urayayi g. mutsindikwa msc rural & urban planning dissertation main 2010: input vouchers and...

Adoption of Sustainable Input Supply Programmes for Small-Scale Farmers. An Evaluation of the Agricultural Input

Vouchers and Fairs (IV&F) Model: Uzumba Maramba Pfungwe District, Zimbabwe

November

2010

Urayayi Mutsindikwa 1 Msc RUP

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION……………………………………………………………………...i

DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………...ii

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………….…..iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………….iv

ACRONYMS & ABREVIATIONS………………………………………………….v

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………vii

LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………..viii

LIST OF BOXES……………………………………………………………………..x

TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………….....1

CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................... 5

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 5

1.1 Background...................................................................................................... 5

1.1.1 Conventional Approaches to Input delivery ................................................. 8

1.1.2 Input Vouchers and Fairs Model .................................................................. 9

1.2 Problem Statement......................................................................................... 10

1.3 Scope of the Study ......................................................................................... 10

1.4 Objectives ...................................................................................................... 11

1.4.1 General Objective ....................................................................................... 11

1.4.2 Specific Objectives ..................................................................................... 11

1.5 Research Questions ....................................................................................... 11

1.6 Structure of the report .................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................. 13

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................. 13

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 13

2.2 Conventional Approaches of Input Delivery in the Smallscale Sector ......... 13



November

2010


2.3 Agro-inputs in relation to poverty, rural livelihoods and development ........ 17

2.3.1 Maricho (piece work or casual labor) ......................................................... 18

2.3.2 The ‘Currency Dilemma’ ........................................................................... 19

2.4 The formal Agro-input Supply System ......................................................... 19

2.4.1 Structure of Formal Sector variety and seed systems ................................. 20

2.4.2 Fertilizer production and distribution in Zimbabwe ................................... 22

2.5 The Informal Agro-Input Supply Systems .................................................... 24

2.5.1 Institutional channels Participatory variety evaluations (PVS) .................. 25

2.5.2 On-farm trials ............................................................................................. 26

2.5.3 Cross border trade....................................................................................... 26

2.5.4 Seed Multiplication programs and Farmer Field Schools (FFS) ................ 26

2.6 Gender Roles and Responsibilities in relation to Agriculture and Input Support

Programmes ......................................................................................................... 27

2.6.1 Land and Property Rights ........................................................................... 28

2.6.2 HIV/AIDS and Migration ........................................................................... 28

2.6.3 Gender and Inputs - Women’s crops and control over harvest .................. 28

2.7 The Input Voucher and Fair Approach .......................................................... 29

2.8 Input vouchers and Fairs in Africa – The case of Ethiopia ........................... 31

2.9 Regional Case study: Five years of agricultural input vouchers and fairs in

Mozambique ........................................................................................................ 32

2.9.1 Introduction of vouchers and fairs and scale of implementation ............... 32

2.9.2 Market Development .................................................................................. 33

2.9.3 Awareness-raising and the dissemination of agricultural technologies ..... 34

2.9.4 Social protection ......................................................................................... 34

CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................. 36

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOGY ........................................................... 36

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 36



November

2010


3.2 Study Area Selection ..................................................................................... 36

3.3 Study sites selection ...................................................................................... 38

3.4 Research Design ............................................................................................ 39

3.5 Data Collection .............................................................................................. 40

3.6 Data Analysis................................................................................................. 43

CHAPTER FOUR .................................................................................... 45

4.0 DATA PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION .............................. 45

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 45

4.2 Agriculture and Rural Development ............................................................. 45

4.3 Challenges for the smallholder farming sector .............................................. 49

4.4 Cropping and Input Systems in UMP district.............................................. 50

4.4.1 Popularity of Crops in the district .............................................................. 50

4.4.3 Seed Source Mapping and the position of Input Vouchers and Fairs ........ 54

4.4.4 Input vouchers and Fairs (IV&F) as means of fertilizer sourcing .............. 59

4.4.5 The Evolution of Input Vouchers &Fairs ................................................... 62

4.4.6 Comparison between Input Vouchers and Fairs and Conventional models64

CHAPTER FIVE ...................................................................................... 71

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................. 71

5.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 71

5.2 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 71

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 73

5.3.1 Short term recommendations ...................................................................... 73

5.3.2 Medium -to- long term recommendations .................................................. 74

5.3.3 Input Voucher Models specific recommendations for modification .......... 76

REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 77



November

2010


APPENDICES .......................................................................................... 82

APPENDIX A 1: The map of Zimbabwe showing the location of UMP District82

APPENDIX A 2: The map of UMP District showing study wards ................... 83

APPENDIX A 3: Household Interview Questionnaire ....................................... 84

APPENDIX A 4: Focus Group & Key informant Discussion Guidelines .......... 89

APPENDIX A 5: Most Significant Change Story Guidelines ............................ 91

APPENDIX A 4: PHOTO GALLERY ............................................................... 93



November

2010


CHAPTER 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Over the past decade, Zimbabwe has endured a litany of economic, political, and social shocks

resulting in the loss of livelihoods and increasing poverty and dislocation. The formal economy

has generally been greatly affected. The macroeconomic decline has had a myriad of negative

impacts on the various players in both the input and output markets. Business capacity has been

severely constrained, with most businesses reducing their activities and most manufacturers

operating at 30% of capacity and others shutting down completely; severely restricting the

manufacture/production and distribution of inputs. Many suppliers, manufacturers once had

profitable distribution networks in which agro-dealers represented the last link to farmers and

community informal seed systems are at the verge of collapse. Relations between suppliers and

rural agro-dealers were severed early on in the economic crisis and most rural agro-dealer

businesses were unable to make meaningful investments in stocks. This has resulted in

diminished availability of agriculture inputs closer to the farmers while the reduced liquidity has

also affected their ability to access the few inputs that trickled down to rural centres (DFID

Position Paper, 2010).

The past decade has seen a decline in availability of agro-inputs such as fertiliser, seed and

veterinary products in country. Many local producers or manufacturers, who were operating at

less than 30% of capacity, were therefore inundated with orders for the scarce commodities,

thereby eliminating the need for some players in the ago-input value chain. Donor funded agro-

input support programmes also contributed significantly to the death of the markets through

direct procurement of inputs from producers/ manufacturer and through huge amounts of

imports. Arguably, it was an emergency alternative response to food aid. The new dispensation

sets the framework for an improved environment for commerce. The recent dollarization of the

economy has eased transactions but lack of liquidity in the economy, that is worse in the

communal areas, precludes many from benefitting from the new availability of goods (PRP

Smallholder Agricultural Input Support, 2010; Unpublished). Now that the economic, political

and social environment is improving, it is envisaged that in the 2010/11 cropping season and



November

2010


provision of agro-input support and related support services to rural areas needs to be informed

through research work which explore the possible input delivery mechanisms, evaluate and draw

comparisons between those that have been used in the past such as the Input Vouchers and Fairs

(IV&F) and the conventional approaches such as direct input distribution, emergency seed and

fertilizer provision which involves the local procurement, bulk delivery and distribution of inputs

to farmers. Other conventional methods include food aid ‘seed protection ration’ where food aid

is supplied alongside seed so that farmers do no consume the supplied seed or to protect own

stocked seed (Sperling, 2009).

Smallholder farmers use multiple channels for procuring their agricultural inputs including seed.

These channels fall within formal and informal seed systems (with the latter also sometimes

labeled as the local, traditional or farmer seed system). The formal seed system involves a chain

of activities leading to certified seed of named varieties. The chain usually starts with plant

breeding, and promotes materials towards formal variety release. Formal regulations aim to

maintain varietal identity and purity, as well as to guarantee physical, physiological and sanitary

quality. Seed marketing takes place through officially recognized seed outlets, either

commercially or by way of national agricultural research systems (Louwaars, 1994). Formal

sector seed is also frequently distributed by seed relief agencies.

The informal system embraces most of the ways farmers themselves produce, disseminate and

procure seed: directly from their own harvest; through gifts and barter among friends, neighbors

and relatives; and through local grain markets or traders. Farmers’ seed is generally selected

from the harvests or grain stocks, rather than produced separately and local technical knowledge,

standards, and social structures guide informal seed system performance (McGuire, 2001). In

developing countries, somewhere between 80% and 90% of the seed sown comes from the

informal seed system (DANAGRO, 1988; FAO, 1998), although this varies by crop and region.

What is important to highlight is that farmers themselves obtain their varied inputs through both

formal and informal channels. The formal input system is based on a well developed national

seed industry which when functioning well, over 15 companies produced and marketed seed of

over 20 different crops. Such key companies for seed include SeedCo, Pannar, Pioneer, Agri



November

2010


Seeds; National tested Seeds and Zimbabwe Fertilizer Company (ZFC), Windmill and Omnia for

fertilizer supply. In Zimbabwe, for example, the same small farmers may routinely procure

maize hybrids through formal seed systems (agro-dealers, commercial companies, government

parastatals, and, sometimes, relief aid), groundnuts from their own harvest or local grain markets,

and sorghum seed from their neighbors (van Oosterhout, 1996). The informal sector includes all

the ways framers themselves produce and dissemination seed, through own stocks, barter/gifts

and markets, with gift-giving being remarkably extensive in Zimbabwe. Sorghum, pearl millet,

groundnuts, cowpeas, Bambara nuts, sugar beans and sweet potato constitute the bulk of crops

that are important in the informal seed sector in Zimbabwe. Others include open pollinated maize

varieties, soybeans, sunflower, white beans and finger millet. Except for maize, the informal

sector supplies over 95% of the seed Zimbabwe farmers sows. Sources of seed sold in informal

channels will vary according to the size of the market. In big markets, such as those in towns,

seed might come from distant farming areas in outer lying districts, provinces and even across

boarders. In smaller markets the seed usually comes from local farming community (Sperling,

2009).

In the Zimbabwean context, the lines between formal and informal have started to blend. As is

usual, modern varieties of the self-pollinated crops have entered local channels, particularly for

groundnut, cowpea, sorghum and pearl millet. But the breakdown of the formal sector has also

meant that even hybrid maize (normally sold only in specialized shops), is now being moved in

a series of more informal ways, for example, through barter from the seed bulkers and via

direct sale by company employees (Sperling, 2009).

Also of note is the development of a ‘relief seed system’ which has become of distinct

importance on the supply side in many parts of Africa, and particularly in Zimbabwe. Relief

seed aid has become repetitive in nature and involves a somewhat separate type of seed

procurement and distribution network (Bramel and Remington, 2004). To support the ultra poor

households to access the inputs the Government of Zimbabwe and the civil society including

NGOs introduced various conventional input support programmes yet on the other hand NGOs

have introduced the Input Vouchers and Fairs model as an option for input delivery (Catholic

Relief Services Zimbabwe, Annual Report, 2004).



November

2010


1.1.1 Conventional Approaches to Input delivery

The conventional approaches to input delivery include direct input distribution, emergency Seed

and fertilizer provision and food aid for input protection rations. This input support intervention

involves the procurement of quality seed or fertilizer from outside the agro-ecological region, for

delivery to farmers. This is the most widely used approach to fertilizer and seed relief in

Zimbabwe. Direct distributions is viewed as a short term response aimed at addressing problems

of seed availability especially in situations of total crop failure and/or long-term displacement of

farmers or due to challenge in the input markets. This response has been used as ‘on-off action’

to introduce new crops and varieties that are usually supplied by the formal sector (Rohrbach,

Mashingaidze and Mudhara, 2005).

Direct seed aid generally engages implementers in procuring, transporting and distributing seed.

Direct Seed Distribution (DSD), its main variant, is the oldest form of seed aid and has been

practiced, at least in Africa, for more than 20 years. DSD is the dominant approach to seed relief

also refereed to ‘Seed and Tools’. The name ‘Seeds and Tools’ is because the distribution of seed

is often accompanied by the provision of a hand hoe, and is also known as conventional seed aid,

denoting its longstanding position as the standard response. I n Zimbabwe the ‘Seeds and Tools’

approach has been used as a long term measure and this has in turn destroyed input markets

(Remington, Maroko, Walsh, Omanga, and Charles, 2002). The model is a classic supply-side

approach; the implementing agency decides what quantities of which crops and varieties to

purchase and to distribute as a package to farmers. It is based on an assumption that the problem

is a lack of available seed or of seed quality; although seed might be available, it is considered to

be of inferior varieties or of poor quality. Tenders are issued for commercial seed, if available in

the country, or for farmer seed if not. This might be done by the concerned government, by the

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) or by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) The

transport and distribution of the seed is usually undertaken by NGOs who may already be

engaged in distributing relief supplies (food and non-food). DSD approaches differ mainly in the

source from which they procure seed – the commercial sector or farmer-based systems (Bramel

et al. 2004).



November

2010


The other prominent conventional method of input delivery used is the ‘food aid for input aid

protection ration’. This is a short term response accompanying direct input distribution to address

problems of seed and fertilizer availability. Food aid is often supplied in emergency situations

alongside input aid so that the farming family does not need to consume the seed provided or sell

the fertilizer to purchase food. Where local seed systems are functioning, but the previous

harvest was poor, food aid can similarly protect farmers’ own seed stocks.

1.1.2 Input Vouchers and Fairs Model

Input vouchers are coupons or certificates with a guaranteed cash value that can be exchanged

for inputs from approved sellers. Input sellers then redeem their vouchers for cash from the

issuing agency. The Input Voucher and Fair approach (IV&F) brings input sellers together on a

specific set of days and in a well-advertised local venue and then allows farmers who need inputs

to select the crops and varieties they want. The IV&F approach is fairly recent in terms of an

emergency response and was first implemented in July 2000 in Kenya (Remington, 2002).

However, its use has been scaled up quickly and as of 2005 had been implemented in some 30

African countries including Zimbabwe (Bramel, 2006). Several variants on fairs give farmers

access to a range of inputs beyond seed, such as small livestock, animal feed, fertilizer and tools.

In this approach, farmers are given not free seeds but vouchers with a specific cash value, which

can be exchanged for inputs at a specially organized fair. Vouchers are distributed to the most

needy in the community, identified by the community themselves. At the input fair, farmers

purchase inputs from a range of vendors, including farmers, small-scale traders, and large seed

companies. A number of different crops and varieties are available, local varieties as well as

certified seed of modern varieties. The farmers have the freedom to choose what varieties and

quantities they want.

This approach also helps build the local seed system, by providing a market for local seed

producers to sell their products. Voucher distribution alone has been used in a range of aid

contexts, for services as well as goods: medicines, tools, food and other items vulnerable

populations might need. Their use linked to seed is somewhat more recent, and ultimately allows

the recipients to decide whether seed of any kind is a priority for them. Cash-based aid also has

been around for decades, but work comparing the effectiveness of cash to vouchers and to direct



November

2010


aid approaches has not been done. The first conclusions suggest that direct cash compares

favorably with all alternatives, including food aid itself (Harvey 2005)

Catholic Relief Services (CRS), an international NGO working in Zimbabwe through more than

thirty local implementing partners introduced the use of input vouchers and fairs (IV&F) model

in Zimbabwe in 2002 to support poor and vulnerable households and improve access to inputs.

This approach was piloted in Zimbabwe in 2002 (Rohrbach and Mazvimavi, 2006). The

approach has been adopted by the agency to be core in the revival of the pro-poor agricultural

markets both post crisis and post emergency but very little work to evaluate its effectiveness has

been done. This study is one of many others evaluating the new input delivery mechanisms in

comparison to the conventional approaches.

1.2 Problem Statement

Since 2009 normal agro-input suppliers have started to open shop again in rural Zimbabwe, after

years of closure or forced sale only to government programs and at times to NGOs at controlled

prices. The adoption of the US dollar as the currency standard, along with relaxing of economic

controls, means that farmers and producers at all levels are re-assessing market opportunities.

The issue is how to support and strengthen these input systems in this period of flux.

The 2009/10 season had a relatively good harvest. Vulnerability assessment specialists expected

input shortages and, instead, found unexpectedly large areas planted and giving good production.

So the fundamental question was ‘from where did farmers get their seed?’ Massive aid actions

are already scheduled for the upcoming 2010/11 season. International donors are providing over

$140 million to distribute maize seed and fertilizer to some 600,000 households, or 50% of the

smallholder farming populations. Is this the correct response? Is a response of this scale needed?

1.3 Scope of the Study

This study acknowledges that communities have over the years experienced input accessibility,

availability and utilization challenges. It recognizes the different conventional approaches

introduced by GoZ and NGO input support programs in efforts to ensure that agriculture remains



November

2010


at the epicenter of rural development. However, the study is rural-based and primarily focuses on

agricultural input systems at community and household levels.

For the purpose of this study, the term conventional approaches of inputs delivery has been used

to refer to the different input assistance programs used before the introduction of the IV&F

model and includes direct distributions, food rations to protect inputs, participatory plant

breeding and seed multiplication of specific varieties interventions. Input Vouchers and Fairs

refers to the new approach introduced by Catholic Relief Services in Zimbabwe and is based on

organizing an input market and distribution of vouchers to targeted households to purchase and

access agricultural inputs. According to findings by Robarch and Mazvimavi, 2006 study the

IV&F model has been adopted by several other NGOs through trainings from CRS.

1.4 Objectives

1.4.1 General Objective

To evaluate the Input Vouchers and Fairs approach as a way of providing farmers with the means

to purchase seed or other agricultural inputs of their choice and drawing comparisons between

this ‘new’ model and the various conventional methods of input delivery in the Smallholder

sector.

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

To carryout an in-depth assessment on current agricultural input security situation in Uzumba

Maramba Pfungwe district and how they relate to the different input delivery mechanisms.

To identify longer-term opportunities and constraints in inputs sector particularly how the

Input Vouchers and Fairs and the conventional approaches remain relevant mechanisms of

input delivery in the dynamic and ever changing Zimbabwean environment.

To guide short and medium to long-term field programming based identified sustainable

input delivery approaches.

To recommend the best and sustainable approaches to use input delivery and any

modifications which may be needed to improve the current status quo.

1.5 Research Questions

This research study seeks to find answers to a number of questions including;



November

2010


What are the merits and demerits the Input Vouchers and Fairs Approach?

What are the importance sources of seed for smallholder rural farmers?

Is the IV&F approach better than the conventional input delivery mechanisms? How do

different communities and stakeholders view the IV&F approach in comparison to the

conventional ones?

Against the background that Zimbabwe’s economy has gone through major reforms

including the phasing out of the local currency and the adoption of more stable currencies

such as the United States dollar (USD) and South African Rand. Is Input Voucher and Fairs

model still relevant or they now needs to be modified to suit the current context?

1.6 Structure of the report

This study is organized into 5 chapters as follows:

Chapter 1 is the introduction. It gives a brief picture of the agricultural input delivery systems in

Zimbabwe from the turn of the millennium up to date. It highlights problems experienced in the

accessibility of seed and fertilizer, the different conventional methods of input support, the

introduction of the Input Voucher and Fairs and the need to change or focus and approach. It also

contains the problem statement, scope of the study, objectives and research questions.

Chapter 2 is a review of literature on the agricultural inputs delivery systems over the years. It

also contains information how they are at the centre of agriculture, crop production and food

security. The relationship between agro-inputs, poverty, sustainable livelihoods systems and

community development is also explored in this chapter. The formal and informal channels of

inputs mainly seed and fertilizer are traced and documented.

Chapter 3 is a descriptive summary of the study areas in terms of their geographical location,

climate, population size and distribution, common soils, agricultural systems focusing on seed

and fertilizer channels and major economic activities in the areas. It also gives an overview of

the research methods, tools and materials used to collect data for this study. It describes

processes and procedures that have been followed in carrying out the study.

Chapter 4 is the presentation of results and discussions. It consists of narrative, tabulation,

pictures and graphic presentation of the results of the assessment.

Chapter 5 contains conclusions and recommendation



November

2010


CHAPTER 2

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

In recent years there have been a number of changes in how agencies and governments provide

seed, fertilizer and agricultural inputs to poor and vulnerable farmers to improve agricultural

production, poverty and rural development. Conventional approaches to input provisioning –

also known as direct input distribution – have been modified, and there is increasing experience

with voucher-based programming mechanisms. These changes stem from the limited impact of

conventional approaches, combined with the more chronic nature of many disasters. In the case

of southern Africa, disasters tend to be related to recurrent drought, chronic poverty (often

related to HIV/AIDS), and market failures. Responses in the agricultural sector are not only

designed to provide planting materials and other inputs to farmers in the short term but also to

promote longer-term development aims such as crop diversification, improved nutrition,

improved soil fertility, higher yields, and the adoption of practices relating to conservation

agriculture.

2.2 Conventional Approaches of Input Delivery in the Smallscale Sector

Conventional methods are classic supply-side approaches such as direct input distribution; the

implementing agency decides what quantities of which crops and varieties to purchase and to

distribute as a package to farmers. It is based on the assumption that the problem is lack of

available seed and fertilizer or of seed quality although seed might be available, it is considered

of inferior varieties or of poor quality (Remington et al., 2004). Tenders are issued by the

Government, by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) or by NGOs. The transport and

distribution of seed is usually undertaken by the NGOs who may already be involved in

distributing relief supplies (food and non-food). Projects that are hinged on the conventional

methods differ mainly in the source from which they procure seed, i.e. the commercial sector or

farmer-based systems (Bramel, 2004).

These conventional input delivery systems are also used where the government and aid agencies

deliberately wants to promote certain crop varieties that have better qualities such as high



November

2010


yielding, drought tolerance and disease resistant or better fertilizer assumed or proved by

research to address community needs. This strategy is used by some governments and aid

agencies as a way of adjusting to climate change where through research and outreach programs,

and encourages the development and use of varieties with more tolerance for hot and dry

conditions in many of African’s agro climatic zones. The Zimbabwean government and most aid

agencies also used these conventional methods to ensure that genetically modified seed is not

distributed. Just like Zambia and a few other African countries, Zimbabwe is opposed to

genetically modified seed because of the threat they pose to pollute biodiversity by

contaminating the indigenous varieties.

These conventional methods of input delivery are based on the commercial seed markets and are

widely used in countries with a ‘strong’ commercial maize seed sector such as Kenya, Malawi,

Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe (Sperling and Remington, 2006). This may be because

governments and aid agencies use the relief opportunity to promote their seed industry.

Commercially-based conventional seed delivery methods such as DSD by their nature are

restricted to a narrow range of crops, varieties or fertilizer types that the seed and fertilizer

business sectors has deemed potentially profitable. Many of the crops and varieties have been

selected for medium and high potential environments, or maybe hybrids, because the commercial

seed sector is geared towards those farmers who can afford to pay for new varieties or who seek

to renew their seed stocks regularly (Sperling and Remington, 2006). This alone excludes the

small scale communal farmers who hardly have any cash to purchase seed.

Some other disadvantages associated with the conventional methods of agricultural input

delivery approaches are that they tends to be top down and centralized because generally

communities are not involved in planning and implementation (Mazvimavi, Rohrbach, Pedzisa

and Musitini, 2008). It’s mostly a supply-side approach and implementers tend to make the

major decisions on seed and fertilizer procurement and distribution (Sperling and Longley,

2002). Because of the top down approach there are important risks of wrong varieties or crops

associated with these approaches. Since the inputs are sourced either commercially or in bulk, a

narrow range of crops and varieties tend to be on offer in conventional approaches such as DSD

(Sperling and Remington, 2006). Particularly where fertilizer and seed companies and parastatals



November

2010


are targeted towards medium and high potential areas, the crops, varieties and fertilizer types on

offer may not be suitable for conditions of vulnerable or marginal small farmers (Sperling and

Remington, 2006). Free delivery of seed, directly on a large scale, undermines the functioning

of local seed markets and compromises the development of longer-term more commercial seed

supply systems. Furthermore because of the huge profits the conventional approaches, agro-input

companies may neglect their network of rural stockists and customers in preference of NGOs and

government (Sperling and Remington, 2006).

However there are advantages associated with the conventional approaches. They exploits the

existing disaster relief system and capacities since donors, governments and relief agencies have

well established procurement processes and accountability systems (Sperling, 2008). It is also

easy to scale up if seed and fertilizer are available, they can be sourced, transported and

distributed within a short space of time. Conventional methods rely on the commercial sector and

as such it supports the formal input delivery systems. It is very profitable to commercial agro-

input suppliers because orders are large, NGOs pay upfront and they also handle transport and

distribution (Mazvimavi et al., 2008). These approaches can also be used as an opportunity to

finance the large scale dissemination of seed of new promising research varieties as this method

can reach out to many famers more quickly (Sperling and Remington, 2006).

Emergency seed aid has been given in Zimbabwe during at least 15 of the last 29 years, since the

country achieved its independence in 1980 (modified and updated from Rohrbach et al. 2005).

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO) first started keeping detailed

records of such distributions in 2004, and Table 2.1 gives an idea of the overall magnitude of

such emergency aid in recent years. Hybrid and OPV Maize, small grains and variously kinds of

fertilizer have formed the base of emergency seed aid inputs (Table 2.1). Of particular note is

the upcoming season, where the International Community is finalizing plans for direct supply of

seeds and fertilizer smallholder farmers.



November

2010


Table 2.1: Emergency seed and fertilizer beneficiaries, Zimbabwe 2003-2010

Agricultural Season Number of beneficiaries

2003/04 985,000

2004/05 422,000

2005/06 372,000

2006/07 315,000

2007/08 232,000

2008/09 310,000

2009/10 600,000

Source: UNFAO Information Unit, Harare, 2010

A considerable amount of emergency seed aid in Zimbabwe has consisted of direct seed and

fertilizer distributions and guidelines exist to improve this work (Rohrbach, Charters and Mfote

2004). New approaches have also been implemented, particularly in the last five to eight years.

CARE International has considerable experience working with agro-dealers in Masvingo

Province on seed assistance programs through vouchers (Musinamwana, 2009). Catholic Relief

Services pioneered the use of Seed Vouches and Fairs (SVF) in emergency, starting in

Zimbabwe in 2002 (Bramel and Remington, 2004; Mazvimavi, 2008) and NGOs, such as Plan

International are implementing SVF even this season (2009/10).

The Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ) has also managed various kinds of input supply programs.

For several seasons after 2006, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) and Grain Marketing

Board (GMB) operated input distribution programs aimed at increasing food production: seeds

and fertilizer were distributed throughout the country to newly resettled farmers in commercial

farms and to communal farmers. In 2008/09, there were logistical problems resulting in late

arrival and distribution of most inputs, some arriving in December and January (Ministry of

Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation Development Second Round Crop and Livestock

Assessment Report, April 2010)



November

2010


Table 2.2: Emergency Agricultural Inputs distributed (Tonnes), Zimbabwe 2003-

2010

Season

Top

Dressing

Compound

D

Maize

OPV

Maize

Hybrid Sorghum Millet Cowpeas Groundnuts

Sugar

Beans

Small

Grains

2003/04 6,184 1,553 3,304 3,061 2,218 617 786 550 2,835

2004/05 4,866 962 1,972 291 776 71 545 66 175 847

2005/06 8,117 509 1,605 31 719 52 158 370 332 771

2006/07 7,120 1,929 696 175 706 276 312 737 251 982

2007/08 7,661 937 307 138 897 222 608 608 15 1,119

2008/09 10,222 5287 1,282 54 822 117 208 247 173

2009/10 77,152 62,647 2,373 110 1,900 242 408 450 320 n/a

Source: UNFAO Information Unit, Harare

2.3 Agro-inputs in relation to poverty, rural livelihoods and development

Smallholder farmers use multiple channels for procuring their inputs. For seed there two

channels namely the formal and informal seed systems (with the latter also sometimes labeled as

the local, traditional or farmer seed system). The input sources varies with poverty and

vulnerability levels and contexts, with the better-off mainly accessing the mostly the formal

routes and the poorer farmers usually use the informal seed systems.

The type of inputs accessed and used has a direct impact on crop yields, food security, poverty

and in the long term affect development options for the rural poor whose livelihood is anchored

on agriculture. We now turn to the focus to farmers strategies for input acquisition, and

especially for seed.



November

2010


Farmer

Exch.Market

Govnt. Relief

Genebanks

Cultivation

Harvesting

SEED

Storage

Consumption

BreedersSeed

production

Planting

OTHER

LOCAL

SYSTEMS

Commer.

Own

Stocks

Figure 2.1: Channels through which small-scale farmers’ access seed

Poor and vulnerable farmers in Zimbabwe have long had a series of coping strategies for

accessing seed related to drought, However, in the last few years, a new set of coping strategies

related to accessing seed has emerged, some associated with increasing poverty. In terms of

responding to increasing poverty, several seed sourcing strategies are remarkable:

2.3.1 Maricho (Piece work or Casual labor)

Maricho is a native word which is usually used but not exclusively to describe agricultural tasks

such as weeding, planting harvesting in exchange for some form of payment. Although maricho

are usually undertaken within the local community, farmers are also now going to outside

communities, including small-scale commercial farming areas, to look for this type of work. In

instances where needy farmers are engaged to weed or plant, it means that their own fields will

be attended to later, often when the rains have advanced. Therefore, there is a good chance of

casual workers getting a low harvest, even if the rain season is good.

Sharing seed obtained as aid or exchanging it for other types or varieties of seed.



November

2010


Occasionally (rarely?) farmers select and sowing maize seed from grain issued by NGOs as

food aid rations. This may be done by both primary beneficiaries and non-beneficiary

community members who have acquired grain from recipients of food aid.

2.3.2 The ‘Currency Dilemma’

Zimbabwe has gone through a significant currency transformation in February 2009 abandoning

the volatile Zimbabwean dollar and adopting a multi-currency system. This combined with

increasing poverty and sky-rocketing unemployment rates also affected means by which farmers

obtained inputs. Novel coping strategies include the barter trade; particularly in the last five

years has been the major form of trade in most rural areas as many were avoiding using the

Zimbabwean dollar. Farmers exchange commodities such as crops and small livestock for seed.

Units of measure vary in size but the most common are 400ml tea cups, 5 liter containers and 20

liter buckets. Although this practice is largely confined to the local community, outside traders

may also barter on a larger retail level.

Most recently, the adoption of the multi-currency (US$, Rand, Pula etc) has presented its special

set of challenges. In the rural countryside, (and indeed nearly everywhere), US currency notes

are hard to find, particularly the smaller denominations such as the cents, $1 and $2 notes which

would be used by the small farmer to buy seed for the small farmer. Hence, re-packing of seed

and fertilizer in smaller units has also emerged and barter trading and/or commodity exchanges

assumed more importance.

In normal situations, farmers buy their agricultural inputs soon after harvest, after selling their

produce. However, with the adoption of foreign currency which is still in short supply, many

farmers are finding it difficult to raise enough money for the agricultural inputs they require.

Moreover, local prices for produce are comparatively low.

2.4 The formal Agro-input Supply System

Zimbabwe has been long known for having an unusually well developed national seed industry.

When functioning well, more than 15 companies were involved in the seed production and

marketing of over 20 different crops (Takavarasha, Rohrbach and Mfote, 2005).



November

2010


Maize is by far the most important production focus of seed industry and the only important food

crop for which farmers are dependent on the formal seed sector. In the past, commercial seed

companies have also sold seed of other crops, but these have been a minor focus relative to

maize. Some of the commercial crops for which seed was previously sold included: wheat,

barley, sunflower, soybeans and cotton. Staple food crops for which seed of improved varieties

was also previously sold included sorghum, peal millet, cowpeas and groundnuts. Much of the

seed of non-maize food crops had been produced by smallholder farmers working in conjunction

with seed companies the Agricultural, Technical, and Extension Services (AGRITEX), NGOs

and some international agricultural research centers. It was purchased from the farmers and sold

primarily into the relief seed market (Bramel and Remington, 2004). Also, due primarily to

collaborative efforts between the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid

Tropics (ICRISAT) and commercial seed companies, sales of seed of improved varieties of

sorghum increased from 281 mt in 1998 to 1102 mt in 2002. Sales of improved varieties of pearl

increased from 7 mt in 2000 to 278 mt in 2002 (Heinrich, 2004)

Between 2006/07 and the beginning of 2009, the formal seed sector nearly closed due to price

controls, inflation and currency constraints, as well as an unfavorable policy/regulatory

environment. Most networks of contract seed growers had to be completely re-organized after

the elimination of large-scale commercial producers. Further, essentially all retail seed outlets

closed. However, with liberalization of the regulatory/policy environment and introduction of

US$ and the Rand economy in the first quarter of 2009, most seed houses have been expanding

grower networks, and are re-opening retail outlets. In addition, since about March of 2009, agro-

dealers in urban and rural areas, and other retail outlets in the rural areas, have also started to

open and stock agricultural inputs – especially seed of hybrid maize. These new initiatives are

very important and hopeful, but also very fragile.

2.4.1 Structure of Formal Sector variety and seed systems

At the turn of the century, variety development systems for all important commercial crops were

functioning well in Zimbabwe. There were several components to these systems. First, a



November

2010


number of seed companies had their own effective breeding programs, including SeedCo,

Pannar, and others. In addition, there were several International Agricultural Research Centers

(IARCs) that had offices and field programs either in Zimbabwe or in neighboring countries in

the SADC region: these centers were also developing materials and making these available to

national research systems and private seed companies. Two IARCs based in Zimbabwe and that

had active breeding programs were the International Center for Maize and Wheat (CIMMYT),

and the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), the latter

producing improved sorghum and pearl millet materials. A third component of the variety

development system was the national Department of Research and Specialist Services (DR&SS)

that maintained breeding programs for many of the major food crops including maize, sorghum,

pearl millet, finger millet and pulses. These were housed in a unit called the Crop Breeding

Institute (CBI). CBI was also responsible for coordinating a “Variety Release Committee” that

met annually to review data submitted by their own breeders, or by private sector companies, in

support of the release of new varieties for Zimbabwe. In addition to CBI, the Ministry of

Agriculture maintained (and still maintains) a Seed Services unit. This unit is responsible for

certification of seed for commercial sale, evaluations of seed quality, and the implementation of

national seed regulations in general.

Variety development programs were significantly disrupted during the land reform process, in

2000. Some of the larger seed companies lost some or all of the farms on which they had been

operating their breeding programs. Because of economic difficulties, some of the IARCs re-

located their scientists and breeding programs outside of the country, and funding for DR&SS

breeding programs also declined. Also, as price controls for seed (especially maize and wheat)

came into effect, the whole profitability of breeding programs in-country became questionable,

and a number of companies moved the majority of their breeding programs to neighbouring

countries.

Today, at least one company does maintain a limited breeding and research program in

Zimbabwe, but most have moved the bulk of these operations to neighboring countries. Fertilizer

is frequently used as a complement to seed, even by small holder farmers.



November

2010


2.4.2 Fertilizer production and distribution in Zimbabwe

About 70% of the chemical (inorganic) fertilizers used in Zimbabwe have traditionally been

manufactured locally with a few of the raw materials such as potash being imported (IDC, 2008).

Supply of ammonium nitrate, the main source of nitrogen, is often supplemented through

importation of urea. Annual deficits in the top dressing fertilizer are about 20,000 mt. About

52% of the fertilizer supply does go to the smallholder sector (Table 2.3), and over 80% of this

fertilizer is allocated to maize.

Table 2.3: Traditional typical hectarage and demand (metric tonnes) for different

fertilizers in Zimbabwe

Crop Typical Historical

Hectarage

NPK

Compounds

Ammonium

Nitrate

Total Fertilizer

Demand

Maize Commercial 240,000 60,000 60,000 120,000

Small Scale-Maize 1,200, 000 50,000 80,000 130,000

Soybean 70,000 10,000 - 10,000

Cotton 330,000 15,000 15,000 30,000

Tobacco 200,000 80,000 40,000 120,000

Other Crops 300,000 40,000 30,000 70,000

Summer Crops 2,340,000 255,000 225,000 480,000

Winter Crops 80,000 45,000 35,000 80,000

TOTAL Demand 2,420,000 300,000 260,000 560,000

Source: IDC, 2008

Over the past decade, there has been a decline in fertilizer production in the country. Production

of ammonium nitrate has declined from 250,000 mt in 1999 to less than 75,000 mt in 2008

(Table 2.3), while production of phosphate (P2O5) declined from 40,000 to less than 10,000 over

the same period (Figure 2.2, bottom). This decline has been attributed to the following factors by

the major manufacturers: foreign exchange shortages, price controls, electricity shortages and

unreliable supplies, coal Shortages, brain drain and skills shortages due to various economic

challenges.



November

2010


0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Year

Pro

du

ctio

n (

To

nn

es)

Production

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

Prod

uctio

n (T

onne

s)Consequently, availability of fertilizer on the market has been severely limited, driving prices

beyond the reach of most smallholder farmers. The decline in production has also meant that

even initiative of government and other development agencies could not acquire sufficient

fertilizer.

Source: IDC, 2008

Figure 2.2: Trends in the manufacture of ammonium nitrate (top graph) and

phosphate (P2O5) (bottom) fertilizers in Zimbabwe between 1999 and 2008

A major source of response to the shortage has been importation, but significant quantities were

only imported in between 2005 and 2008 (Figure 2.3). The decline in production has also been

associated with withdrawal of sales offices that traditionally provided services to farming

communities. A major consequent of the decline in production patterns has also been the

reduction in the range fertilizer types. The most predominant fertilizer types that remained on the

market were the basal Compound D and ammonium nitrate top dressing fertilizer, both for

maize. However, a major challenge was also the lack of timely supply of the fertilizers. While

farmers in areas such as Uzumba had relatively high chances of accessing the limited fertilizer

on the market, those in remote areas such as Pfungwe were most adversely affected. The

problem was compounded by the non-existence of manufacturing capacity in neighboring



November

2010


0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

fert

ilize

r qu

antit

ies

(Ton

nes)

Local Manufacturers

Imports

Total sales

countries (excluding South Africa), which hitherto, had depended partly on supplies from

Zimbabwe. Only very modest supplies of fertilizer were available within the country through

informal channels.

Figure 2.3: Patterns in locally manufactured and imported inorganic fertilizers in

Zimbabwe between 2001 and 2008

Significant fertilizer supplies started to be available, for the farmer buyer, in July 2009. Price

was the compelling constraint. Using barter economy rates, the price has gone up five-fold in

but two to three years.

2.5 The Informal Agro-Input Supply Systems

Sorghum, pearl millet, groundnuts, cowpeas, bambara nuts, sugar beans and sweet potato

constitute the bulk of crops that are important in the informal seed sector in Zimbabwe. Others

include open pollinated maize varieties, soybeans, sunflower, white beans and finger millet.

Except for maize, the informal sector supplies over 95% of the seed Zimbabwe farmers sow.

The informal sector includes all the ways framers themselves produce and dissemination seed,

through own stocks, barter/gifts and markets, with gift-giving being remarkably extensive in

Zimbabwe. Sources of seed sold in informal channels will vary according to the size of the

market. In big markets, such as those in towns, seed might come from distant farming areas in

outer lying districts, provinces and even across boarders. In smaller markets the seed usually

comes from local farming community.



November

2010


Of late due to the collapse of the economy and the resultant shortage of maize seed in the

formal market, hybrid maize has also made inroads into the informal markets. In this case hybrid

maize bought in 10kg, 20kg, 25kg or 50kg packs is repackaged into smaller packets of 2kg and 5

kg and sold in the informal market from trucks or open market stalls. In the same manner, hybrid

maize seed, used to pay employees of some seed companies, has found its way into the informal

market.

It is these informal markets which have been the backbone of seed provision during these years

of stress in Zimbabwe. The informal seed system has moved its normal range of crops, which

are key for production stability and nutrition, and many of which are associated with women.

Unusually, the informal sector in Zimbabwe in recent years has also been the prime deliverer of

the formal seed sector. All this has happened in the absence of significant financial or legal

support.

Many trends have helped the informal sector in Zimbabwe remain stable and unusually dynamic,

partly as numerous specific links exist between the informal and the formal seed sector systems.

In normal times, when trials and crop demonstrations are a common feature with the public,

private sector and International agricultural institutions, new and improved varieties have entered

the informal channels on a consistent basis and in multiple ways. The following are some of the

special ways crops and varieties have moved (and still move) through the informal sector.

2.5.1 Institutional channels Participatory variety evaluations (PVS)

In order to guide variety development programs, both private and public, farmers are sometimes

invited to their research stations to evaluate varieties that are being developed. In the past,

farmers have sometimes asked for and been given either a few heads or small quantities of the

variety material to take back with them. Such material has been planted on a small scale first

and, if it showed some traits that farmers were interested in, spread in the communities through

gifts, exchanges and sales, particularly for small grains. During evaluations farmers have been

observed and reported to particularly value seed characteristics or traits such as early maturity,

tolerance to mid season dry spells and droughts and high yield gains. A good example of such



November

2010


spread is the pearl millet variety Okashana, released in Namibia but multiplied by farmers in

Tsholotsho before it was even released in Zimbabwe (Heinrich, 2004).

2.5.2 On-farm trials

As research institutions such as Department of Research & Specialist Services (DR&SS),

ICRISAT and others have conducted both agronomic and variety on-farm trials. Some of the

material used in the trials, has found its way into the farmers’ fields in subsequent seasons. If

such material performs well, it spreads very quickly in the community through gifts, exchanges

and sales. Field days that are held on sites where the on-farm trials have been conducted also

help the spread of such material, even beyond the hosting community. Through field days,

farmers have learnt about new materials, increasing their demand for the materials. In the same

manner, variety demonstrations carried out by extension to compare old or local varieties with

new or improved varieties have also helped channel varieties into communities.

2.5.3 Cross border trade

Some materials find their way across borders. These are usually moved across borders by cross

border traders, middlemen or by people who visit some relatives in neighboring countries.

2.5.4 Seed Multiplication programs and Farmer Field Schools (FFS)

Some concerted, community based seed multiplication programs also have helped multiply seed

on a novel scale. Farmer Field Schools started in Zimbabwe in the 1996/97 season with a

program on Integrated Production and Pest Management, (IPPM) otherwise commonly known as

Integrated Pest management (IPM). In 2003/2004 season, FAO sponsored some FFS on

Integrated Soil Nutrient and Water Management (ISWNM). Farmers in these FFS were also

trained in the multiplication of pearl millet, sorghum, cowpeas and groundnut seed. The FFS

schools multiplied seed as a group and as individuals. The quantity of seed multiplied by these

FFS also grew tremendously (Trip, 2006).



November

2010


In the past, the some FFS were contracted by SeedCo- a seed house to multiply pearl millet and

sorghum seed for them for four seasons. The Grain Marketing Board also contracted the same

farmers to multiply the same crops (Bramel and Remmington, 2004).

The informal seed sector has played an important role across Zimbabwe and especially in the

Semi Arid Areas of Zimbabwe where the majority of smallholders farm – and where much of the

emergency seed aid unfolds. The informal sector has remained dynamic through new variety

introductions and skill- building related to seed production. It has also continued to produce the

lion’s share of all seed—except for hybrid maize. Preliminary efforts to connect informal seed

production with private seed companies have been promising. Experience shows that farmers

can produced high quality seed and in impressively large quantities (ICRISAT, 2008).

The crops produced by the informal sector provide important production stability and nutrition

balance for most farming families. The sector could be an even important source of better

quality seed across a large range of crops, and on a sustainable basis, if it were given modest

financial, technical, and business development support. The informal sector has been too long

overlooked by donors and formal seed industry specialists. It represents an economic and

livelihood opportunity –and has great unrealized potential to contribute further to seed security

and to food security. There is need to design project approaches that support this important

sector.

2.6 Gender Roles and Responsibilities in relation to Agriculture and Input

Support Programmes

It has been noted that women in developing countries often manage seed-system processes,

especially storage and seed exchange (Sperling, 2000). In Zimbabwe, other additional important

issues to be considered when thinking about women and seed security include: women’s land

access, land tenure and property rights, impact of HIV/Aids, traditional women’s crops, seed

sources and storage for women’s crops; and formal research and extension.



November

2010


2.6.1 Land and Property Rights

In communal areas of Zimbabwe, land rights are regarded as traditional rights, primarily

facilitating men who were born in a certain area to provide a living for their households.

Residential and arable land is allocated to married men by traditional leaders and married women

have access to it only through their husbands. Problems associated with land tenure security and

land administration systems have been proven to be an integral part of the challenge facing

widows and other vulnerable women. Women who lose their husbands through death or divorce

are often vulnerable to property rights violations inflicted to them by either relatives or by the

wider community (Izumi, 2006). With respect to arable land, the ability of women to fully

utilize it usually declines with the loss of a husband. This inability is, at times, used a basis by

relatives for land seizures, both temporary and permanent. On dissolution of their marriages, the

women return to their natal homes. In such cases, if they require land for agriculture, this may be

allocated in pieces by their relatives. Women may be expected to work in their families’ fields

(Izumi, 2006).

Even within a functioning household, access to land by married women to grow their own crops

is subject to negotiation and can be a cause of conflict if husband is not in favor of the wife’s

plans. Therefore, how much land and its quality from the household field women are eventually

granted depends on individual women’s ability to negotiate effectively. Often, their husbands

will prioritize crops men have control over.

2.6.2 HIV/AIDS and Migration

One effect of HIV/AIDS and labor migration by males in rural communities of Zimbabwe has

been an increase in the number of female headed households. It is estimated that 60% of the

households are headed by women. These developments impact on availability of labor for

agricultural production. Also, migrant family members, including spouses often return home

already ill and requiring home-based care; this is usually provided by the women (Izumi, 2006)

2.6.3 Gender and Inputs - Women’s crops and control over harvest

Traditionally, there are some crops that are regarded as women’s crops. In Zimbabwe, these

crops include sweet potatoes, groundnuts, bambara nuts, cowpeas, finger millet, sorghum,



November

2010


pumpkins and pearl millet. The crops are mainly grown for preparing key dishes of food for the

family. Pumpkin and cowpea leaves for instance are used as vegetables (fresh and dried). Cereal

crops (finger millet and sorghum) although mainly used for sadza are also used to make non-

alcoholic fermented drink locally known as mahewu. Groundnuts are consumed as roasted or

boiled grain or are processed into peanut butter which is mixed with vegetables or other

traditional dishes (Sperling, 2009).

Although it is generally recognized that women use the crops for food for their families, women

also sell excess harvests or products to earn income. The crops are generally marketed locally, to

outside traders mostly from urban areas that come to the areas specifically to buy them. The

traders either pay cash for the crops or acquire them through barter trade.

2.7 The Input Voucher and Fair Approach

Market based approaches focus on giving farmers the means to obtain inputs. They are based on

the assumption that input access, not input availability, is the primary constraint (Sperling et al.,

2004). The use of input vouchers coupled with input fairs is the most common response in this

category. Input vouchers & fairs (IV&F) bring input sellers together on a specific day and in a

well-advertised local venue and then allows farmers who need inputs to select the crops,

varieties, fertilizers and other agro-inputs they want. Input fairs in Zimbabwe generally take the

form of temporary markets organized by NGOs to promote the trade of agro-inputs between farm

households, from local agro-dealers and seed companies. Originally, seed fairs were viewed as a

means to promote sharing of a wide range of traditional crop varieties in order to promote agro-

biodiversity (Rohrbach and Mazvimavi, 2006).

A fair is basically a market, that is, a space where traders display their products and buyers come

to purchase what they need. However, a fair is more than just a market where people go to sell or

buy products. A fair is a market that specializes, usually in a single sector. For example, there are

Fishing Fairs, Building Fairs and Agricultural Fairs. As a specialized market, the Fair attracts

special people and is a meeting place for the sector. An Agricultural Fair, for example, attracts

farmers, seed producers, tractor agents, plough traders, etc. It is these special people who turn the

fair into a meeting place where farmers can learn about new varieties and technologies, where



November

2010


they can share their experiences with other farmers and where they can make new business

contacts. For example, a farmer who goes to the fair to buy tomato seed might meet the director

of a tomato puree factory who may become a client for the crop. For people who produce

technology, the fair is a place to meet potential customers and gather information about farmers’

needs and demands. They can use this information to update their products or develop new ones.

For instance Seed fairs provide an ad hoc market place to facilitate access to seeds, or specific

crops and varieties, from other farmers, traders, and the formal sector. It is usually used in

conjunction with vouchers to provide poorer farmers with purchasing power. It is a short or

medium term response to address problems of seed access especially for subsistence crops, and

where local markets normally used. Increasingly also used to give farmers access to new

varieties. In Zimbabwe seed displays mainly to showcase diversity of seed in local communities

were introduced by Community Technology Development Trust (CTDT) in the 1990s (CTDT -

Food Security and Intervention Strategies in Zimbabwe, 2009)

An Agricultural Input Fair is, as its name suggests, a fair specializing in agro-inputs. These

inputs seed may be certified seed from specialized companies or may be grain selected by local

farmers, organic or inorganic fertilizers, livestock vaccines and drugs, tools such as hoes among

others. Input Fairs are normally organized at locality or community level because of the variety’s

requirements in terms of soil, water and temperature. Farmers do not go to the Input Fairs just to

buy the inputs that they need. The Seed Fair is a meeting place where farmers can find out about

innovations in the market and seed producers can learn about their clients’ tastes and concerns.

At a fair, farmers analyze, discuss and argue about the quality, usefulness and price of seed,

fertilizer and other inputs. Farmers have the chance to check the quality of seed with their

colleagues, to talk about the advantages and disadvantages of improved seed versus local seed

and to discuss among themselves the price of seed that they buy or sell. The Input Fair offers

sellers and seed companies the opportunity to gather information about farmers’ preferences and

tastes, about the specific conditions of the area and other information that is valuable for those

involved in improving and producing seed, fertilizer and other inputs. Interaction between

colleagues and between farmers and agro-input producers is a valuable and important aspect of

fairs (Leonardo, 2000).



November

2010


Vouchers are the cash of the fair. Targeted farmers are issued with vouchers or ‘input fair cash’

which provides these poorer farmers with the means to access inputs where it is available, from

local markets, or the commercial sector. The use of vouchers guarantees that their aid is really

being used to buy seed and to restart agricultural production. They want to know that people are

not spending the money on other needs instead of buying seed. Vouchers enable farmers to

access crops and varieties of their choice (Nathaniels and Mwajage, 2000).

2.8 Input vouchers and Fairs in Africa – The case of Ethiopia

In response to recurrent droughts for the last 20 years (except 1983-84, 1988, 1995-96)

government and NGOs have been supporting communities with input assistance. Most of the

targeted households lacked assets and endowments, low rainfall and high population density.

Direct distributions were done every year and they became “annual entitlements”. Results from:

Seed Needs Assessments Major problem: In 2002 CRS carried out a seed security and

availability assessment and responded by piloting the use of “Seed Vouchers/Coupons”. A total

of 56,577 beneficiaries reached with 1,754 MT of seed by pilot. Through 8 local implementing

partners a total of 163 seed fairs were held across 19 droughts affected Woredas (local districts)

(Bramel, Remmington and McNeil, 2004).

This response was based on the assumption that accessibility rather availability was the problem;

local and national seed systems are strong and responsive; farmers had tremendous indigenous

knowledge of seed and cooperation was going to come from the local Woreda committee

(Dercon, 2002).

Based on the needs assessment IV&F were implemented through the coordination of Woreda

committee (Implementing Partner, Rural District Council, Ministry of Agriculture staff &

Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission (DPPC), community representatives.

Targeting was done using participatory methods and each fair had a maximum limit of 500

beneficiaries. Fair days were reported to be busy, hectic and long and the issuing of vouchers had

limited time to purchase seed. Distances to fairs were as short as possible for both vendors and

beneficiaries so that inputs could be easily transported to fair sites. All the fairs were conducted

prior to planting, Ethiopia has two seasons belg (March – April) and meher (June - Sept) based



November

2010


on fields readiness input types and varieties which suit the seasons prior the fair. Over the year

seed fairs in Ethiopia have evolved to become input fairs and have also shifted from being an

emergency intervention to become an approach with developmental objectives of market

strengthening and access to new technologies (Bramel, Remmington and McNeil, 2004).

2.9 Regional Case study: Five years of agricultural input vouchers and fairs

in Mozambique

2.9.1 Introduction of vouchers and fairs and scale of implementation

Agricultural input vouchers and fairs were first implemented in Mozambique in response to the

floods of 2001, following 12 years of direct seed distribution. By 2001, those involved in

emergency seed provisioning were ready to try a new approach: there was a widely shared sense

of frustration with the fact that seed was always delivered late to farmers, and that the types of

seeds being distributed were not necessarily appropriate for all parts of the country. Action Aid,

one of the first agencies to implement agricultural input vouchers and fairs in Mozambique—had

been involved in conventional distributions, but realized that it was not sustainable in the long

term and suspected that farmers were not actually planting the seeds provided through DSD. The

methodology initially used for agricultural input vouchers and fairs in Mozambique followed the

CRS IV&F model. The current approach has been subjected to some modifications (Devji,

2004).

After the initial experiences with seed vouchers and fairs in Mozambique, the Ministry of

Agriculture recognized the voucher/fair system as the preferred mechanism for assisting farmers

affected by disaster in the country. This public endorsement by the MoA, combined with the

level of frustration with the earlier direct seed distribution, prompted a rapid change from seed

kits to agricultural input fairs and vouchers. Since 2001, more than 225 agricultural input fairs

have taken place in Mozambique, providing almost USD 950,000 of agricultural inputs through

vouchers distributed to over 100,000 drought-affected farmers. The voucher/fair approach was

implemented on a pilot scale in 2001 and 2002, and then scaled up quite considerably. At

present, all emergency seed interventions employ the voucher/fair approach (Harvey, 2005).



November

2010


2.9.2 Market Development

Although the majority of the proceeds from agricultural input fairs in Mozambique do not

necessarily remain in local communities, in general, it was widely felt that the fairs encouraged

commercial activity and the potential for market development at a local level. The fairs

themselves attract a number of traders selling an assortment of items for cash (such as sugar,

rice, oil, and soft drinks) outside the fair enclosure. In some places, the fairs are also seen as an

opportunity for farmers to sell not only agricultural inputs but also their outputs, particularly

livestock (for example, chickens and goats). In some districts (for instance, Manhiça District and

Maputo Province), beneficiaries are advised to bring their own money to the fair (in addition to

the 20,000 Mts required for the voucher contribution), and non-beneficiaries are also invited to

participate and bring their own money. Thus, the level of cash sales at a fair is often as great as

the level of voucher sales. In some districts, the experience of the fairs has prompted farmers and

traders to request assistance from the District Development Agency (DDA) in organizing market

days where they can sell their produce (ICRISAT- Mozambique, 2002).

Such requests suggest that there is potential for market development in the areas where the fairs

are held. But what evidence is there to suggest that vouchers and fairs can support market

development? In some cases, the increased knowledge and the networking possibilities afforded

by the fairs have allowed vendors to realize new opportunities. In some places, for example,

links between seed companies and traders established through the fairs have allowed traders to

sell seed company products. One of the seed retailers interviewed reported that the experience of

the fairs in Maputo Province allowed him to identify pockets of unmet demand and he

subsequently opened two additional shops to meet this demand. In instances where the vendors

have been able to increase their sales through participating in the fairs, some of the profits have

been invested in improving their business enterprise. Traders from Xai-Xai market who

participated in the agricultural input fairs, for example, reported that the fairs provided a good

opportunity to sell their products and allowed them to sell considerably more in one day than

they would normally (ICRISAT- Mozambique, 2002).



November

2010


2.9.3 Awareness-raising and the dissemination of agricultural technologies

In general, agricultural fairs are seen as offering a good opportunity to promote awareness of key

social issues. In Mozambique, theatre groups are regularly invited to the fairs to perform

educational shows with messages relating to HIV/AIDS. Considering the agricultural focus of

the fairs, however, it is surprising that no formal effort is made currently to promote agricultural

extension messages at the fairs. At an informal level, much agricultural information is being

exchanged: farmers learn about seed and inputs they previously may not have had access to; they

discuss seed issues among themselves, with traders, and with company agents; and some might

develop a better realization of the value of seed. Similarly, informal traders gain knowledge from

farmers and from company agents about local preferences and the range of inputs available

through the formal sector. Through direct contact with farmers and informal traders, company

agents also learn about local preferences and markets. At an informal level, there is thus an

abundance of information being shared among the fair participants. But not all of this

information is necessarily accurate; in some cases it is mere propaganda on the part of the

vendors wanting to promote and sell their products. Although District Development Agency

(DDA) staff members are aware that some of the propaganda information is inaccurate, at

present there is no formal effort to provide accurate agricultural extension messages beyond the

advice offered by individual DDA staff to individual farmers. As such agricultural input fairs are

presently a missed opportunity for promoting accurate information about ‘improved’ agricultural

technologies (Longley, Dominguez and Devji, 2005).

2.9.4 Social protection

Social protection mechanisms allow people to cope with adverse circumstances and enhance

opportunities for poverty reduction, equity and growth. There exists a vast array of different

mechanisms via which social protection can be provided, including agricultural programmes. In

Mozambique, however, social protection is not yet on the agenda of the Ministry of Agriculture,

and agricultural staff members are, in general, not familiar with the rationale for, or the

approaches to, social protection currently being promoted in other sectors or countries (Longley,

Dominguez and Devji, 2005)



November

2010


In Mozambique, there is increasing interest in social protection mechanisms to support those

affected by HIV/AIDS and other vulnerable groups. At present, social protection is provided

through the National Institute for Social Action (INAS) within the Ministry of Women and

Children. Another form of social protection is provided to those who have a Poverty Certificate

(for which there is a complex registration and annual renewal process); these individuals receive

a cash transfer of 80,000 Mts per month and are exempt from school fees, health fees, and other

such payments. Hence, social protection systems already exist in Mozambique, and it is possible

to explore the potential for linking such systems to voucher/fair interventions, in which those

already targeted for social assistance might also become beneficiaries of agricultural input

vouchers and fairs. Further data on the actual use of inputs provided through agricultural input

fairs and their impacts on vulnerability and agricultural production are needed to consider the

viability of using agricultural input vouchers as a social protection mechanism (ICRISAT-

Mozambique, 2002).



November

2010


CHAPTER THREE

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOGY

3.1 Introduction

The study was carried out in Uzumba Maramba Pfungwe (UMP) district (see map appendix A1)

across 6 different wards (see map appendix A2) selected using purposive random sampling.

Purposive sample entails a sample selected in a deliberative and non-random fashion to achieve a

certain goal. In a focus group, for example, you may want to consciously seek out respondents at

both ends of a spectrum (as well as some in the middle) to insure that all viewpoints are

adequately represented. You might also preferentially recruit subjects who have the best

knowledge and experience in an area. In this case study wards were randomly picked from a

‘purposive’ sample of wards where CRS and CTDT has input support intervention through

IV&F and conventional input programmes have been implemented.

3.2 Study Area Selection

UMP district was chosen on the basis that Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and Community

Technology Development Trust (CTDT) have introduced the IV&F in 2002 and conventional

methods have used by Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ) and many other parastatals through the

Grain Marketing Board (GMB), Operation Maguta (Led by the Zimbabwe National Army) and

many other NGOs which has been implemented since the late 1990s. This study was mainly

focusing on the five seasons from 2005/06 to 2009/10 season and exploring views on both

conventional and IV&F which were implemented in the district. UMP district falls into three

different agro-ecological zones namely Natural Region II (NR II) for parts of Uzumba area on

the border with Murewa refereed to as Uzumba South, NR III for the greater Uzumba area called

Uzumba North and further to the north is NR IV for the Pfungwe area. The area offered a very

good study area with different parts falling under different agro-ecological zones, which mimics

most parts of the country, allowing the research findings to be applicable to most parts of the

country. Sites were chosen so as to link the assessment to action, and also to allow for some

extrapolation application of the findings. Within the district a total of six wards were chosen

using the following criteria:



November

2010


Wards where CRS, GoZ and other NGOs have been working on input support programmes

since 2005 addressing agricultural input- related constraints;

Different wards which are sufficiently contrasting so as to potentially uncover different types

of input access and utilization scenarios and draw lessons learnt;

Classic ‘maize’(high potential areas), that is the wards in the Upper and Greater Uzumba

areas and typical ‘small grain’ area (medium to low potential) in the Pfungwe areas.

UMP district is approximately 165 km north-east of Harare. Uzumba south is in agro-ecological

region IIb while Uzumba north is in region III, Maramba and Pfungwe are in region IV. UMP

was declared as an independent district after independence in 1980. Before 1980, it was just

considered as Murehwa district (Gowe, personal communication).

The district covers an area of approximately 4 934 square kilometer and has a population of

about 110,302 people (Mutawatawa hospital), a 5.7 % increase from 104 336 in 2002. Population

density ranges from 10.4 to 3.6 per square kilometer and the district has a total number of 33,783

farming households. For a long time the district had a total of 15 wards but now there are 17

Wards. These two wards (16 and 17) have been created from wards 5, 6 and 7. Until the political

constituency re-demarcation of 2008, Uzumba has been part of UMP constituency and is now an

independent political constituency. The area falls under three different Chieftainships with

Uzumba area under Chief Chipfuyamiti and Maramba and Pfungwe under Chiefs Chiutsi and

Chinyerere respectively.

Upper Uzumba (Uzumba South) covers Chikwira ward 13; Nhakiwa ward 14 and Musosonwa

ward 15. Specifically the study was carried out in wards 13 (Chikwira) and 15 (Musosonwa) in 5

villages per ward falling under Region IIB. This area receives rainfall in the ranges of 900-

1000mm per annum and have mean of maximum and minimum air temperatures range from

15oC in June to 22oC in October. The two wards have a total household population of 3,606

households a population of 17,671 and an average household size of 5. Lower Uzumba Area

(Uzumba North) covers Marowe ward 8 and Mukuruanopamaenza ward 9 (which are both study

wards) and the three in Uzumba East (Chigwarada ward 10, Manyika ward 11 and Nyamhara

ward 12). These five wards and parts of Ward 6 (Maramba) are in natural region III and receive

an average of 650- 850 mm rainfall per annum. The two study wards (Marowe ward 8 and



November

2010


Mukuruanopamaenza 9) have a total household population of 3,435 households a population of

15,509 and an average household size of 5. The study also covered the drier Pfungwe area

located to the north of Mutawatawa, the district administrative centre. This area covers wards 1

to 5 and of these wards 2 (Chiunze 1) and 3 (Chiunze 2) were selected for this study. The area

falls in natural region IV were rainfall is around 450-650 mm rainfall per annum and sometimes

experiences prolonged dry spells rain. The two study wards have a total population of 11,204,

2490 households and an average household size of 5.

All the six study wards across the district were purposefully sampled on the basis that they have

experiences with both Conventional and IV&F within the past five years.

3.3 Study sites selection

Six wards were chosen for the study two from each of the three distinct areas as shown in the

table 3.1 below. A total of 30 villages were randomly selected for the study, that is, 10 from each

of the three areas, 5 from each ward, that is, 2 for household (HH) interviews and 3 for FGDs.



November

2010


Table 3.1: Study sites

Area

(Description)

Ward Numbers and

names

Villages for Focus Group

Discussions

Villages for HH

interviews

Uzumba South

(Classic high

maize area)

Musosonwa ward 15 Mhishi

Kamucheka

Mutengambiri

Chigwida

Tambara

Mbizi

Chikwira ward 13 Tafirenyika

Jaji

Gotora

Mutemaringa

Zvomuya

Uzumba North

(Medium and

diverse cropping

systems)

Marowe ward 8 Chari

Shangwa

Ben

Kwendambairi

Joe

Mukuruanopamaenza

ward 9

Chivinge

Dyora

Katiyo

Madzwavava

Mashambanhaka

Pfungwe (very

dry and small

grains area)

Chiunze 1 ward 2 Mutata

Mukango

Chindenga

Tokoti

Mbofana

Chiunze 2 ward 3 Chingwinyiso

Nhadziso

Jamari

Matumbura

Siyakurima

3.4 Research Design

The following section briefly outlines the methods used in gathering and collecting both primary

and secondary data for this thesis. As shown in Figure 3.3 below the study started with the

development and submission of the research proposal. After the proposal was accepted, the

researcher made preliminary visits to study districts where the study was introduced and also

meeting with key officials in various government departments and ministries who later on



November

2010


became contact people as well as key informants. At district level, key informants were

personnel from AGRITEX, RDC, GMB, Civil society, Seed Houses etc.

Figure 3.1: Project Implementation Plan and Design

3.5 Data Collection

This study was carried out from June to November 2010 and used both qualitative and

quantitative methods in gathering data and focused on multiple stakeholder insights and cross-

checked information from the supply and use side. Data collected situated within a larger

historical context in the sense that the selected areas were representative of the whole UMP

district and also mimic most rural settings in Zimbabwe. Use of Ministry of Agricultures and

FAO databases on crop production trends and seed and fertilizer supply programmes history was

Proposal Development

and Literature Review

Preliminary Visit to the Study area and training of research

team

Key Informant Interviews

and secondary data gathering

Data collection Farmer

interviews and Focus Group

Discussions

Data Analysis and

synthesis

Results and Discussion

Progress Presentation

Thesis Writing and Presentation/ submission



November

2010


of great assistance to provide insights to the area of study. A preliminary visit was carried out to

request for permission from the district authorities including the District Administrator and the

Rural District Council (RDC). Discussions with CTDT field officers and the District AGRITEX

office headed by the DAEO culminated in the selection of study sites and the identification of

key informants.

This was followed by a visit to study sites, this time for data collection. The researcher trained a

research team of 6 enumerators on the methodology and explained the aims of the research work

and reasons why he needs their cooperation. The research team members carried out mock-

interviews and then a preliminary administration of the all the tools was done in one area

(Pfungwe) with whole team. After ascertaining that the enumerators had gained confidence each

was allocated questionnaires to administer in Uzumba North and South respectively. During this

hands-on experience the researcher identified an assistant team leader to assist in decision

making in his absence. To ensure quality data collection the researcher also sampled

questionnaires from different enumerators for field verifications.

The range of methods used and themes explored in the study are sketched in table 3.2 below.

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques were used to enable participating communities

and key informants to express and share information freely and to stimulate discussion and

analysis. These included discussions and interviews with stakeholders at various levels in the

selected wards.

At ward level, discussions were held with ward AGRITEX officers, councilors, village headmen

and individual households. At household level, discussions were held with respondents to

explore their background, knowledge, farming practices, agricultural input sourcing history,

views and perceptions to existing input sources and approaches particularly the input vouchers

and fair model, specific comparisons of this model with conventional approaches among other

seed and fertilizer sourcing related issues.

At district level, interviews and discussions were also held with key stakeholders representing

government departments to obtain information related to input provision in the three areas of the



November

2010


district. Dialogue was maintained with key stakeholders throughout the period of study, data

analysis and documentation. A semi-structured questionnaire was administered to 120

households, 40 each from Pfungwe, Upper Uzumba and Lower Uzumba. Questionnaire

administered at household level focused on issues of agricultural input sourcing, sources,

experiences with and perceptions on different input assistance approaches, reliability and

sustainability of the different sources, role of households, the community/leadership and

AGRITEX among other government ministries and departments in the different approaches. The

target group for administering the questionnaire was generally household mothers or fathers.

Children were also talked to but the adults were deemed to have reliable adequate knowledge on

issues being investigated. Purposive, convenience random sampling was used to get

questionnaire respondents at community level. Copy of the sample questionnaire is attached

(Appendix A 3-page 84). Differences in perceptions, realities, roles and priorities between

women and men were also assessed through focus group discussions.

In addition to interviews, observation was also used to examine the physical appearance and state

of some of the technologies in seed selection, storage and distribution channels in various

villages visited. Focus Group and key informant discussion guidelines tool modified from the

household interview tool is attached (Appendix A 4-page 89). Literature from a wide range of

published and unpublished sources was also undertaken to consolidate the field study and to

identify key issues that were relevant to this study. It must be noted that not much academic

work has been done in the field of agricultural input approaches analysis although there is a lot

of experience within rural communities and some other donor agencies. As such organizations

such as CRS and CTDT provided valuable literature for this study and values such work which

avails checks and balances and evaluate the initiatives they perceive to be sustainable. The

research has been appreciated as it informs programming and allows for modifications in

approaches to suit community needs and priorities.

Communities’ demand or rejection of specific input approaches, perception on IV&F approach

was also assessed using the Most Significant Change tool or guidelines developed by GRM



November

2010


International1 attached (Appendix A 5-page 91). Each community of the 18 FGDs identified a

story of most significant change attributable to either IV&F or any of the conventional

approaches of input delivery. CRS, CTDT and other key stakeholders including the researcher,

AGRITEX representation and one local leadership representation chose 1 story from each of the

3 zones to be included in the research as boxes.

3.6 Data Analysis

Data analysis was done using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and Excel.

1 GRM International is an International management agency for a number of donors which supports a number of

input support projects.



November

2010


Table 3.2: Investigative thrusts used in the study in Uzumba Maramba Pfungwe district, July 2010

Type of investigation Commentary

Individual farmer

interviews

(Beneficiaries N=120)

Topics discussed included: Agricultural input patterns sources for the past five seasons; Households’ perceptions on

various input sources; Comparison of IV&F model with conventional approaches and Personal opinions on the

future agricultural input support in Zimbabwe

Key informant

interviews – Ward Level

Discussions with ward Agritex officers, councilors, Chiefs, village heads, Ward Development Committee members

Focus Group

Discussions (N=18)

Topics discussed included: Agricultural input sources of the community by type of input (seed/fertilizer) – mapping

and importance of source; Any differences in sourcing by season quality (variations between a ‘bad’ and a ‘good

season’)?; Perceptions on IV&F compared to conventional methods; Any differences in post distribution utilization

by input assistance approach?; and Recommendations

Key informant

interviews - District

Level

CTDT officers, DAEO, Crops Specialist, AGRITEX officers, GMB, Seed Houses or their agencies). Discussions

focused on: Issues of agricultural input supply approaches in use/used; Perception of different input support

programs (focus emphasis on comparing conventional methods and CRS’s IV&F program); What are the

advantages and disadvantages? Recommendations – any suggested modifications on the approaches?

Agro-dealers (N=15) An in-depth analysis of the input market chain was carried out including the assessment of crops varieties and other

agricultural inputs supplies on the market? Any changes in the pricing patterns? Sourcing areas and quality

management procedures? What are their perceptions of different NGO and GoZ input support programmes?

Case Studies (N=6) These were unique cases of success or failure. The researcher used the most significant change story (MSC)

methodology (see guidelines on page 91) to gather stories of either negative or positive change from the

communities as a result of either conventional approaches or IV&F (3 were chosen and results presented in boxes)



November

2010


CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 DATA PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

While fieldwork only took place in one district and across three sites, the choice of locales offers

good coverage of typical Zimbabwe smallholder agricultural regions, and gives insight

particularly into the different areas in which agricultural inputs and other humanitarian aid might

be given. The study area ranged from the better off natural region IIB (Upper Uzumba) to the

very poor extreme of natural region IV (Pfungwe area) with the Lower Uzumba representing the

medium Natural Region III. This context is typical in most rural areas in Zimbabwe, the African

region and other countries such as India and Pakistan.

4.2 Agriculture and Rural Development

The household interviews across the 3 site of Pfungwe, Lower Uzumba and Upper Uzumba

revealed that 95% of the rural folk rely on agriculture as a source livelihood. This therefore

means that it is important to realize that agriculture is at the epicenter of rural development. Only

5% recognized other areas other than agriculture as their main livelihood activities with 2.5%

involved in other home industry activities such pottery, iron work and weaving. In Pfungwe one

of the households (0.8%) indicated that they considered illegal gold panning as a critical

household income generator and 1.7% identified buying and selling as their main trade as shown

in the pie chart in figure 4.1 below.

The bulk who are involved in agriculture generate cash from on-farm activities which included

crop sales (mainly vegetables), fruits and firewood sales, agricultural labour such as land

preparation, weeding and harvesting..



November

2010


Figure 4.1: Major Livelihood Activities in UMP district

Gold panning is mainly carried out in Mazowe and Muhume Rivers from May to October and

used to constitute a significant percentage had it not been for the police crackdown on illegal

gold panners. The police effectively stopped this community from undertaking this activity. The

major activities under home industry were self employment is in the form of firewood sales and

fruit vending.

Figure 4.2: Major Agricultural Activities for UMP farmers



November

2010


The field findings emerging across the three assessment sites indicate that of the 95% who are

involved in agriculture 59.2% are involved in field crop production, 35% in gardening and only

5.8% are into livestock (as shown in figure 4.2 above) although some are involved in some

combination of the three.

Field crop production and livestock were mentioned as major activities in Pfungwe with gardens

dominating in Uzumba. Livestock farmers in Pfungwe are involved cattle and goat marketing

with traders from as far as Harare such as Koala Cattle Sales and other small traders

predominantly speculators. Most small livestock traders would then auction them at urban

markets such as CC auctions. Those who are into field crops are of late involved in contract

farming with a commercial seed company called AgriSeeds for seed production of sorghum,

groundnuts and cowpeas. Horticultural farmers in the Uzumba area frequent Mbare Musika in

Harare or the Murewa market to sell their garden produce ranging from tomatoes, onions,

butternuts, cucumber, pepper among others. They have attempted to engage with formal markets

and companies such as Interfresh and Favco but have since stopped because of a number of

challenges ranging from transport, prices, production and quality-related among others.

According to records from AGRITEX at the district offices over 40% of the arable land was put

under the staple maize crop between 2005/06 to 2009/10 seasons (see table 4.1). This was

followed by groundnuts, sorghum, pearl millet and cowpeas. However there has been a

significant change in the trends in the area under cotton and sweet potatoes. Cotton has been

declining in area and farmers cited the investment costs as exorbitant, a situation which has been

exacerbated by the poor prices. In contrast, area under sweet potatoes has been increasing due to

the crop becoming a cash crop as it was on demand in most urban areas as a substitute for bread.

Interestingly, sweet potatoes has been shifted from being a “women’s crop” as man began to

develop interest in the crop.



November

2010


Table 4.1: Production Trends for major crops in UMP district, Zimbabwe

Season 2009/10 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07 2005/06

Crop Total area

planted

(ha)

Yields

(t/ha)

Total area

planted

(ha)

Yields

(t/ha)

Total area

planted

(ha)

Yields

(t/ha)

Total area

planted

(ha)

Yields

(t/ha)

Total area

planted

(ha)

Yields

(t/ha)

Maize 22,087 8,835 27,908 9,980 33,851 24,931 9981.0 20,215 20,215

Sorghum 7,462 2,239 6,330 2,492 6,182 6,243 3,121.0 6,002 6,002

Pearl millet 1,047 215 3,143 629 3,456 3,646 1,823 831 576

Rapoko 1,344 269 1,227 368 1,874 2,252 900 2,046 1,023

Rice 28 3 30 6 24 30 12 16 12

Groundnuts 11,995 7,197 9,492 4,146 2,170 7,230 2,892 4,921 1,476

Cowpeas 3,231 969 1,420 420 361 5,582 2,323 31 21

Sunflower 552 110 2,130 852 2,922 3,701 1,850 1,117 335

Sweet

potatoes

1,100 1,100 2,978 2,382 4,403 4,271 8,520 3,271 8,177.5

Sugar beans 391 39 372 149 237 135 27 259 129

Cotton 1,050 210 3,058 1,529 3,557 6,923 5,538 4,895 2,937

Soyabeans 227 45 108 32 330 216 43 34 17

Source: UMP District Agricultural Extension Office (DAEO), August 3,

2010



November

2010


4.3 Challenges for the smallholder farming sector

During the focus group discussions a total of 15 groups across the agro-ecological zones were

defined a good season as one in which rainfall is good and evenly distribute (without a mid-

season drought), in which ‘the inseparable twins, seed and fertiliser’ are easily accessible and

communities able to plant on time and able to harvest good yields.

Figure 4.3: Components of ‘good season’ in UMP from proportional piling sessions

According to the 3 communities interviewed a ‘good season’ has three major components

namely good rainfall, timely access to inputs and good crop yields. Uzumba farmers indicated

that a normal functional market was a very critical component of a good season and constituted

around 8%.

While fieldwork took place in four sites, the choice of locales offers good coverage of typical

Zimbabwe smallholder agricultural regions, and gives insight particularly into the variable areas

in which humanitarian aid might be given. These range from the better off natural region IIB

Uzumba to the poor extreme of natural region IV Pfungwe.



November

2010


4.4 Cropping and Input Systems in UMP district

4.4.1 Popularity of Crops in the district

In listing their three most important crops, farmers mentioned maize across the board in all four

sites, with 48% the farmers in Pfungwe giving it a priority status. This showed that not 100% of

Zimbabwean farmers center their agriculture on maize. Groundnut also appeared as of high

interest across sites. A cereal, sorghum, pearl millet or finger millet, was also usually cited as a

central entry as shown in table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Farmers’ most three most important crops grown in the study area

Crop Upper Uzumba Pfungwe Lower Uzumba All sites

Freq % farmers Freq % farmers Freq % farmers Freq % farmers

Maize 40 100 22 52.4 40 100 122 75.3

Sweet

potatoes

19 44.2 - - 2 5 21 12.7

Cowpea 6 13.9 14 33.3 8 20 38 24.1

Groundnut 24 55.8 24 57.1 21 52.5 69 59.0

Finger millet 22 51.2 - - 19 47.5 41 23.5

Bambara nut 4 9.3 5 11.9 11 27.5 20 13.3

Pearl millet 2 4.7 30 71.4 - - 32 33.1

Sorghum - - 32 76.2 11 27.5 43 41.6

Total sample 40 42 40 122

4.4.2 Sources of Inputs – Seed

Detailed analysis was done on farmers’ sources of seed, crop by crop, from 2005/6 to 2009/10

season. Four main possible options were explored to get specific insights for the strategies being

used to access seed.

Seed sources for each identified crop were explored in the study. Findings show that the options

of input voucher and fairs; ‘own stock and social networks’ which includes retained, carry over

and gifts from social networks; direct distributions and seed markets mainly local shops, vendors



November

2010


and Agro-dealers were a key sources for seed for all crops, both in terms of the percentage of

farmers using the source and quantities of seed actually accessed.

Table 4.3: Percent of farmers who used each seed source during 2005/6 to 2009/10

cropping seasons by crop across all sites

Source Maize Groundnut Finger

millet

Cowpea Sorghum Pearl

millet

Bambara

N=120 N=98 N=39 N=40 N=69 N=55 N=22

Own stocks/ social networks

(Retained /Carry over Gifts

from social networks)

42.4 28.2 44.4 30.0 51.2 42.7 29.1

Seed markets (Local Shops

barter/Vendors/Agro-

dealers)

19.2 12.7 0.8 3.5 2.9 4.9 18.2

Direct Distributions (Seed

aid)

33.6 23.1 12.0 6.5 4.3 7.8 0.0

Input Vouchers & Fairs 40.8 33.1 40.0 55.0 53.2 57.3 34.5

Use of markets was particularly important for maize, obtained primarily from agro-dealers and

local shops, although various types of barter (goods and labor) also provided about 10% of the

seed sown. In the case of legumes, it is exclusively the local shops and open markets which

provided the seed, rather than the formal seed suppliers. Sorghum, pearl millet and finger millet

seed were obtained mostly from farmers’ own stocks and social networks, as would be expected.

Direct distributions were a significant seed source only for maize and much of this through the

government program of Operation Maguta. However, a significant amount of the seed accessed

through direct distributions was not planted.

It was typical across all the main crops grown that seed sourced from IV&F and other input

markets were all planted (see figure 4.4 to 4.6). This was because farmers would have chosen the

seed they would have wanted to plant as opposed to be given something they ‘might’ not have

chosen had they been given the chance to choose.



November

2010


Figure 4.4: Percentage of maize seed obtained from each source, in relation to total

seed planted from 2005/05 to 2009/10 cropping seasons across sites

Figure 4.5: Percentage of Small grains seed obtained from each source, in relation

to total seed planted from 2005/05 to 2009/10 cropping seasons across sites

The same findings were confirmed by FGDs that farmers were more willing to utilize inputs they

have chosen themselves as opposed to the ones they have been given through direct distributions.

Vouchers were cited as a flexible model of input delivery as farmers can make decisions on their

own as opposed to direct distributions which are generally not planned and implemented with



November

2010


communities. As a supply-side approach, the implementers tend to make the major decisions on

seed procurement and distribution

Figure 4.6: Percentage of main legumes seed obtained from each source, in relation

to total seed planted from 2005/05 to 2009/10 cropping seasons across sites

Box 4.1: Do farmers really eat seed? Seed is the input at the heart of agriculture. It gears what farmers will grow, if and when they

will harvest. Seed, to produce, has to have a certain quality and has to be adapted to quite

specialized circumstances, including, in Zimbabwe, often to drought conditions.

So do farmers really eat the family jewels?

Community discussions, intensively debated across sites, suggest that it is rare for farmers to eat

their seed. Only the infantile or poor managers would truly squander such an important

resource.

There are, of course, standard exceptions, rooted in planned strategy. Farmers will eat their

seed stocks, if they can easily access desired seed again, as is the case for buying pulses on the

open markets. Also, knowing that NGO or governmental aid is on the way, farmers might eat

their recycled maize-- in anticipation of yet another free hybrid handout.

Post-script. Do farmers eat seed aid? : A women in Pfungwe shared her 2007 story. She only

needed the five kilos of maize aid—-so she ‘washed’ the other twenty. The Conventional

approach Relief aid gave her seed----and number of full family meals).



November

2010


4.4.3 Seed Source Mapping and the position of Input Vouchers and Fairs

Community mapping of seed sources served to confirm findings on evolving seed source

strategies. Communities groups worked together to map the seed sources for a particular crop,

comparing current sources with those used during the five years previous. Site by site maps

appear in three examples showing the level of detail are given below.

For pearl millet in Pfungwe ward 3, all seed is now sourced local system through own stocks and

gifts. Within the last five years, own stocks and gifts have remained important, but there have

also been pearl millet-related interventions by CRS, and, at times, farmers have gone to

neighboring districts to get pearl millet seed.

Figure 4.7: Sources of pearl millet seed during the 2009/10 season in Pfungwe area

(ward 2 and 3)

Three major sources of both finger and pearl millet seed were:

(i) Own retained seed – this was home-saved seed harvested from the previous seasons and

this was common amongst the farmers as a means of preserving their traditional varieties.

Farmers have their own means of keeping the seed including putting ash and burnt cow

dung among others.

(ii) Gifts- both focus groups and household interviews showed that farmers normally access

small grain seed from friends and relatives as gifts.

(iii) Input vouchers and fairs (dark green in figure 4.7 and 4.8) was one of the sources of

seed. Farmers explained that they managed to access some of the improved millet

varieties (both finger and pearl) through IV&F. This was because it allowed them to

choose seed

Own retained

seed

Gifts

Pearl millet seed

Input

Vouchers &

Fairs



November

2010


Key

Most important Medium important Least important

Figure 4.8: Channels through which farmer source finger millet seed in Uzumba South

(ward 8 and 9).

This solely from the informal seed channels mainly home-saved (retained) seed, gifts from

friends and relatives and bartering. Community members indicated that finger millet seed was

easily accessible from relatives and friends as compared to crops such as groundnuts, Bambara

nuts, cowpeas, soyabeans or sunflower.

Groundnuts seed (light green in figure 4.9) is sourced mainly from the informal seed channels

such as home-saved (retained), gifts, barter exchange for grain, other seed types or even

livestock and labour. Farmers can also access seed from the open markets such as Mbare

Musika, A2 resettlement areas and other districts such as Mutoko, Murewa and Goromonzi and

as far as other countries such as Malawi and Mozambique and South Africa. Home-saving and

resettlements in Murewa were identified as the most important sources of seed (in circles).

Own home-saved

(Retained) Barter exchange

Finger

millet

seed

Gifts (friends and relatives)

Seed

vouchers and

Fairs



November

2010


Key


Figure 4.9: Channels through which farmer source groundnut seed in Uzumba South

(Ward 13 and 15).

However together with gifts and the capital Harare Mbare Musika, IV&F (dark green) was

identified as the relatively important sources of groundnut seeds in Uzumba. They also identified

many other sources which were not as important. This included purchases from neighbouring

district of Mutoko, Mudzi, Murewa and Rushinga; from other countries such as Mozambique

and Malawi and other conventional input distribution mechanisms such as the SADC input

facility of 2008/9 season.

Own home-saved

(Retained)

Resettlement areas

‘Mapurazi’

Gifts (friends and relatives)

SADC Input assistance

(relief)

Mbare Musika Market

Farmer Groundnut

seed

Input Vouchers and Fairs

Purchases from other districts (e.g. Mutoko,

Murewa & Mudzi)

Cross border (Malawi,

Mozambique)



November

2010


Key


Figure 4.10: Channels through which farmer source maize seed (across sites) – 2008/09 -

2009/10 seasons

Sources of maize seed in UMP for two seasons 2008/9-2009/10 were mainly relief. Government

programs (such as Operation Maguta and Champion farmer input schemes), SADC-sponsored

inputs and seed aid constitute the predominant relief sector. There was also seed assistance

through development projects such as conservation farming and purchases from the ‘black

market’ in Murewa or Harare. These constitute the ‘formal’ channels. Farmers’ own stock

(usually local variety ‘garabha’), barter exchange (for other seed types, grain, food or livestock

etc), gifts and selection from grain (own harvest) constitutes the informal channels. Note that

most of these sources have other links (traceable to origination).

Maguta program (relief)

CRS Input Vouchers and Fairs

Donors

GoZ Input assistance (Relief)

Champion farmer program (relief)

Purchases from Black market

SADC Input assistance (relief)

Gifts (Relatives and friends)

Granary (Own harvest (Retained)

Selection from grain – Home saved

Farmer Maize Seed



November

2010


Figure 4.11: Maize Seed sources (across sites) for the past 5 seasons (2005/6 to

2009/10)

From figure 4.11 Input Vouchers and Fairs has been a major source of maize seed for the past 5

seasons through agro-dealers and seed companies such as Pannar, Pioneer and SeedCo across all

the study sites. During the same period conventional delivery mechanisms mainly from the GoZ

through the RBZ and the GMB were predominant input sources.

Table 4.4: Percentage of community members who are seed secure for 2010/11

season.

Crop Uzumba North Pfungwe Uzumba South

Maize n/a 100 90

Groundnuts 100 75 75

Sorghum 100 100

Pearl Millet 100 100

Finger Millet 100 100

Sweet Potato 100

Note: n/a= data not available

Maize

Seed

Seed

Input Voucher

& Fairs

Donor

Retained

Seed

Hybrids, OPVs

GMB

GOZ

Agro-dealers

Seed

Companies



November

2010


Generally across all the three sites farmers are seed secure for all the crops. This meant that the

farmers either had seed or had reliable sources of accessing the seed for the next season. An

analysis of these possible sources would better inform the NGOs, government and other civic

organizations who may want to assist the communities. Such an engagement will influence the

models recommended and how they can support the existing initiatives.

Legume seed is difficult to manage. However, farmers in Uzumba only need 10% and 8% of

their harvest for groundnuts and cowpeas respectively. The message from the table 4.4 and 4.5 is

consistent showing that a shortfall in crop yields does not necessarily imply a seed shortfall.

However, seed quality can be an issue during high stress times such as droughts. Figure 4.5

below shows that most farmers are seed secure for these crops and efforts therefore should be on

how to equitably distribute the seed amongst the farmers in the area. It is findings such as these

that prompted the development of the IV&F approach to avail resources for the poor and

vulnerable farmers to be able to access adaptable seed from the community ‘keepers’ of seed.

Table 4.5: Sowing needs per household: Groundnuts and cowpeas

Seed Parameter Groundnuts Cowpeas

Planted area per household (ha) 0.25 0.2

Seeding rate (kg/ha) 100 100

Sowing needs (kg) 20 20

Multiplication rate (grain produce divided

by seed sown)

10 12.5

Harvest 200 250

% of harvest required to meet sowing

needs (100 divided by multiplication rate)

10 8

4.4.4 Input vouchers and Fairs (IV&F) as means of fertilizer sourcing

Farmers use fertilizer on a routine across all the sites and it was used across a number of crops

but predominantly on maize. All the three FGDs communities agreed that seed and fertilizer

were equally important and were the inseparable ‘twins’. Crop production without the use of



November

2010


fertiliser in UMP is almost a non-starter. According to the DAEO, UMP the most important

factor affecting crop production in the district is fertiliser availability, then draught power, seed

and rainfall (quantity and distribution) in that order. Getting access to fertiliser was also assessed

as the most important constraint by the community as well. Most of the soils in the Uzumba area

of the district are sandy and sand-loam formed from the granite parent rock which renders almost

all crops to require fertiliser and/or manure. Most of the farmers used to access fertiliser from

local vendors in Murewa or Harare or on the ‘black market’ at exorbitant prices reaching as high

as USD60/50kg bag at some point over the past 5 seasons. The general practice is farmers

purchase fertiliser when they sell their produce at Murewa Centre or Mbare Musika. Before the

dollarization farmers reckon that fertiliser was not readily available but it was easy to purchase

since they could sell two 50kg bags of sweet potatoes to buy a 50kg bag of fertilizer. This was

because fertilizer was a controlled commodity. However, the current fertiliser prices (USD 29.00

to 35.00 per 50kg) require the farmers to sell 7-10 by 50kg bags of sweet potatoes at the market

at an average price of USD 5/bag. However, during stress times farmers use ‘manure tea’, a

liquid from soaked manure as top dressing fertiliser and some could even use human urine as

copping strategies.

Box 4.2: How many buckets for a bag? Trading sweet potato for fertilizer

The price of inputs has skyrocketed in the last few years—and farmers in Uzumba are

particularly concerned about fertilizer costs.

“Before”, 2-3 years ago,

1 bag of fertilizer (50 kg) could be exchanged for 3 buckets of sweet potatoes

Now in 2010

1 bag of fertilizer (50kg) costs US$30

1 bucket of sweet potatoes sells for US$2-3

1 bag of fertilizer (50kg) costs the equivalent of 10-15 buckets of sweet potatoes

So a bag now costs 5 times (500%) what it did a few seasons ago.



November

2010


Table 4.6: Fertilizer use in UMP district

Description Number of cases Yes responses (%) No response (%)

Usually use fertilizer N=120 75 25

Used fertilizer 2009/10

cropping season

N=120 91.7 8.1

The strategy for fertilizer

was normal

N=90 22.2 77.8

75% of interviewed households indicated that they usually use fertilizers and the 25% who rarely

use due to a number of reasons such as exorbitant prices and shortages on the markets. However

during the 2009/10 season 16.7% of the farmers who do not normally use fertilizer managed to

access the commodity from NGO programs such IV&F and government programs such as the

SADC initiative and the GMB-coordinated input projects. The 77.8% of the 75% who normally

use fertilizer did not use application strategy or rates they normally use as a result of their failure

to access the desired.

Figure 4.12: Farmers in UMP district distributing fertilizer using the conventional

direct distribution approach



November

2010


Fertilizer use was overwhelming concentrated on maize but the sample sizes being too small to

make conclusions on the other crops. On average famers used a total of 115.78 kg, although with

the rates having a large standard variation (+/-128.99). This translates to 202.50 kg/ha. Such

rates seem well within the range of ‘normal’, as Uzumba farmers might use 300-400 kg , with

estimates suggesting Pfungwe farmers applying 75-150 kg/ha and some using even lower

amounts.

Table 4.7: Crops on which fertilizer was applied

Crop All sites

N=120

Uzumba North

N=120

Pfungwe

N=120

Uzumba South

N=120

Maize 64.5 94.6 42.9 43.5

Cow pea 5.4 0.0 7.1 13.0

G/nut 7.5 5.4 10.7 8.7

Pearl millet 3.2 0.0 7.1 0.0

Sorghum 19.4 0.0 32.2 34.8

The fundamental concerns raised by farmers about fertilizer had to do with price, and especially

the very high terms of trade. For example, according to farmers in Uzumba, the fertilizer cost is

now is five times (500%) that which it was just 2-3 years ago.

Discussions with farmers in UMP district shows that all the farmers appreciate the importance of

fertilizer and know where to get it but the main challenge is the price. Most farmers cannot

afford the current fertilizer market prices because their produce is being bought at very low

prices. Farmers require resources to be able to access the fertilizer and one of the options is

availing the fertilizer vouchers.

4.4.5 The Evolution of Input Vouchers &Fairs

Input Vouchers and Fairs model introduced a number of products ranging from seed (both from

the formal to the informal markets), fertilizer and tools. In the IV&F model the responsibility to

choose what to buy is shifted the procurement team and the tendering process which at times is



November

2010


based on price comparisons to the farmer herself. The IV&F evolved from the ‘Seed Vouchers

and Fairs’ which mainly focused on ensuring the availability of seed from both the formal and

informal local seed systems. The model usually uses seed that already exists in the area or in

neighboring areas and allows suppliers to avail a range of inputs based on their market analysis

and supply inputs based on the demand in the area. This seed is usually adapted to local

conditions and satisfies local preferences and tastes. Over the years it has been transformed to

accommodate a range of agricultural inputs and proponents of the model has coined the slogan

‘Input vouchers and fairs a better approach than seeds and tools!’ where seed and tools kits are

procured and distributed directly to farmers.

Picture A: Seed Co hybrid maize seed bought by

one farmer at a fair in Uzumba, 2008/09 season

Picture B: ZM 521 an Open Pollinated

Variety developed by CIMMYT and being

displayed for sale at an Input Fair in

Pfungwe – in 2008/9 season.

Picture C: Farmer Seed seller displaying Bambara

nuts, Groundnuts and Pearl millet seed at an Input

Fair in Pfungwe 2007/08 season

Picture D: Pioneer hybrid maize seed and a

range of tools at a fair in Uzumba, 2008/09

season.

Figure 4.13: Some of the products brought by sellers for sale at the IV&F



November

2010


Figure 4.14: Input Vouchers and Fairs Pictures. First come first serve! : Left - Farmers

jostling to purchase Groundnut seed from one of the farmer seed sellers using vouchers in

Uzumba, 2008/9 season. Right – Farmers purchasing maize seed at the SeedCo selling point at a

Input Fair Gavaza Township in Uzumba in 2007/08 season.

4.4.6 Comparison between Input Vouchers and Fairs and Conventional

models

Out of the 120 household interviews across the study areas, participating households preferred

input vouchers and fairs of input delivery to the conventional ones. Although all communities

confessed that this model was about half a decade old it was somewhat better than the

conventional models because it ultimately allows the recipients to decide whether fertilize, seed

or tools of any kind is a priority for them. Cash-based aid also has been around for decades, but

work comparing the effectiveness of cash to vouchers and to direct aid approaches is fairly new.

The pie chart summarizes the distribution of farmer’s quick reaction to choose between the two

models.



November

2010


Figure 4.15: UMP farmers’ choice of input delivery mechanism

In 82% of farmer interviews conventional models were ‘condemned’ and households indicated

that the target households was not transparent and times politicized as opposed to the input

vouchers and fairs model which empowers farmers make choices. Community focus group

discussions confirmed that the Input Vouchers and Fairs targeting framework was very

transparent and well defined and as such had very low exclusion, inclusion or ‘dilution’ errors.

However, although the targeting was accurate for the poorer households, female-headed

households and those without cattle as well as the HIV/AIDS affected and infected other

community members felt that was not the proper way to ensure development.

About 7% of the households, mostly community leaders preferred the conventional way because

some of the targeted poor and vulnerable households under the input vouchers and fairs were not

good farmers and felt they only utilized the inputs because there was close monitoring and

extension support. They claimed that inputs should be provided to better households capable of

increasing the total quantity of food harvested in the village. Poorer households would then be

assisted by these better endowed households. On the other hand the majority 83% argued that

those who received were an integral component of development and that they utilized the inputs

they accessed because they would have chosen them and that they were rarely abused.

The table 4.9 below shows the distribution of input support by household vulnerability status. It

shows that IV&F accommodates all the vulnerable groups (higher percentages) yet conventional



November

2010


ones seem to exclude them and focuses on other characteristics. For instance, over 52% of the

female headed households accessed inputs through the IV&F model yet only 12.1% in

conventional distributions.

Table 4.8: Targeting inputs to poor households by distribution type

Input vouchers and Fairs Conventional Distributions

Female-headed HHs (%) 52.2 12.1

Child-headed HHs (%) 70.9 1.1

HHs with no cattle (%) 83.5 22.0

HHs with no off-farm income (%) 67 13.4

HHs with high dependency ratio 87.4 3

HHs with orphans (%) 69.5 7

Good farmers (%) 22 47

Both household interviews and FGDs indicated that poor and vulnerable groups were more likely

to receive inputs from IV&F than from conventional distributions. Some of the vulnerable

households targeted had multiple reasons, for instance a female headed household maybe

looking after orphans. Conventional distributions were more likely to target good farmers that

IV&F and this was because of the programs such as Operation Maguta were mainly for the

champion farmers.

The other reason cited by farmers was that the IV&F facilitated interaction, exchange

experiences, information and inputs among themselves or with sellers unlike in the conventional

models were the interaction is limited. Apart from it being empowering through targeting the

poor and vulnerable the local producers such as seed sellers and village smiths have seen IV&F

as an opportunity for them to realize income and profits as they can also sell what they produce

and which is suitable to their local environment.

Most of the farmer seed sellers realized a lot of money and are now into full scale seed

production and some of them have managed to get contracts from seed companies such as

SeedCo and Agpy and others have managed to a range of purchase household assets.



November

2010


Box 4.3: From rags to riches – How Input Vouchers and Fairs (IV&F) made me ‘rich’ –

Mrs Erinera Sadza’s story.

Mrs Erinera Sadza or Mai Sadza as she is affectingly known in Maja and Chingwinyiso village in

Chiuze 2 ward in Pfungwe is well known seed producer. She has been producing a number of local

adaptable seed varieties for crops such as the local maize varieties called ‘Mukadzi Usaende’, and

‘Mbuyaingafe’, a range of groundnut and cowpea seed. Mai Sadza used to exchange her seed with

other things such as livestock, hoes and so on. Ever since the IV&F has been introduced she has

managed to raise significant amounts of money to purchase productive assets such cattle. ‘I have

managed to purchase these two heifers with proceeds from the fairs organized by CTDT. Surely

CTDT realized that small farmers like us were being deprived a chance to sell our seed because

NGOs and government would bring lorries of seed, most of which is not suitable to our area yet

farmers wanted my seed’. Explained Mai Sadza. ‘All the farmers in this whole area know that I am a

groundnut “breeder” for years and that my seed never fail even in a bad year’ she boasted. Over the

past four seasons she has participated in the IV&F there has been significant change in her life. The

most significant change has been in the assets she now owns.

In her view his change in social status in the local community has been as a result of the IV&F

organized with the help of CRS and CTDT which has been an annual event on their calendar.

Left: Mrs Sadza and her children Mutsai, Nyasha and baby Tatenda showing the researcher

the evidence of how the IV&F model empowers the local farmers, alleviates poverty and fosters

rural development. Right: The calves which are the latest additions to the family’s herd



November

2010


An indepth comparison of the conventional and the vouchers and fairs models key informants

and focus groups indicated that no one approach to input assistance is inherently better than

another. However, on most of the attributes IV&F was better that conventional ones.

Figure 4.16: Farmers’ views about IV&F in comparison to conventional models.

According to government officials interviewed, the conventional model has a well established

procurement processes and accountability systems. Agricultural inputs will be treated as any

other commodity, such as food, blankets, tarpaulins etc. Tenders are issued, sealed bids accepted,

seed is purchased, transported and distributed. They also indicated that its easy to scale up

quickly, that is, if inputs are available, inputs can be sourced, transported and distributed to large

numbers of farmers in a short period of time. It is also an opportunity to finance the large scale

dissemination of seed of new promising research varieties. In this case seed of new varieties

reaches many more farmers more quickly than through the commercial channels. However, most

community members perceived this a very unsustainable way of support because decisions to

distribute a specific inputs and quantities is done by someone who is far away from thei context.

Across the three distinct sites and varying environmental contexts IV&F were very popular

because of a number of advantages. However, the approach is difficult to scale up and is

logistically complex and requires intensive training, which takes time. Each fair can serve on

average only 500 farmers which means that multiple teams have to operate concurrently and for

several weeks to reach even 10,000 farmers yet conventional model can reach the number in less

than 1 week.



November

2010


According to UMP seed producers and AGRITEX officers IV&F builds and strengthens local

farmer systems. Up to 96% of the households interviewed appreciates that the demand for inputs

is usually constrained by their lack of financial capital but increasing demand by issuing

vouchers enables them to access inputs from a range of sources such as other farmers, market

traders and the commercial seed sector. The 18 FGDs across the study area indicated that

communities have worked with experienced and competent staff from CRS and CTDT. Fairs

provide an opportunity to improve acceess to the seed systems as farmes have already started

intensive seed production, marketing and system integration.

All the 15 Agro-dealers interviewed confirmed that conventional direct distributions were ‘a

monster’. They have snatched their market away and destroyed their bussiness and relationships

with farmers. They appreciated that IV&F increased financial and social capital in the target

communities. Unlike the conventional, where seed companies, procurement agencies, large

traders and transporters capture most of the benefit, the proceeds from the sale of inputs is shared

mostly among community-based traders. This results in increased financial and social capital in

the communities. Local seed sellers, most of whom are women strengthens the integration of the

formal and farmer seed systems because they provided an opportunity for them to commercialize

and compete for customers with formal Agro-dealers and agro-input suppliers. They were quick

to highlight that where commercial seed companies or stockists have been represented at fairs,

farmers have often opted to spend at least a portion of their vouchers on commercial seed, for

example on hybrid maize or on a new variety of bean or pigeon-pea.

Data from individual interviews, FGDs and key informants shows that the major reason farmers

gave for prefering IV&F was because they are empowering in that they give farmers relative

choice of fertilizer type, crop and varieties. A diversity of inputs including fertilizers crops and

varieties are on offer at fairs. Farmers have the option to use their vouchers to obtain fertilizers,

crops and varieties of particular interest and to access multiple types of inputs.

Conventional approaches tend to be top down and centralized. According to field observations

and community perceptions it was clear that they felt that generally conventional models not



November

2010


planned and implemented with communities but rather imposed on them. As a supply-side

approach, the implementers tend to make the major decisions on seed procurement and

distribution. A total of 78% felt that the IV&F were more sustainable than conventional ones.

They indicated how that lack consultation and community involvement has resulted in important

risks of wrong varieties or crops being delivered in some seasons. All the FGDs across the study

area agreed that because inputs are sourced either commercially or in bulk, a narrow range of

fertilizers, crops and varieties tend to be on offer in conventional methods.

.

All (100%) the 15 Agro-dealers interviewed were not castigated the conventional approaches

and indicated that such large scale of seed acquisition results in a skewed distribution of benefits

and has destroyed the sector and role in the input delivery chain. A length discussion with

Marize branch manager Emmanuel Marize who has been providing agro-based and hardware

services clarified and confirmed other dealers’

‘….we know it and we know who destroyed us, the Government Input Programmes over the past

5 years such as the GMB-managed subsidized inputs support programmes, Operation Maguta in

2007/8 and 2009/10 season. We also hate NGOs, because they have beem distributing a huge

tonnage of ‘free’ inputs and we were thus pushed out of bussiness. How can these farmers buy

from us when they can get inputs for free?Why should these NGOs not give them cash and allow

them buy from us? Only CRS has introduced the fairs and vouchers programme which was a

unique iniative but they seem to have scaled that down and am not sure why?........

Source: Mr. Emmanuel Marize, Manager Mazire Agro-dealers, Mutawata, UMP District – August 2010

The Agro-dealers cited that the mega-tendering (that is purchasing large amounts of seed) means

mega-profit for the successful bidders and transporters. The value of the seed received by

farmers is but a small fraction of the total project cost. They viewed conventional input

distributions as based on purchases which undermines market functioning.The free delivery of

seed, directly and on a large scale, undermines the functioning of local seed/ grain markets and

compromises the development of longer-term more commercial seed supply systems.

Furthermore, while DSD can be quite profitable for seed companies, such enterprises often opt

for sales to emergency NGOs after a disaster and may neglect their network of rural stockists and

customers.



November

2010


CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The IV&F model offers the greatest contribution to input market development, utilization,

improved crop production, food security, poverty reduction and rural development. Market-

oriented voucher programs probably cannot be implemented unless donors and NGOs make a

transparent and common effort to move away from free-handouts and conventional approaches

of input delivery. It seems there are more merits in the IV&F approach than the conventional

models although modifications seem ensure that they improve to be ever better.

5.2 CONCLUSIONS

Although the IV&F has been perceived to be better than the conventional input delivery

mechanisms, no single mechanism is perfect. Concern has been growing among stakeholders,

agriculture researchers and NGO practitioners that the conventional methods have become

repetitive and expensive, with little impact beyond the few kilograms of inputs received by

farmers. In addition, evidence is accumulating that the seed security problem is often not one of

seed availability or quality, but rather of lack of access to seed. Hence there is now increased

interest in the use of a range of market-based approaches to input assistance such as the Input

Vouchers and Fairs. With growing donor support (particularly from the Office of Foreign

Disaster Assistance/USAID, multi funded Protracted Relief Programme (PRP)2), NGOs such as

CRS, CARE, CAFOD, World Vision International, and Save the Children UK are increasingly

using Seed Vouchers & Fairs in their relief to recovery efforts.

Based on the results of this intensive research the IV&F model is an approach that puts into

perspective the context of specific local environments and that a shift from relief to development

require to consider the community as an integral unit rather than as separate wealth groups. It

allows ‘potential’ farmers to access inputs including seed and fertilizers from local systems such

2 Protracted Relief Programme (PRP) is a multi-donor funded Livelihoods project reaching over 200,000 families in

Zimbabwe. The funding pool is led by UKaid (formerly DFID), AusAID, the European Commission, the Royal Dutch, Norwegian, Danish Embassies and the World Bank.



November

2010


the informal seed systems, the agro-dealer-supplier network which ensures that investment is

retained and benefit the local community.

Conventional methods of input delivery are generally cheaper and quick as compared to the

IV&F which is very demanding. This new model requires a committed team who is organized

and has a shared responsibility. This team has to be in the field for much longer than in the

conventional model because IV&F requires massive community mobilization and awareness

rising, conducting the Seed Systems Security Assessment, seed mobilization and quality control,

close monitoring on the day of the fair.

Although it supports the local economy the IV&F model results in the commercialization of the

informal sector and destroys the local social fabric. This is because farmers who produce and

keep seed or produce tools and usually trade them through barter, exchange for labour or gifts

tend to become stingy as they prepare and wait for IV&F to realize huge profits and cash money.

IV&F are adaptable to almost all agro-ecological zones in Zimbabwe as shown by more or less

the same findings across the three distinct environments in the study area. The general finding

has been that food insecurity may not necessarily mean seed insecurity. The Pfungwe area in

natural region IV is usually food insecure but the research discovered that the zone has diverse

range of seed varieties and germplasm. The rule of thump is that all the critical steps of the

model need to be adhered to. The other reason is that often times have so many options available

for inputs but the major limitation is the cash or resources to use to access the inputs.

The IV&F approach was very popular with the smallholder farmers as it was transparent and was

targeted at the poor and the more vulnerable at the same time availing the opportunity to the

‘not-so-poor’ and the better-off with an opportunity to sell their seed, tools, livestock etc. On the

other hand the conventional methods were not very transparent and at times reached a few

people who fall within a defined segregative criterion, for example government direct input

distributions will be targeted at those who have sold their grain to the Grain Marketing Board or

the resourced farmers who usually have a strong socio-political muscle. The political muscle is a

very common weapon used in UMP against a background of the highly political context of the

Zimbabwean political landscape.



November

2010


5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

Against the evaluation of the conventional input delivery mechanisms in UMP District

Mashonaland East province in 6 selected wards and the findings of the whole investigation, the

study recommendations have been put into short-term and medium-to-long-term categories.

5.3.1 Short term recommendations

In the short term this study recommends the following:

In the immediate future and even for the 2010/11 season, all efforts must be made to sustain,

not undermine, agro-dealer business during this tenuous financial period. A good number are

just starting to re-open their doors, and it is a ‘make or break’ period for them.

If seed and/or fertilizer and other agricultural inputs are to be given as part of relief

programs such distributions should be done via a voucher system linking farmers to agro-

dealers stores or to agro-dealers selling at seed fairs. Such a move will help support business

recovery, get farmers access to preferred varieties and inputs, and help to inject cash into the

local economy.

Agro-dealers need to be encouraged to sell closer to farming communities, and growth

centers. Transport costs mean that rural farmers may pay 30-50% more for the same bag of

seed sold in the bigger towns. In the short term, aid organizations might consider adding a

transport cost into any voucher program.

Agro-dealers linked to input support programs should be encouraged to package seed and

fertilizer products in sizes farmers have potential to access. While the assessment team saw 1

kg packages of both (re-packed) we suggest seed sizes of 5 and 10 kg (with 2 kg on offer in

small quantity) and fertilizer in 5 and 10 kg packs and upwards.

Efforts should be made by donor, government, UN agencies and others to ensure that

regional and local agro-dealers can receive adequate stocks to sell. This might be an issue of

reorienting the overall supply away from bulk relief aid purchase. Mechanisms should also

be explored for helping local dealers to receive stocks on consignment or through some credit

guarantee arrangement.

In terms of seed-related issues, seed voucher and fair operations might best be designed to

respond to specific needs of farmers at this moment in time. Access to groundnut seed, and

seed of new, especially early maturing varieties, have been cited at various sites as key



November

2010


farmer-sought inputs. Input fairs might make extra efforts to engage local and regional agro-

dealer suppliers to put on offer modern varieties. Formal sector suppliers might require a

transport premium to take part in these rural events.

Non-seed agricultural inputs also were cited at the forefront of farmer needs in the

assessment: fertilizer, labor, draught power. Seed fairs might insure that both basal and top

dressing fertilizer bags appear on offer in any fair event, and in farmer-friendly sizes. Use of

vouchers to gain access to labor and draught power might also be explored.

Graduated vouchers might be usefully employed in the upcoming emergency programs.

Basically, graduated vouchers give varied levels of aid and help to distinguish between the

very poor, and those who need a bit of extra help in this time of financial and currency

fluctuation. Graduated vouchers can help lessen dependencies, as only those near the bottom

of the spectrum should receive substantial free support. Average income farmers (again,

somewhat cash insecure) might receive vouchers to cover but parts of their agricultural

needs.

Giving cash aid as direct assistance might seem unwise at this point in Zimbabwe, where the

whole economy is severely cash-strapped. However, small cash trials could help farmers

access their own priority needs, which may include agricultural inputs.

5.3.2 Medium -to- long term recommendations

There is a strong need and opportunity to professionalize and strengthen informal sector seed

production.

Farmer groups (and individual entrepreneurs) require support to ensure good quality input

supplies of what are referred to as the non-commercial or ‘orphan’ crops (basically

everything but maize, wheat and horticultural crops). This support implies efforts on multiple

thrusts, and needs to be done professionally. Seed production will not succeed unless it is tied

to real demand and sustainable market development. Significant effort and funds should be

allotted to increase informal seed production capacity and marketing channels.

Local community groups need enhanced capacity in the techniques of seed production.

Farmer Field School experience shows that better isolation distances, variety sorting,

improved agronomic practices, improved storing and storage techniques can lead to greater



November

2010


availability of good quality seed at the local level. Groundnut seed, in particular, requires

enhanced local level capacities.

Farmer groups, whether for seed or food sale, should only be encouraged to produce crops if

clear markets have been identified, and general agroenterprise/ marketing skills enhanced.

Market skill enhancement and market identification has to be the driving force shaping local

production initiatives.

New, modern, farmer-acceptable, and market preferred crops and varieties have to feed on a

continuing basis into local production systems, both to boost yields and enhance marketing

possibilities. Across sites, only new maize varieties enter farming system with regularity—

except when special aid of development programs bring in new cowpea or sweet potato or

pearl millet types. Recommendation: Links have to be professionalized and sustained to

promote variety innovation at the local level. Farmer Field Schools (FFS), Participatory

Variety selection, new variety small packet sales might all help to raise awareness of and

access to new needed varietal materials.

National and regional formats for assessing seed security status should shift from those

which calculate simplistic ‘seed needs’ to frameworks which recognize different types of

seed security problems, and which tailor responses accordingly. These problems might

include diverse constraints of seed availability, seed access and seed quality, which are

distinguished by their presence in the short and in the long term. The Crop and Food

Assessments missions might be among the priority tools to be revised to contain a specific

seed security component.

Given the complexity of the stresses in Zimbabwe, “emergency’ seed aid related work has to

think strategically and longer-term. Assessments related to seed security, can and should

incorporate more developmental elements, including Issues related to system stability,

opening and strengthening of markets, and equity concerns. This expanded focus suggests

that the ‘skill set of those assessing seed security’ has to be considerably broadened.

Minimally SSSA requires inputs from formal and informal seed sector specialists, farming

system specialists, marketing professionals, and gender/ livelihood analysts.



November

2010


5.3.3 Input Voucher Models specific recommendations for modification

Although the IV&F model has been recommended as an input delivery mechanism of choice this

study recommends a number of modifications to suit the current context. Basically three voucher

based modifications are being recommended based on the availability of a robust market system

in place, viable retail network; transportation, mobile telephone coverage, distance from nearest

business centre and road infrastructure and accessibility:

Open paper model: This entails giving the farmer a paper voucher with a face value of a

specific amount which S/he can use to buy any inputs of choice from the participating agro

dealers within the ward over a defined period of time for example 3 weeks. This will differ

from the current IV&F model which is a one day event. To allow for flexibility of choice of

agro-input to access and agro dealer to work with, the open agro- vouchers will have

different dollar denominations allowing for part purchases per agro-dealer and product. The

supplier can deliver to one or more retailers. The supplier is expected to have wide retailer

coverage including non-participating wards for cash sales. Transport and distribution costs

are to be borne by the supplier. The NGOs and government can collaborate to educate the

farmers on product availability, the redemption process and product suitability. The retailer

has to be trained on product availability and voucher redemption. The redemption process

should be done within a short window to further reduce the risk of losing the vouchers..

Open electronic voucher mechanism: In this model a farmer is given a scratch card with a

pin number that is used to redeem at the participating agro dealer who must have an

electronic transaction system.

Closed paper voucher model: In the closed paper voucher model the farmers will be given a

paper voucher showing a predetermined package of inputs in line with policy

recommendations recommendation. In area such as Uzumba (both North and South) falling

under NR II-III a package which include crops such as Maize, Groundnuts, Cowpeas, Basal

fertilizer, Top dressing is recommended while in the drier Pfungwe falling under NR IV – V,

it will constitute a small grain such as Sorghum, Early maturing Groundnuts, Cowpeas, Basal

and small quantities of Top dressing. In this modified model benefiting households will

access a predetermined package of agro-input suitable to their agro-ecological regions,

through a closed paper voucher redeemable at participating agro-dealers within their wards.

The package will also take into consideration historical farmer preferences.



November

2010


REFERENCES

Almekinders, C. and Louwaars N., (1999). Farmers’ seed production: new approaches and

practices, London: Intermediate Technology publications, Ltd.

Bramel, P.J. and Remington T. (2004). ‘Relief seed assistance in Zimbabwe’. In L. Sperling et

al. (eds.) Addressing Seed Security in Disaster Response: Linking Relief with Development.

International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Cali.

Bramel, P., T. Remington and M. McNeil (eds.) (2004). CRS Seed Vouchers and Fairs: Using

Markets in Disaster Response. CRS East Africa, Nairobi.

http://www.crs.org/publications/pdf/Agr0518_ e.pdf.

Catholic Relief Services (CRS). (2002) Seed Vouchers and Fairs: a Manual for Seed-Based

Agricultural Recovery in Africa. Catholic Relief Services, developed in collaboration with

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics and Overseas Development

Institute. Nairobi, Kenya.

Central Statistics Office, 2002a. Census 2002. Mashonaland East provincial profile. Central

Statistical Office, Harare, Zimbabwe 137 pp.

Community Technology Development Trust (CTDT) 2009. Food Security and Intervention

Strategies in Zimbabwe. Paper submitted by Community Technology Development Trust to

NANGO and presented at the Cabinet Summit: 27 March 2009. Harare: CTDT, manuscript

CRS Annual Report, (November, 2003, 2004, 2005)

CRS Livelihoods Security Annual Report, (November, 2009)

DANAGRO, (1988). SADCC Reproduction and supply project, main report (vol 1A) and

Country Reports (vol 2A-2J).



November

2010


Dercon, S. (2002). The impact of economic reforms on rural households in Ethiopia. A study from

1989 to 1995. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the World Bank, Washington,

DC.

DFID Position Paper, (2000).

FAO/WFP Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission to Zimbabwe, 5 June 2007. 22 June

2009. FAO Global Information and Early Warning System on Food and Agriculture; World

Food Program. http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/ai483e/ai483e00.HTM.

Harvey P., (2005). Cash and vouchers in emergencies, HPG Discussion Paper, February 2005.

London: Overseas Development Institute.

ICRISAT-Mozambique (2002). Organizing seed fairs in emergency situations: Improving the

efficiency of seed distribution. ICRISAT and National Institute of Agricultural Research (INIA),

Maputo.

Heinrich, G.M. 2004. A foundation for the future: the Sorghum and Millet Improvement

Program (SMIP) in Southern Africa. Proceedings of the SMIP final Review and Reporting

Workshop, 25 – 26 November 2003. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. The International Crops Research

Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. Pg 126.

ICRISAT SA Trends Issue (2008). ICRISAT monthly newsletter, September 2008

Industrial Development Corporation IDC, 2008. The Fertilizer Industry in Zimbabwe: Where

we are and where we want to go? IDC Industrial Research Series 3. Industrial Development

Corporation, Harare, Zimbabwe. 57 pp.

Izumi, K (2006). The land and property rights of women and orphans in the context of HIV and

AIDS: Case Studies from Zimbabwe. Cape Town, Human Sciences Research Council.



November

2010


Longley, C., C. Dominguez and M. Devji (2005). Agricultural Input Trade Fairs and Vouchers

in Mozambique: Experiences and lessons learned. ICRISAT and ODI Working Paper.

http://www.icrisat.org/Publications/EBooksOnlinePublications/Publications-

2005/LongleyvoucherreportMozambique(Ajay).pdf

Longley, C. and L. Sperling, eds. (2002). Beyond Seeds & Tools: Effective Support to Farmers

in Emergencies. Special issue of Disasters

Louwaars, N. (1994). Seed supply systems in the tropics: international course on seed

production and seed technology. Wageningen: The Netherlands: International Agriculture

Centre.

Mazvimavi, K., D. Rohrbach, T. Pedzisa and T. Musitini, (2008). A review of seed fair

operations and impacts in Zimbabwe. Global Theme on Agroecosystem Report no. 40.

ICRISAT: Bulawayo, Zimbabwe

McGuire, S., (2001). Analyzing farmers’ seed system: some conceptual components: in L.

Sperling, ed., Targeted Seed Aid and Seed-System Interventions: Strengthening Small farmer

seed systems in East and Central Africa. Proceedings of Workshop held in Kampala Uganda 21-

24 (2000. Kampala: International Center for Tropical Agriculture, pp. 1-8.

Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation Development (MAMID), (2009).

Second Round Crop and Livestock Assessment Report. Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanization

and Irrigation Development, Harare, Zimbabwe 35 pp.

Musinamwana, E. (2009). Use of vouchers in Agro-input distribution/ in “ Proceedings for the

meeting held on 29 May 2009 at 0900 at the Royal Harare Golf Club, Harare”. Market Linkage

Working Group



November

2010


Nathaniels, N.Q.R. and A. Mwijage (2000). Seed fairs and the case of Marambo village, Nachingwea

District, Tanzania: Implications of local informal seed supply and variety. AgREN Paper. 101. ODI,

London.

PRP Smallholder Agricultural Input Support, (2010). Unpublished

Ruben, R., Pender J., and Kuyvenhoven A. (2007). “Sustainable poverty reduction in Less-

favoured Areas: Problems, Options and Strategies. Chapter 1. In R. Ruben, J. Pender and A.

Kuyvenhoven (eds.), Sustainable Poverty Reduction in Less-Favoured Areas. CAB International,

Oxon, UK 2007

Remington, T., Maroko, J., Walsh, S., Omanga, P. and Charles, E., (2002). Getting of the

seed and tools treadmill with CRS seed vouchers and fairs. Disasters 26(4): 302-315.

Rohrbach, D., R. Charters, and J. Nyagweta, J., (2004). Guidelines for Agricultural Relief

Programs in Zimbabwe. Bulawayo: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid

Tropics.

Rohrbach , D., A.B. Mashingaidze, and M. Mudhara, M. (2005). The distribution of relief

seed and fertilizer in Zimbabwe, lessons derived from the 2003/04 season, Bulawayo,

Zimbabwe: The International Centre for Research in the Semi-Arid Tropics.

Rusike, J. and Longwe A., (2005). The impact of agricultural input delivery programs on seed

and fertilizer market development in Malawi. Unpublished paper, ICRISAT, Lilongwe.

Sperling, L. (2009) Seed Systems Security Assessment Zimbabwe. An assessment funded by the

USAID/OFDA.

Sperling, L. (2008). When Disaster Strikes: A guide to assessing seed system security. Cali:

International Center for Tropical Agriculture



November

2010


Sperling, L. (2009). Seed Systems Security Assessment, Zimbabwe. As assessment funded by: The United States Agency for International Development/Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance.

July 2009.

Sperling, L., and C. Longley. (2002). Beyond seeds and tools: Effective support to farmers in

emergencies. Disasters 26 (4): 283 – 287.

Sperling, L .and Remington, T. with Haugen, J.M. (2006). ‘ Using seed aid to give farmers

access to seed of new varieties. Practice Brief No. 5.’ in: Seed aid for seed security: advice for

practitioners. Practice Briefs 1-10. Rome, Italy, International Center for Tropical Agriculture and

Catholic Relief Services.

Takavarasha, T., D. Rohrbach and D. Mfote 2005. Assessment of Challenges and

Opportunities for Improving Seed Supply under Relief and Recovery Programs: report of

Stakeholder’s Consultancy. Harare.

Tripp, R., (2006). The Case of Foundation Seed Enterprises in Sub-Saharan Africa.

UnPublished ODI-ICRISAT Working Paper, February, 2006.

Vincent, V. and Thomas, R.G. 1960. An agricultural survey of Southern Rhodesia: Part I: agro-

ecological survey. Government Printer, Salisbury.

van Oosterhout, S. (1996). What does in situ conservation mean in the life of a small scale

farmer? examples from Zimbabwe’s communal areas. in, L. Sperling and M. Loevinsohn (eds).

Using Diversity: Enhancing and Maintaining Genetic Resources on Farm. New Delhi, India:

International Development Research Centre, pp.35-52.

ZIMVAC, Zimbabwe Food Security and Vulnerability Assessment, 2006.



November

2010


APPENDICES

APPENDIX A 1: The map of Zimbabwe showing the location of UMP District

KEY

UMP District



November

2010


APPENDIX A 2: The map of UMP District showing study wards

1

6

4

5

7

2

3

8 9

11

14

13

15

10

12

2 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 K i l o m e t e r s

N W

S

KEY

Study Wards

Other Wards

Chiunze 2 Ward

Mawanza Ward

Mukuru ward

Musosonwa Ward

Marowe ward

Chikwira Ward



November

2010


APPENDIX A 3: Household Interview Questionnaire

Evaluating Seed & Fertilizer deliver systems in Zimbabwe.

July-August 2010.

Comparison between Input Vouchers & Fairs (IV&F) versus conventional methods -

Individual farmer interview Questionnaire

(aim: to obtain individual HH views on the two approaches - to complement community group

interviews)

INTRODUCTIONS AND GENERAL QUESTIONS

Interviewer Name__________________________

Date______________ Int#____

Respondent Name______________

Age_____ Gender (M/F)_______ HH head (Y/N/Other-specify if ‘child/granny’)________

Province_____________________District_______________Ward__________Village________

____

PART 1: LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES

1. What is your household’s (HH) major livelihoods source?

Agriculture

Gold Panning

Buying and selling

Home Industry (including crafts, pottery etc)

Other, Specify

2. Which is the most important agricultural activity of your HH?

Livestock production

Gardening

Field Crops

Other specify

3. In your HH what do you consider as the most limiting factor in crop production?



November

2010


Rainfall and adverse weather patterns

Agricultural inputs

Markets

Poor yields

4. Of the agricultural inputs which one is the most important?

Seed

Fertilizer

Chemicals

Equipment

5. Where did you source most of the seed you planted last season (2009/10)? Tick one option

for each crop

6. Based on your experience compare between Input Vouchers and Fairs (IV&F) with

conventional approaches (Direct distributions). Which one do you prefer?

IV&F

Conventional Approaches

Crop Options source of seed

Own stock/Social

Network (including

gifts, barter,

borrowing etc)

Seed

markets

Direct

distributions

Input vouchers

and Fairs

(IV&F)

Other,

specify

Maize

Small grains

(sorghums

and millets)

Groundnuts

Bambara nuts

Cowpeas



November

2010


7. Compare between Input Vouchers and Fairs (IV&F) with conventional approaches (Direct

distributions) on the following? Tick in the table

Characteristic Input Vouchers and Fairs Conventional Approaches

Recognize farmer’s choice

Quick/Less time consuming

Cheap to execute

Promotes local input systems

Proper use (of inputs

accessed) for intended

purpose

Sustainable

Suitable technology

8. How was your house targeted for IV&F? Multiple responses.

Widow

Child head

Lack of assets (no cattle)

Lack of off-farm income

High orphan load

High dependence ratio

Other, specify

…………………………………………………



November

2010


9. How much seed did you received last season (2009/10) by source and how much did you

plant?

Crop Options source of seed in kgs

Own stock/Social

Network (including

gifts, barter, etc)

Seed

markets

Direct

distributions

Input vouchers

and Fairs

(IV&F)

Other,

specify

R P R P R P R P R P

Maize

Small grains

(sorghums/millets)

Groundnuts

Bambara nuts

Cowpeas

10. What was your main source of fertilizer for the past 5 seasons?

IV&F

Conventional Approaches

Other, specify

………………………………………

11. On which crop was the fertilizer used for?

Crop Basal N-fertilizer

Maize

Sorghum/Millets

Groundnuts

Bambara nuts

Cowpeas

Other 1, specify………………….

Other 2, specify…………………



November

2010


12. In future which of the two sources would you prefer?

IV&F

Conventional

Give reasons

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………

13. Do you propose any modifications on the two approaches?

IV&F Modification suggestions Conventional Approaches Modification suggestions

Thank you for your time!



November

2010


APPENDIX A 4: Focus Group & Key informant Discussion Guidelines

Evaluating Seed & Fertilizer deliver systems in Zimbabwe July-August 2010.

Comparison between Input Vouchers & Fairs (IV&F) versus conventional methods –

Group Discussion & Key informant Guidelines

NOTE: For key informants focus on the district picture or the ward if they ward-based?

PART 1: LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITIES

1. Can we discuss how people survive in your village, ward and district at large?

2. Which of the survival strategies they use are more/less sustainable?

3. Who in the household engage in the activities?

PART II: AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES

4. What proportion of households in this area village, ward, district) are involved in livestock

production, gardening, crop production or any other agricultural project? Use proportional

piling to come with percentages.

5. What are the main limiting factors of crop production in the area? Probe areas such as

weather, agricultural inputs, and markets. On inputs understand if its seed, fertilizer,

chemical or a combination. What is the most important of these factors?

6. Can we map seed sources by crop for the following crops during the last season (2009/10)?

Probe on the position of the Input Vouchers and Fairs as compared to the conventional

approaches such as direct distributions.

(a) Maize (main cereal)

(b) Small grains (Sorghums and millets)

(c) Legumes (Groundnuts, Cowpeas and Bambara nuts)

7. What are the merits and demerits (in the context of rural agriculture and development) of;

(a) Input Vouchers and Fairs

(b) Conventional Approaches

8. How is targeting done for each of the approaches?

9. How do you receive as the difference in utilization of inputs by distribution model? What

are the reasons of those differences?



November

2010


10. What fertilizer is often used in this area? How are they sourced? Optional Fertilizer source

mapping.

11. Which crop(s) are prioritized for fertilization? What are the reasons?

12. Between IV&F and conventional methods which do you prefer and why?

13. If you were given an opportunity to modify these two models/approaches, what are

modifications that you will suggest and justify them?




November

2010


APPENDIX A 5: Most Significant Change Story Guidelines

Evaluating Seed & Fertilizer deliver systems in Zimbabwe July-August 2010.

Comparison between Input Vouchers & Fairs (IV&F) versus conventional methods –

Modified Most Significant Change tool.

Part 1: Understanding the tool

It’s a form of participatory monitoring and evaluation.

Its participatory because all stakeholders are involved both in deciding the sorts of changes to

be recorded in the analysis of data.

It contributes to evaluation because it provides data on impacts and outcomes to assess

performance of the program.

It has to occur through out the program

Part II: Understanding the process?

It involves the collection of most significant changes stories emanating from the field and

systematic selection of the most significant of these stories by panels of designated

stakeholders or staff.

Once changes have been captured a team sits down together, analyses the stories and discuss

in-depth about the value of these reported changes.

Part II: Eight steps to get a MSC from a community

1. Getting started and raising interest.

2. Defining Domains of Change.

3. Defining the reporting period (reference period).

4. Collecting Stories of Change s: Researcher focused on the stories the communities have have

heard, by interview and note taking, during focus group discussion and beneficiary writing

his or her own story.

5. Selecting the most significant change of the story

6. Feeding back the results of the selection

7. Verification of stories and Quantification



November

2010


Part IV: Ethical Values

Obtain/seek consent

Explain how the story is to be used and ask if the storyteller is happy for the story to be used.

Confidentiality

Ask if they want their names to accompany the story

Ask if they want the story to be published

Part V: Input Vouchers and Fairs versus Conventional Approaches

What are most significant changes which has been caused by participating in the IV&F/ or

any of the Conventional approaches in this community?

Who do you consider to be the primary beneficiary of the engagement and why? List

potential story tellers and follow-up with them.

What have been the changes in your life as a result of your participation in either IV&F or

the IV&F or the conventional method? Which of these is the most significant one?

Share the stories with the other research team members and settle for the at least 2 stories per

ward for researcher to follow-up and verify the story.




November

2010


APPENDIX A 4: PHOTO GALLERY

Right: The Focus Group Discussion in Uzumba North Musosonwa Ward 15 and Left: The

presenter explaining to the group the scope of the discussion.

The researcher enjoying a ‘meal’ in the field with farmers in UMP – in Uzumba North,

Marowe Ward 8.



November

2010


The banner used by CRS and CTDT during Input Fairs showing the range of products

farmers can access

One of the enumerators during a household interview in Pfungwe, Chiunze 2 Ward 3



November

2010


Seed Displays in UMP; The displays are used to showcase the variety and diversity of seed

in the local seed system in preparation of a Seed Fair.

Farmers home saved seed ready for sell at a fair in UMP district