s Common External Trade Policies
June 2004 Alberto Herrou-Arago
Keiko Kubota
AWPS 68 Bottom-Up Administrative Reform: Designing
Indicators for a Local Governance Scorecard in
Nigeria
June 2004 Talib Esmail
Nick Manning
Jana Orac
Galia Schechter
AWPS 69 Tanzania’s Tea Sector: Constraints and Challenges June 2004 John Baffes
AWPS 70 Tanzania’s Cashew Sector: Constraints and
Challenges in a Global Environment
June 2004 Donald Mitchell
AWPS 71 An Analysis of Chile’s Trade Regime in 1998 and
2001: A Good Practice Trade Policy Benchmark
July 2004 Francesca Castellani
A. Herrou-Arago
Lawrence E. Hinkle
AWPS 72 Regional Trade Integration inEast Africa: Trade and
Revenue Impacts of the Planned East African
Community Customs Union
August 2004 Lucio Castro
Christiane Kraus
Manuel de la Rocha
AWPS 73 Post-Conflict Peace Building in Africa: The
Challenges of Socio-Economic Recovery and
Development
August 2004 Chukwuma Obidegwu
AWPS 74 An Analysis of the Trade Regime in Bolivia in2001:
A Trade Policy Benchmark for low Income Countries
August 2004 Francesca Castellani
Alberto Herrou-
Aragon
Lawrence E. Hinkle
AWPS 75 Remittances to Comoros- Volumes, Trends, Impact
and Implications
October 2004 Vincent da Cruz
Wolfgang Fendler
Adam Schwartzman
AWPS 76 Salient Features of Trade Performance in Eastern and
Southern Africa
October 2004 Fahrettin Yagci
Enrique Aldaz-Carroll
AWPS 77 Implementing Performance-Based Aid in Africa November 2004 Alan Gelb
Brian Ngo
Xiao Ye
AWPS 78 Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers: Do they matter
for children and Young people made vulnerable by
HIV/AIDS?
December 2004 Rene Bonnel
Miriam Temin
Faith Tempest
59
Africa Region Working Paper Series
Series # Title Date Author
AWPS 79 Experience in Scaling up Support to Local Response
in Multi-Country Aids Programs (map) in Africa
December 2004 Jean Delion
Pia Peeters
Ann Klofkorn
Bloome
AWPS 80 What makes FDI work? A Panel Analysis of the
Growth Effect of FDI in Africa
February 2005 Kevin N. Lumbila
AWPS 81 Earnings Differences between Men and Women in
Rwanda
February 2005 Kene Ezemenari
Rui Wu
AWPS 82 The Medium-Term Expenditure Framework: The
Challenge of Budget Integration in SSA countries
April 2005 Chukwuma Obidegwu
AWPS 83 Rules of Origin and SADC: The Case for change in
the Mid Term Review of the Trade Protocol
June 2005 Paul Brenton
Frank Flatters
Paul Kalenga
AWPS 84 Sexual Minorities, Violence and AIDS in Africa
July 2005 Chukwuemeka
Anyamele
Ronald Lwabaayi
Tuu-Van Nguyen, and
Hans Binswanger
AWPS 85 Poverty Reducing Potential of Smallholder
Agriculture in Zambia: Opportunities and
Constraints
July 2005 Paul B. Siegel
Jeffrey Alwang
AWPS 86 Infrastructure, Productivity and Urban Dynamics
in Côte d’Ivoire An empirical analysis and policy
implications
July 2005 Zeljko Bogetic
Issa Sanogo
AWPS 87 Poverty in Mozambique: Unraveling Changes and
Determinants
August 2005 Louise Fox
Elena Bardasi,
Katleen V. Broeck
AWPS 88 Operational Challenges: Community Home Based
Care (CHBC) forPLWHA in Multi-Country
HIV/AIDS Programs (MAP) forSub-Saharan Africa
August 2005 N. Mohammad
Juliet Gikonyo
AWPS 90 Kenya: Exports Prospects and Problems September 2005 Francis Ng
Alexander Yeats
AWPS 91 Uganda: How Good a Trade Policy Benchmark for
Sub-Saharan-Africa
September 2005 Lawrence E. Hinkle
Albero H. Aragon Ranga Krishnamani
Elke Kreuzwieser
AWPS 92 Community Driven Development in South Africa,
1990-2004
October 2005 David Everatt Lulu
Gwagwa
AWPS 93 The Rise of Ghana’’s Pineapple Industry from
Successful take off to Sustainable Expansion
November 2005 Morgane Danielou
Christophe Ravry
AWPS 94 South Africa: Sources and Constraints of Long-Term
Growth, 1970-2000
December 2005 Johannes Fedderke
60
Africa Region Working Paper Series
Series # Title Date Author
AWPS 95 South Africa’’s Export Performance: Determinants
of Export supply
December 2005 Lawrence Edwards
Phil Alves
AWPS 96 Industry Concentration in South African
Manufacturing: Trends and Consequences, 1972-96
December 2005 Gábor Szalontai
Johannes Fedderke
AWPS 97 The Urban Transition in Sub-Saharan Africa:
Implications for Economic Growth and Poverty
Reduction
December 2005 Christine Kessides
AWPS 98 Measuring Intergovernmental Fiscal Performance in
South Africa
Issues in Municipal Grant Monitoring
May 2006 Navin Girishankar
David DeGroot
T.V. Pillay
AWPS 99 Nutrition and Its determinants in Southern Ethiopia -
Findings from the Child Growth
Promotion Baseline Survey
July 2006 Jesper Kuhl
Luc Christiaensen
AWPS 100 The Impact of Morbidity and Mortality on Municipal
Human Resources and Service Delivery
September 2006 Zara Sarzin
AWPS 101 Rice Markets in Madagascar in Disarray:
Policy Options for Increased Efficiency and Price
Stabilization
September 2006 Bart Minten
Paul Dorosh
Marie-Hélène Dabat,
Olivier Jenn-Treyer,
John Magnay and
Ziva Razafintsalama
AWPS 102 Riz et Pauvrete a Madagascar Septembre 2006 Bart Minten
AWPS 103 ECOWAS- Fiscal Revenue Implications of the
Prospective Economic Partnership Agreement with
the EU
April 2007 Simplice G. Zouhon-
Bi
Lynge Nielsen
AWPS 104(a) Development of the Cities of Mali
Challenges and Priorities
June 2007 Catherine Farvacque-
V. Alicia Casalis
Mahine Diop
Christian Eghoff
AWPS 104(b) Developpement des villes Maliennes
Enjeux et Priorites
June 2007 Catherine Farvacque-
V. Alicia Casalis
Mahine Diop
Christian Eghoff
AWPS 105 Assessing Labor Market Conditions In Madagascar,
2001-2005
June 2007 David Stifel
Faly H.
Rakotomanana
Elena Celada
AWPS 106 An Evaluation of the Welfare Impact of Higher
Energy Prices in Madagascar
June 2007 Noro Andriamihaja
Giovanni Vecchi
AWPS 107 The Impact of The Real Exchange Rate on
Manufacturing Exports in Benin
November 2007 Mireille Linjouom
AWPS 108 Building Sector concerns into Macroeconomic
Financial Programming: Lessons from Senegal and
December 2007 Antonio Estache
Rafael Munoz
61
Africa Region Working Paper Series
Series # Title Date Author
Uganda
AWPS 109 An Accelerating Sustainable, Efficient and Equitable
Land Reform: Case Study of the Qedusizi/Besters
Cluster Project
December 2007 Hans P. Binswanger
Roland Henderson
Zweli Mbhele
Kay Muir-Leresche
AWPS 110 Development of the Cites of Ghana
– Challenges, Priorities and Tools
January 2008 Catherine Farvacque-
Vitkovic
Madhu Raghunath
Christian Eghoff
Charles Boakye
AWPS 111 Growth, Inequality and Poverty in Madagascar,
2001-2005
April 2008 Nicolas Amendola
Giovanni Vecchi
AWPS 112 Labor Markets, the Non-Farm Economy and
Household Livelihood Strategies in Rural
Madagascar
April 2008 David Stifel
AWPS 113 Profile of Zambia’s Smallholders: Where and Who
are the Potential Beneficiaries of
AgriculturalCommercialization?
June 2008 Paul B. Siegel
62
WB21847 C:\Documents and Settings\WB21847\My Documents\Working Paper Series\AWPS#113\Zambia Smallholder June 3.08.pw.Final.doc
06/03/2008 12:51:00 PM