Zambia Country

Assessment and Strategy

(Final Draft, Version 4.0, 4 October 2008)

prepared by the

RIU Zambia Country Assessment and Strategy Development Team

ii

Zambia Country

Assessment and Strategy

Team Managers:

Dr. David Cownie (Team Leader and Poverty and Livelihoods Specialist), siapac@mweb.com.na

(Namibia)

Dr. Ben Sekamatte (Zambia RIU Task Manager), bens@nida.or.ug (Uganda)

Team Specialists:

Ms.. Sarah Carriger (Communications), sarah.carriger@waterwrites.com (Netherlands)

Mr. Ebbie Dengu (Innovations), ebbiedengu@comone.co.zw (Zimbabwe)

Mr. Steen Joffe (Information Markets), steen@sourcekm.com (England)

Dr. Diana Banda (Agricultural Policies, Institutions, and Information Systems) (Zambia)

Ms. Monica Munachonga (Cross-Cutting Themes), judai@coppernet.zm (Zambia)

Technical Support:

Dr. Jurgen Hagmann (Facilitation), Jurgen.Hagmann@picoteam.org (South Africa)

RIU Support Team:

Members of the Innovations Resource Group

Members of RIU Programme Management

iii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... viii

I. Background ................................................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1

Team Composition and Personnel ........................................................................................................... 1

The RIU Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Country Background ................................................................................................................................. 3

Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods .......................................................................................................... 5

II. Analysis of the Innovation Systems of Relevance to Getting Research Into Use ............................ 8

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 8

The Innovation System in Zambia ........................................................................................................... 8

The Main Stakeholders in the Innovation Systems of Relevance to RIU ........................................... 9

Summary of Innovations System ........................................................................................................... 21

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 23

III. Proposed RIU Strategy in Zambia....................................................................................................... 25

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 25

Framework for the RIU Programme in Zambia ................................................................................... 25

Strategic Thrusts ................................................................................................................................... 26

Innovation Coalition ............................................................................................................................ 27

Value Added ............................................................................................................................................. 33

Sustainability ............................................................................................................................................ 34

Results ........................................................................................................................................................ 35

Further Analysis Required ...................................................................................................................... 35

IV. RIU Programme Development ............................................................................................................ 36

Materials Consulted ..................................................................................................................................... 38

Annex A: Any Further Country-Specific Considerations ...................................................................... 43

Annex B: Specialist Sub-Report on Innovation Systems ........................................................................ 44

Annex C: Specialist Sub-Report on Communications ............................................................................ 72

Annex D: Specialist Sub-Report on Information Markets ..................................................................... 83

Annex E: Specialist Sub-Report on Policy Context and Information and Knowledge Flows .......... 95

Annex F: Specialist Sub-Report on Cross-Cutting Themes ................................................................. 105

Annex G: Terms of Reference .................................................................................................................. 128

iv

Abbreviations

ABF Agriculture Business Forum

ACF Agricultural Consultative Forum

ADB African Development Bank

ADP Agricultural Development Programme

ADSL Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

ARENA-SA Agroforestry Research Network for Southern Africa

ART Anti Retroviral Therapy

ASP Agricultural Support Programme

AU African Union

CAADP Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme

CASDT Country Assessment and Strategy Development Team

CAZ Communication Authority of Zambia

CBO Community Based Organisation

CBPP Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (livestock disease)

CCA Common Country Assessment

CDMA Code Division Multiple Access

CDT Cotton Development Trust

CEDAW Conference on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women

CFU Conservation Farming Unit

CGIAR Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research

CIAT Centre for International Tropical Agriculture

CIMMYT International Centre for Maize and Wheat

CIFOR International Centre for Forestry Research

COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa

COSOP Country Strategic Opportunities Paper (of the International Fund for

Agricultural Development)

CSO Central Statistical Office

DfID Department for International Development (United Kingdom)

DSL Digital Subscriber Line

ECAPAPA Eastern and Central African Programme for Agricultural Policy Analysis

ECF East Coast Fever (livestock disease)

ECZ Environmental Council of Zambia

EDGE Enhanced Data rates for GSM Evolution

EASSy East African Submarine Cable System

EU European Union

FAAP Framework for African Agricultural Productivity

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa

FANRPAN Food Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network

FANR Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Directorate of the Southern African

Development Community

FBO Faith Based Organisation

GART Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trust

GDP Gross Domestic Product

v

GRZ Government of the Republic of Zambia

GSM Global System for Mobile communications

GPRS General Packet Radio System

HIPC Heavily Indebted Poor Country

HIV Human Immuno-deficiency Virus

ICRAF International Centre for Research on Agro-Forestry

ICRISAT International Centre for Research in Semi-Arid Tropics

ICT Information and Communication Technology

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

IICD International Institute for Communication and Development

IITA International Institute on Tropical Agriculture

IKSM Information and Knowledge Service Markets

IMR Infant Mortality Rate

IRG Innovation Resources Group

ISP Internet Service Provider

KATC Kasisi Agricultural Training Centre

Kbps Kilobits per second

LCMS Living Conditions Monitoring Survey

LDT Livestock Development Trust

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MACO Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives

Mbits/s Megabytes per second

MAPP Multi-country Agricultural Productivity Programme

MCDSS Ministry of Community Development and Social Services

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MOE Ministry of Education

MENR Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources

MFI Micro-Financed Institution

MOFNP Ministry of Finance and National Planning

MOH Ministry of Health

MIS Management Information System

MLGH Ministry of Local Government and Housing

MMMD Ministry of Mines and Mineral Development

MSTVT Ministry of Science, Technology and Vocational Training

NAP National Agricultural Policy

NARS National Agricultural Research System

NCSR National Council for Scientific Research

NDP National Development Plan

NEAP National Environmental Action Plan

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NGP National Gender Policy

NIC National Innovation Coalition

NISIR National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research

NPE National Policy on the Environment

NSTC National Science and Technology Council

NSTP National Science and Technology Policy

vi

OPPAZ Organic Producers Association of Zambia

OVC Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children

PAVIDIA Participatory Village Development in Isolated Areas

PLHIV People Living with HIV/AIDS

PPP Public-Private Partnership

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

PROFIT Production, Finance and Improved Technologies Project

PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

RNRRS Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy

S&T Science and Technology

SADC Southern African Development Community

SHEMP Smallholder Enterprise Development and Marketing Programme

SMT Senior Management Team (of the RIU Programme)

TOR Terms of Reference

U5MR Under Five Mortality Rate

UN United Nations

UNAIDS United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS

UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNFPA United Nations Fund for Population Activities

UNHCR United Nations High Commission for Refugees

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organisation

UNZA University of Zambia

USAID United States Agency for International Development

VSAT Very Small Aperture Terminal

WAN Wide Area Network

WAP Wireless Application Protocol

WB World Bank

WFP World Food Programme

WHO World Health Organisation

WiFi Wireless Fidelity

WiMaX Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access

ZABS Zambia Bureau of Standards

ZACSMBA Zambia Chamber of Small and Medium Business Associations

ZAMTEL Zambia Telecommunications Company Limited

ZARI Zambia Agricultural Research Institute

ZBCA Zambia Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS

ZCA Zambia College of Agriculture

ZESCO Zambia Electricity Supply Corporation

ZNBC Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation

ZNFU Zambia National Farmers Union

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

USD 1.00 = Zambia Kwacha 3,621

(October 2008)

vii

Map of Zambia Showing Provinces and Neighbouring Countries

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this map do not imply the expression of

any opinion whatsoever on the part of RIU, NR International, NIDA or DFID concerning the delimitation

of the frontiers or boundaries, or the authorities thereof.

viii

Executive Summary

i. Introduction: The Research Into Use (RIU) Programme is designed to help address the

widespread concern that most agricultural research is not utilised effectively to reduce poverty

and support improved rural livelihoods. The purpose of the Research Into Use (RIU) Programme

is:

o To maximise the poverty reducing impact of previous natural resources research, including

Renewable Natural Resources Research funded by the UK Department for International

Development.

o To significantly increase an understanding of how the promotion and widespread use of such

research can contribute to poverty reduction and economic growth.

ii. The purpose of this Country Assessment and Strategy Report is to assist in the on-going

process of consensus building and implementation planning associated with the establishment of

the RIU Programme in Zambia. Of particular importance in this regard is to gain agreement

within RIU management on the proposed Innovation Platforms, so that the National Innovations

Coalition, the proposed Sub-District Innovations Coalition, and the RIU Programme in Zambia can

proceed with implementation planning and implementation.

iii. Approach: A RIU Country Assessment and Strategy Development Team (CASDT) conducted

an initial visit to Zambia in April and May, with follow-up visits in June and July, 2008, and

management visits thereafter. The team was comprised of the members noted on the inside cover

page. Two consultative workshops were held during these visits, field visits took place, and key

informant interviews were conducted. In addition, the Team Leader met with the Innovations

Resources Groups and RIU management personnel in England and Uganda in May and

September, 2008. Terms of Reference (TOR) for the CASDT are included in Annex G, including

revisions to these TOR.

iv. An initial mapping of the Zambia innovation system was conducted, and the drivers of

poverty assessed. This mapping was later confirmed in a follow-up visit, up to a level sufficient

for strategy development, and for further consideration during implementation planning.

v. RIU Focus: The RIU Programme in Zambia will be centred around the drivers of poverty

affecting rural households. Poverty and poverty alleviation, in this respect, are at the core of the

RIU Programme in Zambia. Key drivers of poverty in this respect comprise: 1) remoteness and

isolation, and the consequent lack of access to services and markets and means to improve

livelihoods; 2) household diversity, which yields a maldistribution of influence and economic

empowerment that undermines poverty alleviation; 3) socio-cultural determinants, key elements

of which also yield a maldistribution of influence and economic empowerment across women and

men, those facing stigma, and other factors; and 4) a dominant development paradigm that does

not prioritise investment in rural livelihoods. These development challenges have worsened in

recent years, with the loss of labour due to chronic illness and premature death (largely, but not

exclusively, associated with HIV&AIDS), and the narrowing of livelihood strategies. These

challenges offer RIU an important strategic advantage specifically associated with Renewable

Natural Resources Research Strategy (RNRRS) processes and products.

ix

vi. Opportunities and Constraints: An initial diagnostic of the agricultural Innovations System in

Zambia was included in this RIU Country Assessment and Strategy Report. The considerable

weaknesses, gaps and market failures in the agricultural Innovations System in Zambia, identified

in the Country Assessment and Strategy Report, provide important opportunities for the RIU

Programme to add value, and have the potential to yield a strong return-on-investment. The Team

therefore recommends that RIU proceed with Programme activities in Zambia.

vii. Framework conditions in Zambia highlight constraints associated with the following:

a weak regulatory and policy implementation environment;

insufficient investment in agriculture and other areas that would support improved rural

livelihoods;

a history of top-down service delivery and consequent dependency and lack of support for

local initiatives;

socio-cultural framework conditions that undermine poverty alleviation impacts;

historic corruption and market control that have undermined market development and

weakened intermediaries;

severe infrastructure challenges;

fragmented and expensive communications environment with limited reach of services to

remote rural areas;

high business transaction costs;

high interest rates;

the lack of community-level institutions that represent the interests of the disenfranchised

and the poor; and

entrenched rural poverty.

viii. There are nevertheless framework conditions in Zambia that offer important opportunities for

RIU programming. These include:

a positive policy environment for innovation in the rural development arena, albeit not

supported by investments in the sector;

a communications environment increasingly conducive to the establishment of functioning

information markets;

the presence of well resourced programmes with ‘good ideas’ conducive to an innovations

approach;

a continued inability to reach the very poor, strengthening their role in the economy and

therefore alleviating poverty, resulting in a desire to align programmes with activities that

show some promise in this regard; and

recognition that current models are not getting research into use.

ix. To effectively work in ways that will maximise the poverty alleviation impacts through an

innovations systems approach, the RIU Programme in Zambia should consider the following:

x

o The innovations system mapping has pointed out a number of actors involved in innovative

approaches to rural livelihoods enhancement initiatives. Virtually all of these actors have

noted severe weaknesses in demand for research, and dysfunctions in terms of its supply.

Stakeholders noted that approaches still tended to emphasise ‘push’ approaches towards

‘getting research into use’, and that the research itself often bore little relevance to how

particular innovations might affect livelihoods overall. Consistent with Government policy,

some of the programmes had been experimenting with applied research linked with extension

activities, reflecting a pragmatic approach to research influenced by demands from other

actors in the system.

o Other actors in the innovations system had integrated research into the framework of a

broader commitment to a programme objective, such as conservation farming. In these cases,

the research was driven more by the programme’s needs, rather than influences from other

actors in the system. A number of the programmes have, nevertheless, been assessed as open

to such innovation, and therefore represent important partners.

o The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) represents the

primary strategic framework for agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. The focus is on improving

agricultural productivity, of which Pillar 4 is ‘improving agricultural research, technology

dissemination, and adoption’. There is high level commitment to CAADP in a number of

countries, Zambia included. Despite some operational problems in respect to CAADP in

Zambia, there is no doubt that alignment with CAADP, and engagement with the CAADP

process, will be central to the success of the RIU Programme in Zambia.

o The specialist sub-reports for communications and information and knowledge service

markets highlight important opportunities for RIU engagement that will strengthen the

innovations system. This requires engagement with a mix of private, non-governmental, and

public actors in the Innovations System, the elimination of disincentives to co-operate, and

clarity and focus that will yield returns on investment for private sector actors.

o Innovation Platforms have been identified that are intended to engage with existing

commercial farming operations in a profitable manner, as important actors in the Innovations

System in Zambia.

o The team’s review of relevant Government policies suggests a broadly positive policy

environment, and a flexible Government approach to innovative ideas. There are particular,

and serious, weaknesses in terms of research. While presenting a challenge, the virtual

collapse of the system and its reconstruction through a number of progressive interventions

offers a solid foundation for engaging with research service providers (public and private,

local and national).

o In considering the drivers of poverty identified during the assessment, it is evident that the

ways in which people would engage with the Programme will be important in determining

the success of the poverty alleviation potential of the RIU Programme in Zambia. Despite

sound consultative strategies, they tend to engage with a broad range of households at

programme start-up, and rarely over time, as less poor households emerge to dominate

programme activities. On the other hand, a number of non-governmental organisations have

experience in working on livelihood support initiatives that reach very poor households and

persons, but tend to mix social welfare initiatives with income generating initiatives in a

manner that can undermine viability. This will require an iterative process that carefully

reflects on approach and impacts, underlining the key role to be played by MIL in the

Zambian RIU Programme.

xi

x. An emphasis (although not exclusive) on poorly-reached persons and households in semi-

remote areas obviously raises a number of challenges for the RIU Programme in Zambia. In

addition to establishing the right partnership arrangements, there are particular challenges

associated with the very drivers of poverty that the Programme needs to respond to, factors that

make it more difficult to reach people, and factors that yield lower returns on investment. It is not,

in this respect, the ‘easy road’, but it does mean RIU engagement with the very farmers who are

the Programme’s target group, avoiding a social welfare approach, and concentrating on economic

enhancement.

xi. Strategic Thrusts: Two integrated strategic thrusts are recommended for the RIU Programme in

Zambia, both intended to get research into use via strengthening demand:

(a) Enhancing capacity to demand services and participate in value/market chains by farmers

and intermediaries.

(b) Strengthening of knowledge market mechanisms and services.

xii. Hypothesis: The hypothesis of the RIU Programme in Zambia is that, by focusing on the drivers

of poverty and responding to gaps in the innovations system, the RIU Programme in Zambia will

improve the coherence of the system itself in a manner that will enhance the demand for services,

including research outputs, and in so doing strengthening and diversifying rural livelihoods.

xiii. Strategic Objectives: The RIU Programme has three strategic objectives in Zambia:

(a) Influence Agenda-Setting: At the national level, the RIU Programme seeks to influence the

decision-making environment in a manner that supports an improved match between a

positive rural development policy and strategy environment, on the one hand, with a

decision-making and resource allocation environment that does not reflect these stated

commitments. A first strategic objective is therefore to influence agenda-setting within

the Innovations System in Zambia.

(b) Support ‘Good Ideas’: The CASDT identified a number of actors engaged in innovative

activities, and clear gaps were identified where the RIU Programme in Zambia would

have a strategic advantage. A second strategic objective is therefore to engage with these

actors as part of a National Innovations Coalition to influence agenda-setting, and to

integrate RNRRS and other research outputs into a more coherent innovations system in

Zambia.

(c) Direct Response to the Drivers of Poverty: After due consideration of the drivers of poverty

in Zambia, the CASDT has identified a sub-district approach that would bring together a

number of strands of RIU Programme support, and the involvement of a number of actors

in the Innovations System, to serve as a catalyst for local market development. The third

strategic objective is therefore to respond directly to the drivers of poverty in a selected

location in a semi-remote rural area, with intended demonstration impacts elsewhere.

xii

xiv. Innovation Platforms: To support attainment of the strategic objectives noted above, a first

platform (“Building Trust and Co-Learning and Strengthening the Functioning of the System

Across Domains”) for the RIU Programme in Zambia will focus on working with a number of

national actors in the Innovations System to improve the functioning of the system itself, and to

strengthen its ability to influence decision-makers. It would also allow effective engagement with

those involved in implementing ‘good ideas’ to improve effective demand for research and other

information services. This is primarily intended to meet the first two objectives (influence agenda-

setting and support good ideas), but it is also intended to facilitate the strengthening of the sub-

district platform.

xv. The second platform (“Sub-District Based Semi-Remote Area Initiative”) for the RIU

Programme in Zambia will focus at the sub-district level. It will involve working with strong

national and sub-national partners to effectively engage with a variety of service providers, other

intermediaries and infomediaries, and farming households with and without the current capacity

to produce a surplus and engage productively with the local economy in an identified sub-district.

Such a geographical emphasis will: 1) focus RIU Programme attention on its core mandate of

poverty alleviation, with actions and activities approached keeping in mind that poverty alleviation

is the point of departure; 2) allow the RIU Programme to provide an environment within which key

actors in the system will undertake activities and work in a manner that will strengthen the system

overall; and 3) focus attention on supporting the use of past RNRRS and other research outputs in

the Zambian programme, as well as supporting the effective integration of research into the

innovations system in Zambia.

xvi. While not in themselves ‘low-hanging fruit’, there are aspects of the first platform that can

yield early wins. These early wins arise from the team’s assessment of opportunities for rapid

progress:

(a) Development of a knowledge market strategy.

(b) Building trust and co-learning among key national actors.

xvii. Concluding Comment: It should be underlined that the Country Strategy is not intended to

describe, in detail, how the RIU Programme will operationalise activities in Zambia. Rather, the

Country Strategy is intended to provide a framework within which implementation planning will

do exactly this. As implementation planning proceeds, therefore, some if not all of the ideas put

forward in this Country Strategy Report will need to be retooled to meet the realities of the

situation, the objectives of those involved in the National Innovations Coalition, and the realities of

the to-and-fro of programme design. This process is also intended to yield alternative or additional

activities under the two platforms for the RIU Programme in Zambia. At the same time, activities

that are carried out during implementation planning and implementation will deepen the analysis

contained herein, learning as the process moves forward.

1

I. Background

Introduction

1. This report presents findings from an assessment of opportunities for RIU engagement in

Zambia. It is based on multiple visits to Zambia by technical team members, the Team Leader, and

the Country Manager, stakeholder engagement by the team members as well as a facilitation

agency, a review of country-specific and innovations literature, and the prior experience of team

members in pilot RIU countries.

Team Composition and Personnel

2. The team was comprised of international specialists in innovation systems, poverty and rural

livelihoods, communications, information markets, monitoring, impact assessment and learning,

and stakeholder engagement, as well as national specialists in policy and institutions and cross-

cutting themes. The work of the team was facilitated by a Country Task Manager and a Process

Facilitator, overseen by RIU management based in Uganda and England, and facilitated by an

Innovations Resource Group comprised of leaders in the field of innovation systems. (Team

member names and contact details were included on the inside cover sheet to this report.)

The RIU Approach

3. The Research Into Use (RIU) Programme is designed to help address the widespread concern

that most agricultural research is not utilised effectively to reduce poverty and support improved

rural livelihoods. The hypothesis of the RIU Programme is that “an innovation systems approach

is more effective in achieving the increased use of new knowledge (in the sense of up- and out-

scaling) for the benefit of resource-poor communities than approaches which focus on formal

research or linear extension services”.

4. Innovation in this context refers to the first significant use of new ideas, technologies or new

ways of doing things in a place where it has not been done before. The emphasis is on the

commercial use of ideas/technologies/mechanisms to advance a pro-poor agenda. Innovation

enables more goods or services to be produced with less effort or resources, producing better of

different goods or services.

5. Innovation Systems refer to all the actors and their interactions involved in the production

and use of knowledge as well as the institutional and policy context that shapes the processes of

knowledge access, sharing and learning.

6. The hypothesis of the RIU Programme is that “an innovation systems approach is more

effective in achieving the increased use of new knowledge (in the sense of up- and out-scaling) for

the benefit of resource-poor communities than approaches which focus on formal research or

linear extension services”.

2

7. The RIU Programme is guided by an Innovations System Approach. The RIU Implementation

Plan (2007-2011) outlines the RIU approach, and notes that “An innovation system is usually seen

as a network of organisations and individuals involved in generating, modifying, and using new

knowledge. These activities are collectively called an ‘innovation process’. The networks might be

national, sub-national, regional or international. It comprises not only the users of the knowledge

(farmers, consumers, artisans, labourers and traders) and the producers of new knowledge

(researchers) but a host of intermediary organisations including extension workers, information

brokers, enterprises in the supply chain, credit agencies and government.” The RIU Programme in

Zambia includes an innovation process that involves key links at the regional, national, and sub-

national levels.

8. The probability of achieving innovation is most likely to be increased by:

a. Undertaking a diagnostic of the innovation system as a whole to establish where

constraints lie, which of these constraints can be removed, and the location of the most

vibrant and dynamic actors which can be supported to innovate.

b. Identifying those parts of the system where intervention is most viable, and which is most

likely to result in successful innovation. This involves investing in research, improving the

policy environment, building capacities to innovate, and encouraging a wider and more

diverse range of actors necessary for innovation to interact with each other more

effectively, building trust between actors in the system.

c. Enabling the potential users of new knowledge to articulate their needs more effectively,

and to translate these needs into effect demand, amplifying the voice of users throughout

the system.

d. Strengthening organisations and individuals who perform the intermediary functions that

enable the suppliers of new knowledge to interact with the users of such new knowledge,

and to enhance systemic learning.

9. The RIU Programme in Zambia will be implemented in a manner consistent with the overall

aims of the RIU Programme, and also consistent with the development Vision 2030 and the Fifth

National Development Plan of Zambia, as well as the Comprehensive African Agriculture

Development Programme (CAADP) of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD).

Specifically, the RIU Programme recognises CAADP’s emphasis in Zambia on improving

agricultural1 productivity, overcoming problems of poor agricultural infrastructure that

undermines the commercialisation of agriculture, creating a more robust agro-industry sector, and

supporting actionable research results.

10. The RIU Programme in Zambia will be adapted to meet the particular situation in Zambia, but

will be consistent with the RIU Programme internationally. This will ensure alignment with

DfID’s Research Funding Framework and the Strategy for Research on Sustainable Agriculture,

and the stated commitment therein to an innovations system approach. It also reflects the

objectives of the 2007-2011 RIU Implementation Plan, and its specific commitment to greater

ownership of the process by the poor and disenfranchised.

1 Reference to the agricultural sector in this document is employed in a broad sense to include a range of livelihoods support activities

associated with the renewable natural resources sector, including crops, livestock, fisheries, and forestry and all other activities

associated with farming, agricultural processing, post harvest, trade, and input provision.

3

11. The purpose of the Research Into Use (RIU) Programme is:

o To maximise the poverty reducing impact of previous natural resources research, including

Renewable Natural Resources Research funded by the UK Department for International

Development.

o To significantly increase an understanding of how the promotion and widespread use of such

research can contribute to poverty reduction and economic growth.

12. The outputs of the RIU Programme in Zambia, adjusted to accommodate the start-time of RIU

in Zambia, are as follows:

o Substantially increased numbers of poor people indirectly benefiting from RIU research

outputs by 2011.

o More than 50% by value of RIU (use of research and learning outputs) initiatives to be ‘largely

or completely achieved’ by the end of two years of implementation.

o More than 50% of likely beneficiaries of RIU-supported initiatives independently assessed as

likely to be poor women by the end of 2008.

Country Background

9. Geography: Zambia, which gained its independence on 24

October, 1964, is located in central southern Africa, with a total

land area of 752,614km2. Zambia borders Angola, the Democratic

Republic of the Congo, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania,

Zimbabwe, and Botswana, with the border with the Congo the

longest. The country is landlocked, with considerable distances to

ports in Namibia, Angola, South Africa and Tanzania, with most

trade via South Africa. The country is divided into nine provinces,

comprising Central, Copperbelt, Eastern, Luapula, Lusaka,

Northern, North-Western, Southern and Western.

10. Population: According to the most recent census, the Zambian population stood at 9.9 million in

2000 (CSO, 2002), and is projected at 11.7 million as of mid-2008 (US Bureau of the Census, 2008).

Forty-five percent of the population is aged fifteen and under. Two-thirds of the population lives

in rural areas, with some evidence of out-migration from urban to rural areas during the 1990s.

Almost one-fifth of all households are female-headed (18.9%), with lower levels of income than

male-headed households (Living Conditions Monitoring Survey; CSO, 2003).

11. Economy: Zambia’s economy has been in secular decline since the mid-1970s. Economic

performance only started to improve in the past decade, largely due to improvements in the

mining, construction and transport sectors. As a middle income country at independence in 1964,

with a per capita income of US$800, Zambia’s economic decline resulted in a per capita income

drop to half that amount, at US$405 by 2002. Structural adjustment and a high debt burden has

had a negative impact on investments in human capital, with Zambia ranked as 165th out of 174

countries in terms of human development by 2004. Debt relief in recent years has reduced

Zambia’s external debt burden, from near US$7.1 billing at the end of the 1990s to US$0.5 billion

by 2006 (see DFID.org), allowing increased investment in human capital.

4

12. Poverty: Levels of poverty have remained high, despite recent improvements in the economy.

While only one-third of Zambians were below the poverty line in the mid-1970s, this rose to two-

thirds (68%) by 2003. Most were classified as ‘extremely poor’ (46%), and the rest as ‘moderately

poor’ (21%). Poverty is highest and most severe in Northern Province, followed by North-Western

Province. In Northern Province, 63% of the households are ‘extremely poor’, and 18% ‘moderately

poor’, followed by North-Western Province, where 51% are ‘extremely poor’, and are 21%

‘moderately poor’. While some provinces are poorer than others, levels of poverty are high across

all rural areas, at 74% (compared to 52% for urban areas), reflected in higher poverty levels among

the more rural provinces (CSO, 2004). Remoteness covaried with higher levels of poverty, with

remote rural areas having a higher proportion of their population living in poverty (see Thurlow

and Wobst, 2004). While poverty rates remain very high, it is encouraging to note that the poverty

rate has fallen from 73% in 1998 to 68% in 2004, in part due to improvements in the mining sector

and expanded employment in commercial agriculture, coupled with diversification in staples

production with the removal of subsidies that incentivised the production of maize as opposed to

other crops.

13. In 2002 Government issued their Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). The strategy

covered the period 2002-2004, with an update every three years. Prepared following broad-based

consultations, the PRSP is focused on sustained growth and employment generation through:

Economic development (particularly agricultural diversification, mining, tourism, and

manufacturing).

Infrastructure improvements (roads, communications, and energy).

Social sector development.

Cross-cutting initiatives to address HIV&AIDS, the environment, and gender.

Better macro-economic management, public sector reform, and improved governance.

14. The PRSP goes on to note key challenges associated with narrow economic growth affecting

only a few sectors, numerous barriers to private enterprise development, a lack of

commercialisation in the agricultural sector and poor market development, and reducing key

vulnerabilities arising from HIV&AIDS, gender inequality, and chronic food insecurity. The

National Gender Policy (GRZ, 2000) also highlights the constraints on poverty alleviation arising

from gender inequality.

15. Zambia has made progress on some Millennium Development Goals, with primary school

gross enrolment rates rising from 63% in 2000 to 89% in 2005, and the expansion of anti-retroviral

treatment for HIV positive Zambians. However, one-in-six Zambian children still die before their

fifth birthdays, and hunger is a persistent problem, affecting 51% of Zambia’s population (Living

Conditions Monitoring Survey; CSO, 2006). Life expectancy is only 38.4 years, and only 43% of the

rural population has access to safe water supplies (see DFID.org).

16. HIV&AIDS: As with the rest of southern Africa, HIV seroprevalence rates are high in Zambia,

at 14.3% (Demographic and Health Survey; CSO, 2007), with an estimated 920,000 people living

with HIV/AIDS. Despite the high seroprevalence rates and continued high levels of infection,

rates have actually declined in the past ten years, from a peak of 16% in 2002. With a mature

epidemic, Zambia is now faced with the consequences of chronic illness and premature death,

5

with high orphan and vulnerable children caregiving burdens, and the secular economic decline of

affected households, expanding the number of households in poverty, and entrenching poverty in

these households and communities.

Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods

17. It is estimated that agriculture contributes between one-fifth and one-quarter of gross domestic

product in Zambia, and is the main source of livelihoods for over half of the country’s population.

Food crops comprise some 40% of the this total value, while livestock contributes 35% towards the

total value of agricultural production. Most rural households rely on crop production as their

main source of livelihoods. It is estimated that 58% of the land area is suitable for agriculture, but

only 14% of the total land area is currently under cultivation. Approximately 85% of all farms are

comprised of smallholder producers who are producing crops on communal land. The remaining

15% of farms are commercial enterprises on private, leasehold land, producing some 25% of all

agricultural produce.

18. Economic liberalisation in the past fifteen years has improved the returns on investment from

agricultural investment, and has resulted in the diversification of agricultural production,

including most notably cotton, as well as flowers, sugar, tobacco, and vegetables. Smallholder

farmers contribute to these non-traditional crops through out-grower schemes, but these have

tended to benefit middle-income farming households more than others.

19. A number of factors affect the success of smallholder agriculture. Deininger and Olinto (2002)

highlight the importance of labour shortages during the planting season that constrain production,

worsened by HIV&AIDS, coupled with low wages/inadequate in-kind payment for on-farm

services. Input supply was also noted as a key constraint, coupled with the lack of credit facilities

for purchasing inputs. Lack of access to markets and crop spoilage in transport also limited the

value of produce sold; distance to markets was greatest in Western Northern, Eastern, and North-

Western provinces, all at over twenty kilometres, compared to a national average of 14.8kms

(Thurlow and Wobst, 2004; see also UNDP, 2003). More generally, Government, in the Fifth

National Development Plan (GRZ, 2005: 62) identifies a number of challenges affecting the ability

of agriculture to reduce poverty, notably low productivity, high post-harvest losses (estimated at

30%), poor infrastructure and high transport costs, poor access to credit, poorly functioning

agricultural grain markets, insecurity arising from poor land use planning, poor environmental

management, and limited gender mainstreaming in the sector.

20. Access to livestock is particularly important in enabling rural households sufficient flexibility

to meet contingencies caused by the loss of labour or other productive resources, and natural

disasters. Cattle, owned by a minority of smallholders, are essential to mixed farming operations,

providing both draught power and fertiliser. Cattle ownership is increasingly concentrated in

fewer hands, in part due to the effects of livestock diseases (most importantly East Coast Fever and

Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia, the latter of which is concentrated in Western, North-

Western and Northern provinces) which have hit smaller herd owners especially hard, but also

because of the effects of HIV&AIDS and consequent asset disposal, and herd size too small to yield

sustainable offtake.

21. Veld product harvesting forms an important component of rural livelihoods, especially for

poorer households, and particularly during times of economic stress. The Living Conditions

6

Monitoring Survey (LCMS; CSO, 2003), for example, noted that one-quarter of all female-headed

households relied on veld products to meet basic food and other household needs in times of

stress. For those in chronic poverty, wild fruits and vegetables and the harvesting of other veld

products was central to their livelihoods. However, this is rarely sufficient to meet needs, and

poorer households tend to cut back on food intake, substitute foods of lesser nutritional value, and

defer other purchases.

22. One of the main resources that poor households rely on, especially in times of stress, are social

capital networks comprising extended family members, friends and neighbours. Indeed,

according to the LCMS (CSO, 2003), relying on these social capital networks was a key coping

strategy in times of particular need, affecting 71% of all rural households (and higher for female-

headed households). These support networks have been weakened in recent years due to the

impacts of HIV&AIDS, with particularly severe impacts on elderly caregiving households with

high dependency ratios.

23. The Government of Zambia regards improvements in agriculture as central to poverty

reduction, coupled with attention to HIV&AIDS, gender and the environment. Improving rural

infrastructure, strengthening linkages between smallholders and larger farmers as well as

commercial producers and agribusiness, expanding non-farm opportunities, and assisting the

poorest households through improved food production techniques, coupled with strengthened

social service provision, are key objectives to reduce levels of poverty (MACO, 2004; also see IFAD,

2005). Thurlow and Wobst (2004) note that a pro-poor growth strategy will necessarily rely

heavily on improvements in agriculture, and that it represents the only strategy that would

achieve a halving of poverty to below 50% in rural areas within the next thirty years. And this

would only occur if the focus was less on cash-crop production and more on improving the

production of staple crops, and improved market access for these goods (see Haggblade and

Tembo, 2003).

24. Government’s long-term development objectives are captured in its National Vision 2030. One

key goal of Vision 2030 was to ‘significantly reduce hunger and poverty’. The emphasis is on

economic growth and pro-poor engagement in the economy, taking note that economic growth

that is concentrated in urban areas does little to reduce poverty overall, and that pro-poor growth

requires a focus on agriculture and rural development (see GRZ, 2005).

25. Substantial agriculture sector reform has taken place since the early 1990s focusing, as the

National Agricultural Policy (NAP; MACO, 2004) notes, on liberalisation, commercialisation, the

promotion of public-private partnerships, and improving gender equity in access to resources and

services, and benefits from agricultural activities. Agricultural sector objectives under the current

(fifth) national development plan, covering the period 2006-2010, are improved food security at the

household and national levels, linking agricultural production to agro processing industries,

increased agricultural exports, enhanced production and productivity, and protecting the

agricultural resource base.

7

26. Unfortunately, while various policy documents recognise the strong connection between the

development of the agricultural sector and poverty reduction, resource allocation to the sector

remains extremely low. Only 4% of Zambia’s national budget is devoted to the agricultural sector,

and the bulk of these funds are allocated to the Fertiliser Support Programme and the Food

Reserve Agency, both focused largely on maize production.

27. Natural Environment: Zambia is relatively sparsely populated, and has substantial and diverse

natural resources. Some 40% of the country’s land surface area comprises wildlife protection areas,

including community-based initiatives that give local communities limited management and use

rights over animals. There are nevertheless a number of localised environmental threats, notably

in mining areas and peri-urban locations, while over 20% of flood plains and swaps have been

degraded due to human settlement, situation, and the development of dams (GRZ, 2005).

28. With regard to smallholder farming, there are particular problems associated with the

depletion of soils through overuse, and depletion of natural resources in areas proximate to major

settlements, particularly firewood and species used for charcoal production.

29. Environmental planning is guided by the National Environmental Policy (NEP, MENR, 2006)

and the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP). However, co-ordination of activities is

hampered by the plethora of agencies involved in environmental and natural resource

management, coupled with a dearth of skills in the sector and a weak regulatory environment.

The absence of a coherent land use planning framework and conflicting mandates over land use in

communal areas hampers effective planning. Recently-strengthened Environmental Impact

Assessment Regulations are intended to help overcome some of these deficiencies, but

considerable challenges remain.

8

II. Analysis of the Innovation Systems of Relevance to Getting

Research Into Use

Introduction

30. In this chapter, an analysis of the innovation systems relevant to opportunities in the natural

resource arena is provided. The information contained herein is derived from the “Background

Report: Zambia” prepared by the Natural Resources Institute in early 2007, team member reports

in their areas of specialisation, and other assembled materials.

The Innovation System in Zambia

31. Although Zambia has no specific national policy on innovation, the processes of innovation in

the natural resources sector are largely framed by the Fifth National Development Plan, the

National Agricultural Policy, and the Science and Technology Policy and Act. These development

frameworks seek to harness science and technology resources to enhance productivity and

improve livelihoods through a variety of institutions, including the National Institute for Scientific

and Industrial Research (NISIR), the Zambian Agricultural Research Institute, extension services

and the university system, and strengthening linkages between these institutions and the private

sector, as well as other stakeholders. The national science and technology policy is currently under

review with the aim of updating the policy to accommodate changes in technology and on the

ground in Zambia, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives has stated its commitment to

(but has yet to operationalise) strengthening institutional arrangements that enhance an

innovation systems approach to development.

32. The agricultural sector consists of only about 700 large-scale commercial farmers and 1,500

small- to medium-scale commercial farmers, but over a million smallholder farming households.

The commercial farmers are generally able to take advantage of available technologies, unlike

smallholder farmers, where less than 20% are well placed to take advantage of opportunities. For

the remainder, the combination of weak market linkages and a lack of effective co-ordination of

activities between service providers, intermediaries, and the smallholder agricultural sector,

together limit interactive learning and development of the adaptive capacities necessary for a

vibrant innovations system with poverty alleviation potential.

33. Various national policies and Vision 2030 all reflect Government recognition of the central role

agricultural development and broader livelihoods support play in poverty reduction. However,

the policy objectives of achieving accelerated growth and competitiveness in the agricultural sector

are not matched by commensurate resource allocation. There is considerable misalignment

between policy intent and resource allocation. For example, under the Comprehensive African

Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), Zambia and other African states have committed

themselves to an annual agricultural growth rate of 6%, predicated on the allocation of at least 10%

of the national budget to agriculture. However, over the past few years, Zambia has only

committed 4% of its budget to agriculture, and most of this is consumed by recurrent costs, the

Food Reserve Agency, and the Fertiliser Support Programme, largely focused on expanded maize

production.

9

34. As a result of under-investment in the agricultural sector and in rural livelihoods more

generally over the past few decades, Zambia has witnessed a continued deterioration of research,

extension, and other institutional services from Government. Indeed, some key informants have

characterised public research and extension services as having ‘virtually collapsed’. At this

juncture, there are no clear indications that this situation will change in the near future.

Nevertheless, there are some grounds for optimism. Consultations carried out by the team during

the assessment have underlined that, where public research and extension services have been

aligned with sound projects and clear objectives, considerable progress can be made (e.g., the

Agricultural Support Programme), but only for the duration of the particular project, with little

demonstration effect on other institutions.

The Main Stakeholders in the Innovation Systems of Relevance to RIU

35. A mapping of the Zambian ‘innovation system’ was conducted. It was decided to use an

innovations framework adapted from Arnold and Bell (2001), because it allows the deconstruction

of the Innovations System in Zambia in a manner useful for programme development purposes,

providing both ‘snapshot’ information for broad strategy development and decision-making, and

more detailed insights for operationalising the implementation plan.

36. For each area, the status has been broadly grouped into ‘negative’, if the situation is not

positive’, ‘mixed’, if it contains a mixture of positive and negative situations, and ‘positive’ if,

overall, the situation is positive.

37. Using Arnold and Bell (2001), adapted by Whiteside (2007), the following categories were

used:

Framework Conditions - considering broader ‘environmental’ considerations

Demand Domain - considering the demand for goods and services (both intermediate

and final)

Enterprise Domain - considering enterprise activities within the Innovations System

Intermediary Domain - considering intermediaries

Research Domain - considering providers of research services (research and education?)

Infrastructure - considering where facilitating infrastructure is in place or not

38. This initial mapping is derived largely from the results of team member investigations, as well

as the results of the two workshops, converted into the Arnold and Bell framework. This allows

for non-institutional actors to be considered on the innovations map, avoiding the problem

focusing too much on formal institutions.

39. The initial mapping discusses, in general terms, how Zambia fares in each area. This is

followed by a more detailed mapping of the problems and opportunities around how these

organisations act and interact.

10

Table 1: Initial Mapping of the Agricultural Innovations System

Framework Conditions

Area

Policy and governance

Incentive environment

Trust

Other

Assessment

Positive - Vision 2030, Fifth National Development Plan,

Agricultural Development Policy, communications policies, Rural

Development Policy, CAADP. Strong voice for commercial

farmers via the ZNFU. But, lack of implementation of policies, lack

of understanding of policies and priorities.

Mixed - In agriculture, mis-direction of resource allocation, under-

allocation of public resources, focus on subsidies and largely on

maize production. Support for private sector development in the

agricultural sector. In rural development, openness to

experimentation, flexibility.

Positive - Examples of collaboration that have worked, high

stakeholder willingness to build relationships, strong systems of

social capital. Private sector willing to take risks if returns are

sufficient, willing to cooperative if in their interest.

Positive - Reduced levels of corruption, improvements in education

and health status, labour mobility, peace and security (Angolan

war over; unstable parts of the DRC do not border Zambia; high

but unknown numbers of economic migrants from Zimbabwe)

Demand Domain

Area

Consumers (final demand)

Local, regional, international markets

Research incentives

Producers (intermediate demand)

Research funders

Assessment

Negative: Aside from farmers proximate to urban markets, weak

purchasing power.

Negative: Poor access to overseas markets, competition with same

products as neighbouring countries. Inaccessible local markets due

to poor infrastructure.

Negative: Weak demand for research outputs

Negative: Poor local market development, outside of limited areas

proximate to larger markets

Negative: Weak systems of demand for research results, low levels

of investment in the system

11

Table 1: Initial Mapping of the Agricultural Innovations System (continued)

Enterprise Domain

Area

Smallholder farmers and other natural

resource users

Commercial farmers

Farmer organisations

Agro-industries

Assessment

Negative: Weak demand, very weak systems for enhanced demand.

Only a relatively small proportion of these farmers regularly link

with services and markets (perhaps up to 20%).

Positive: Vibrant commercial farming system, albeit small, and only

partially integrated into wider farming systems. Access to

information services via membership organisations.

Mixed: Strong farmers union (ZNFU) open to new ideas, but little

indication that it represents the interests of the majority of

smallholder farmers

Mixed: Some agro-processing in urban areas, but limited to a few

products. Difficulty in competing in local markets with imports

from South Africa.

Intermediary Domain

Area

Extension

Non-governmental organisations

Community-based organisations

Communications (press, radio, TV,

internet, mobile phone operators, etc.)

and Infomediaries (membership based

organisations, business service

providers, training organisations,

government information services)

Assessment

Negative: Public extension services very weak, under-utilised,

poorly supported, weak links to research institutions.

Programmatic examples of significantly improved public extension,

but limited in scope.

Positive: Wide variety of NGOs with long experience, including in

remote areas. Many have development experience, rather than just

emergency experience. Some problems in mixing livelihoods

support with social protection, but limited.

Negative: Despite these strengths, there are numerous NGOs, and

some of these do not necessarily work in tandem with other

agencies. In other cases, agendas are externally driven, and these

may or may not coincide either with needs in Zambia, or priorities

in Zambia.

Positive: Strong presence of faith-based organisations and churches

throughout rural Zambia. Competitive atmosphere, innovative

approaches to support local communities. Numerous, active

community ratio initiatives. Schools and health facilities exist in

even very remote areas, but not well resourced.

Mixed: Improved presence and reach of numerous communications

agencies, and largely positive policy environment. However,

limited reach in remote areas, little incentive to expand operations

to cover consumers with lower abilities to pay. For infomediaries,

various actors supplying demand-driven services to large and

medium scale farmers. However, poor links to national research

system, and limited reach into remote areas. Little incentives to

expand services to cover consumers with lower abilities to pay.

Further, weak incentives for knowledge flows between information

/knowledge service providers and sources of research-based

knowledge.

12

Table 1: Initial Mapping of the Agricultural Innovations System (continued)

Intermediary Domain (continued)

Area

Private sector suppliers of services

Informal knowledge transfer systems

Assessment

Negative: Weak private sector suppliers outside of main road

arteries and commercial farming operations.

Mixed: Generational transfer of information, experimentation,

knowledge. But, HIV&AIDS have impacted generational

knowledge transfer. Localised initiatives to support these systems,

mostly by donor financed initiatives (e.g., farmer field schools) and

NGOs.

Research Domain

Area

Research institutes

Universities

Private sector

NGOs

International and regional

organisation research

Assessment

Negative: Under-resourced, not market oriented, poorly linked to

demand.

Negative: Under-resourced, not market oriented, poorly linked to

demand.

Mixed: Commodity-focused research in key areas (most especially

cotton).

Negative: Limited in scope, focused on commodities. However,

usually solid participatory appraisal work at project start-up, but

limited in scope, and not demand driven.

Positive: Linked to a number of international/regional

organisations, particular emphasis on CG centre networks. Zambia

committed to CAADP and FARA.

13

Table 1: Initial Mapping of the Agricultural Innovations System (continued)

Infrastructure

Area

Transport and marketing

Banking, savings and credit, informal

finance

Risk insurance

Regulations and standards

Innovation and business support

systems

Information systems

Assessment

Negative: Aside from areas proximate to major infrastructure,

transport infrastructure is poorly developed, and markets are

weak

Negative: Poor commercial reach into rural areas. Weak

agricultural bank. Long history of non-repayment of loans. Some

examples of small-scale, localised credit initiatives.

Negative: Poor outreach, inadequate insurance infrastructure.

Negative: Lack of enforcement of regulations and standards.

Negative: Weak infrastructure, little business support system

outreach into rural areas. However, programme-specific

examples of successful outreach.

Mixed: Expanding coverage of internet/cell phone coverage, some

strong internet service providers, but weak regulatory

environment, limited public sector capacity to implement

information communication technology policy and related high

costs are contributory factors limiting access in remote areas and

for the poorest. Lack of workable (public-private) business

models to support services to small farmers, especially those in

remote areas also linked to weak effective demand.

40. The initial mapping of the Agricultural Innovations System suggests a mixed picture, with

positive framework conditions, weak demand structures and systems, mixed results in terms of

the enterprise domain and intermediaries, a poor research environment, and entrenched

‘infrastructure’ constraints.

41. Considering these positive and negative factors, key actors associated with possible entry

points and constraints to the effective functioning of the Agricultural Innovations System in

Zambia are noted in the following table, along with overarching opportunities and challenges

associated with each domain and actor.

42. It should be noted that no breakdown has been made between strengths and opportunities, or

between weaknesses and threats, along the lines of a SWOT analysis. At this juncture, for the

purposes of the assessment and strategy, it is felt that this is sufficient to inform implementation

planning. With implementation planning and implementation, those factors within the ability of

agencies to change (strengths and weaknesses) may be disaggregated from broader,

environmental factors that can only be changed over time by higher level actors (opportunities and

threats), and become part of the process of RIU Programme implementation in Zambia.

43. Finally, it should also be noted that more detail is provided in the specialist sub-reports, and in

the 2007 background report:

14

Table 2: Initial Mapping of Organisations and Opportunities and Challenges Domain Key Actors Opportunities Challenges

Framework

Conditions

Government of Zambia

Policy-related forums, such as the Agricultural

Consultative Forum, Community Natural Resources

Consultative Forum, Agriculture Sector Advisory Group

Policies are largely in place, including

covering key cross-cutting themes

Commitment to CAADP

Openness to innovation

Interest in RIU

Lack of financial commitment to the

agricultural sector, emphasis on maize and

subsidies

History of loan write-offs

Politicization of co-operatives

Culture and society Strong systems of social capital

Strong systems of local leadership

Strong presence of churches and other

forums for social organisation

High levels of poverty

History of dependency, lack of support for

local initiatives. Lack of history of

innovation and entrepreneurship

Some social constraints affecting the ability

of women to fully benefit from farming

activities

Other Population has a history of seeking

economic opportunities anywhere in the

country

Improving levels of education

Lessening in problem of corruption

Education standards remain constrained by

under-financing and high levels of poverty,

limited ability to pay for secondary and

higher education

Demand

Domain

Consumers Reasonably strong urban demand for

farm produce.

Indications of strong urban demand for

certain types of produce (e.g., organic

produce)

Weak purchasing power

Poorly developed markets in rural areas

Consumer preferences for imported goods

(China, South Africa)

Local, regional, international markets Examples of export-oriented production

(particularly cotton, but also coffee,

flowers)

Poorly developed markets in rural areas

No clear regional competitive advantage for

agricultural produce

Uncertain Government commitment to

expanding agricultural exports

Research funders and incentives

Donor support to ZARI, NISIR, universities

Government support to ZARI, NISIR, universities

Commodity focused research by private

sector (e.g., cotton)

Some, albeit limited, research by non-

state actors

Very inadequate and mistargeted financing

of natural resources research. Lack of

public financing, lack of private alternatives

Poor incentives for researchers in public

institutes and universities.

Producers - local entrepreneurs involved in on-farm

production

Markets active when attention

concentrated in an area

Poor market infrastructure weakens

position of producers

15

Domain Key Actors Opportunities Challenges

Enterprise

Domain

Farmers and other natural resource users - smallholders Some farmers with surplus show

responsiveness to initiatives

Very poor farmers show responsiveness

to income-generation initiatives

History of subsidies, loan write-offs

Restricted market activity

Constrained production

Gender division of labour not

commensurate with benefits from labour

provision

HIV&AIDS has worsened labour shortages.

On-farm smallholder production low wages

Severe poverty, especially in remote areas

Stakeholder mapping showed weak

linkages of any agencies to smallholder

farmers, except NGOs

Commercial farmers Very responsive to market opportunities

Out-grower employment potential

Suggest willingness to work with

smallholder farmers, but uncertain

Limited out-growers, problems facing

quality control, market price, etc.

Limited horizontal integration with

smallholder farmers

In some areas, affected by poor

infrastructure, inadequate transport

Farmer and producer organisations

Zambia National Farmers Union

National Peasants and Small-scale Farmers Association

Organic Producers and Processors Association of Zambia

Zambia Dairy Producers Association

Poultry Producers Association

Coffee Growers Association

Zambia Export Growers Association

Co-operative societies

Politically influential ZNFU

Active ZNFU membership, some

250,000 members in district associations

and commodity associations (the latter

mostly in cotton)

Represented in consultative forums

Most smallholder producers are not

involved in any farmers union

Co-operatives are often weak and

ineffective

Peasant Farmers Association weak

Agro-industries in cotton, tobacco, sugar, maize, stock

feed and beer brewing also important

Cotton sector most well developed (Dunavant, Clark

Cotton, China-Mulungushi)

Tobacco (Tombwe Processing, Zambia Leaf Company,

Standard Commercial Tobacco Services, Tobacco

Development Company, Daimon)

Largely successful in some commodity

chains, notably cotton

Interests represented in consultative

fora.

Mixed success in some commodity chains

(e.g., coffee)

Limited agro-processing takes place in

Zambia

Markets for processed good limited in

Zambia

Preference for imported products with low

prices (e.g., China) or preferred quality (e.g.,

South Africa)

16

Domain Key Actors Opportunities Challenges

Intermediary

Domain

Extension Services

Government extension NGO extension officers - – KATC,

others who employ extension agents

Private sector extension affiliated with outgrower

schemes or employed by seed companies, processors or

organised groups of farmers

Government extension system has good

coverage on the ground

When government extension officers

have been provided with additional

resources and incentives through ADPs

have been able to perform well

Government extension system weak.

Institutional linkages between research and

extension weak

Public extension officers have no economic

or institutional incentives to seek new

knowledge or transmit it to farmers

NGOs – PAM, World Vision, CARE, Swedish

Cooperative Centre, Conservation Farming Unit, etc.

Providing some working models for

enhancing local innovation systems

(e.g., local agrodealer agent farmer-to-

farmer service system).

Catalysing and nurturing innovations in

value addition (e.g., cassava processing

and product development)

Largely weak connections to national

research institutions

Quality of extension messages variable

Lack of coordination with government and

other NGOs

Weak linkages with private sector

companies

Short-term initiatives that are not

sustainable

Community-based Organisations – churches, schools,

Radio Listening Clubs, Study Circles, Farmer

Organisations (20 – 50 members), community radio

stations

Demonstrated efficacy in improving

access to and uptake of new information

Can provide an entry point for services

Lack of access to demand driven services;

inability to pay for service

Limited organisational and institutional

capacity to articulate their own needs

Training institutions - Kasisi Agricultural Training

Institute (KATC), Zambia Forestry College, the Natural

Resources Development College, Zambia College of

Agriculture, Popota Tobacco Training College, Zambia

Institute of Animal Health, Katete College of

Agricultural Marketing, Chapula Horticultural Training

Institute, Kasaka Fisheries Training Institute

KATC in particular has been successful

in improving the uptake of organic

farming technologies

Weak linkages with mainstream research

and extension systems to bring about more

widespread uptake of research-based

knowledge and poverty reduction

Infomediaries

National Agricultural Information Service (NAIS),

National Technology Business Centre, journalists (Panos,

farmer-agents (through PROFIT and Dunavant). Also see

NGOs, Farmer and Producer organisations

Positive Government attitudes towards

greater private sector involvement in the

sector

Providing good service to better off

farmers

Lack of appropriate business models to

support sustainable information services to

small-scale farmers, particularly those in

remote areas

17

Domain Key Actors Opportunities Challenges

Intermediary

Domain (continued)

ICT sector (radio, mobile phone, internet

services)Communications Authority of Zambia

Internet service providers (11 in total), of which 6

provide services in rural areas

Mobile telephone providers (MTN, Cell Z, CELTEL)

National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)

Telecentre operators

eBrain

Community radio stations

LinkNet

ZNFU SMS market information service Radio Farm

Forum (operated by NAIS)

Rapid advances in the ICT sector.

Actors in the system know each other,

scope for improved co-ordination

LinkNet intends to help improve

communications infrastructure and

services for groups in rural areas

High cost, heavily regulated internet

environment, poor quality service provision

to rural areas

eBrain (a forum for advancing the use of

ICTs to promote development) is weak in

the agricultural and natural resources arena

Private sector intermediaries - Cotton (Dunavant, Clark

Cotton, China-Mulungushi); paprika (Cheetha, Bimzi);

tobacco (Tombwe Processing, Zambia Leaf Company,

Standard Commercial Tobacco Services, Tobacco

Development Company, Daimon); Horticulture (York,

Lusaka Agricultural Cooperative Union); Sugar (Zambia

Sugar Co.); Livestock Products (Land O’ Lakes)

Private sector intermediaries likely to

reach more smallholder farmers than

anyone else, mostly in cotton and

paprika, if it supports the business

Provide more sustainable approaches to

service delivery

Cost reductions in service delivery over

time as efficiency improves and services

expand

Engagement largely with better-off farmers

Dealing with small and spread-out

transactions that lack economies of scale

Poor infrastructural services

Business development intermediaries - donor supported

intermediaries and forums, most notably PROFIT

Agri-Business Forum

Zambia Chamber of Small and Medium Business

Associations

Food Security Research Project

Zambia Agribusiness Technical Assistance Centre

MACO’s Agribusiness Unit

National Technology Business Centre

Zambia Association of Chambers of Commerce and

Industry (ZACCI)

Various small initiatives

The recent formation of two new

government agencies dealing with

business issues suggest increasing

awareness on the part of government of

the importance of business development

services (BDS)

ADPs such as ASP and SHEMP have

demonstrated that once farmers have

access to market and market info and

understand value of BDS, they are

willing to pay

Business development services not reaching

poorer farmers

Many small-scale farmers’ are risk adverse

when it comes to business development

services (usually with good cause, and a

lack of capital for investment), and lack

access to markets needed to profit from

enterprises

Current project-based business

development service approaches are not

sustainable

No history of paying for business

development services in the smallholder

sector

18

Domain Key Actors Opportunities Challenges

Commodity and Trade Associations - Cotton Association

of Zambia; Zambia Association of High Value Crops;

Tobacco Association of Zambia; Livestock Processors

Association; Millers Association of Zambia; Bankers

Association of Zambia; Association of Micro-Financing

Institutions; Zambia Chamber of Commerce and

Industry; Coffee Board of Zambia; Zambia Seed Traders

Association; Grain Traders Association.

Effective interest groups with (varied)

influence at the national and sub-

national levels

Associations are providing a forum for

increasing trust and transparency in

commodity value chains

A framework for building common

standards and spreading best practices

For some producer associations, lack of

influence on activities by out-growers

Weak linkages between associations and

grassroots producers

The voice of the smallholder communities is

weak in these associations

Returns to the farmer are low due to poor

productivity and low prices

Research

Domain

Research institutes - ZARI, NISIR, Golden Valley

Agricultural Research Trust, NRDC, FSRP, NAIRC,

Central Valley Research Institute, Cotton Development

Trust, Livestock Development Trust. Also research

services offered by Department of Research and

Specialist Services, Department of Agriculture and Field

Services, Fisheries Department, Forestry Department.

Universities - UNZA system, agricultural colleges. At

UNZA, School of Agriculture, School of Veterinary

Medicine, Department of Agricultural Engineering

ZARI has a network of nine research

stations covering all nine provinces and

is working to strengthen links between

research stations and extension

providers (public, private, NGO) at the

district level

Good collaboration between ZARI,

NISIR and UNZA

GART has a working relationship to the

ZNFU and Commercial Farmers Union,

as well as ZARI

Formation of the public private trusts

has increased responsiveness of research

institutions to some segments of the

innovation system (agribusiness,

commercial farmers)

In general poor linkages with extension and

other information service providers

Lack of market oriented research

Farmers have little input into setting

research agenda. Mechanisms that are

supposed to feed farmer demand back up

the line are not functioning

Difficulty tapping farmer knowledge

Universities - UNZA system, agricultural colleges. At

UNZA, School of Agriculture, School of Veterinary

Medicine, Department of Agricultural Engineering

Existing collaboration relationships with

other research institutions

Research capacities currently under-

utilised

Universities suffer from resource

constraints and low morale

Private sector - ZNFU, FEWSNET, DUNAVANT,

Agricultural Business Forum, Grain Milling Association,

co-operatives, ZEGA, input suppliers

If research supports the advancement of

economic interests, private sector would

likely be quick to respond

These stakeholders offer opportunities

for shaping the research agenda and

help make it more relevant to

smallholder farmers

Few of these organisations offer research

services

Few incentives to conduct research

The diversity of interests with no facilitation

limits the contribution of these stakeholders

to shaping the research agenda that is of

benefit to smallholder communities

19

Domain Key Actors Opportunities Challenges

Research

Domain (continued)

NGOs - CARE, World Vision, Programme Against

Malnutrition, International Development Enterprises

(IDE) are most active in the natural resources arena in

rural Zambia. Others include Heifer International,

Harvest Help, Oxfam, Women in Agriculture, the

Cooperative League of the United States Overseas

(CLUSA), Total Land Care, Pelum.

Zambia Association for Research and Development.

Considerable experience in working

with especially poor households

Extensive experience in integrating

livelihoods support, food security, and

social protection

IDE and CLUSA experienced in

programmes targeting small-scale

producers and various commodities

Very limited agricultural research carried

out by NGOs

Some NGOs that work in livelihoods

support lack the experience to do so, and

may approach income generation in the

agricultural sector from a social protection

perspective

Considerable confusion about how to mix

social protection and income generation,

lack of recognition that the two can be well

integrated. Tendency of some state actors

to consider very poor farming households

as not relevant to market developments

International and regional organisation research -

CGIAR, CIAT (African Network on Soil Biology and

Fertility; Pan-African Bean Research Alliance; Southern

African Bean Research Network); Southern Africa Root

Crops Research Network, CIMMYT (Soil Fertility

Consortium for Southern Africa), CIFOR, World Fish

Centre, World Agro-forestry Centre (Agro-forestry

Research Network for Southern Africa), IFPRI, Alliance

for Green Revolution in Africa, African Agricultural

Technology Foundation

CAADP - FARA, co-ordinating the Regional Agricultural

Information and Learning System, and Dissemination of

New Agricultural Technologies in Africa

Aligned with CAADP

Active in Zambia, linked with research

agencies and programmes

No clear examples of international

organisation support for Zambian

initiatives to link research funding with

partnerships with farmers, NGOs, farmer

organisations, and the private sector

Infrastructure

Transport and marketing For some areas, excellent access to

transport and markets

For areas near Lusaka, access to

international markets

To a limited extent, ICTs are easing

some of the major communication and

marketing problems in rural areas

For most areas, including focal areas for

RIU in Zambia, poor transport

infrastructure and limited access to national

and regional markets

Lack of economies of scale for marketable

surpluses for smallholder communities

Limited local market opportunities, low

purchasing power

20

Domain Key Actors Opportunities Challenges

Infrastructure

(continued)

Land tenure system Land tenure system largely culturally

accepted

Land tenure system functions effectively

through local systems

land tenure system is in part there for

political control, rather than innovation and

investment

lack of industrial development zones falling

under land boards for business investments

Land dispossession of widows

Banking, savings and credit, informal finance Numerous rural finance initiatives in

place

Experience with pro-poor membership

groups organised around access to

credit and technical training/services

Emergency of contract farming and

support services from business

development services agencies as the

Agricultural Business Forum focuses on

building trust between the banks and

smallholder producers

History of loan defaults

Weak bank sector because of poor

repayment

Limited financial service outreach in rural

areas, very limited access in remote areas

High interest rates through informal system

Regulations and standards Effective regulatory environment in

place

Opportunities for self-regulation

through commodity and trade

associations

Development of domestic markets (e.g.,

for organic produce) whose standards

are within the reach of smallholder

farmers

Lack of consistency in enforcement

Lack of standards in place for new products

Innovation and business support systems - donor

supported intermediaries and forums, most notably

PROFIT

Agri-Business Forum

Zambia Chamber of Small and Medium Business

Associations

Food Security Research Project

Zambia Agribusiness Technical Assistance Centre

MACO’s Agribusiness Unit

National Technology Business Centre

Zambia Association of Chambers of Commerce and

The recent formation of two new

government agencies dealing with

business issues suggest increasing

awareness on the part of government of

the importance of business development

services (BDS)

ADPs such as ASP and SHEMP have

demonstrated that once farmers have

access to market and market info and

understand value of BDS, they are

willing to pay

Limited remote-area outreach

Business development services not reaching

poorer farmers

Many small-scale farmers’ lack the mindset

and the access to markets need to profit

from BDS

Limited infrastructural services (tele-

communications and electricity) to support

innovation and business support systems

21

Domain Key Actors Opportunities Challenges

Infrastructure

(continued)

Industry (ZACCI)

Various small initiatives

Limited but expanding coverage of ICTs

Existing working models (e.g., the

ZNFU cell phone-based market

information services)

Information systems -

ICT sector (radio, mobile phone, internet

services)Communications Authority of Zambia

Internet service providers (11 in total), of which 6

provide services in rural areas

Mobile telephone providers (MTN, Cell Z, CELTEL)

National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)

Telecentre operators

eBrain

Community radio stations

LinkNet

ZNFU SMS market information service Radio Farm

Forum (operated by NAIS)

Rapid advances in the ICT sector.

Actors in the system know each other,

scope for improved co-ordination

LinkNet intends to help improve

communications infrastructure and

services for groups in rural areas

Limited but expanding coverage of ICT

infrastructural services

High cost, heavily regulated internet

environment, poor quality service provision

to rural areas

eBrain (a forum for advancing the use of

ICTs to promote development) is weak in

the agricultural and natural resources arena

Cost of accessing ICT services still

prohibitive for smallholder communities

44. In considering the extent to which the Innovations System functions in a manner that currently or potentially can support poverty alleviation, the

detailed mapping that took place has been abbreviated and considered in general, so that priority actions affecting different parts of the system can

be considered. The following figure shows each of these components of the system, and for each gives summary information the overall character of

that element of the Innovations System (i.e., positive, mixed, negative’), key actions required that warrant RIU attention, and key constraints that will

affect success.

Summary of Innovations System

45. Many of the key challenges in the Innovations System are in areas that RIU may have a competitive edge, but it requires proceeding in a number

of different domains, and influencing the system at policy, networking, strategic, and sub-district levels:

22

Figure 1: Summary of Agricultural Innovations System Status, Key Constraints, Needed Actions

Enterprise

Domain

Research

Domain

Demand

Domain

Infrastructure

Intermediary

Domain

Framework

Conditions

Research Into

Use for

Poverty

Alleviation

Status: Positive

Key Actions: Build on trust and social capital; strengthen

systems; link to CAADP

Key Constraints: Weak policy implementation

System Interaction Weakenesses: Development paradigm

does not emphasis agricultural development

Status: Negative, Internally Weak

Key Actions: Demand-led research

Key Constraints: System very weak

System Interaction Weakenesses: With the exception of

project-specific examples, lack of links especially with

the enterprise and intermediary domains, lack of

demand-driven research needs from the demand

domain

Status: Mixed, Internally Somewhat Weak

Key Actions: Strengthen intermediaries and expand range

Key Constraints: Missing inter-mediary functions, weak

information services market

System Interaction Weakenesses: Not linked to other domains

due to poorly developed inter-mediary functions

Status: Negative

Key Actions: Area-focused interventions

Key Constraints: Poor service provision

System Interaction Weakenesses: Lack of linkages with

ICT sector, poor purchasing power among demand

domain, research not linked to infrastructure domain

Status: Negative, Internally Weak

Key Actions: Strengthen demand

Key Constraints: Limited infrastructure for enhancing

demand

System Interaction Weakenesses: Poorly linked to any

domain, especially research

Status: Mixed, Internally Somewhat Weak

Key Actions: Strengthen local level organisation and

support structures

Key Constraints: Poor market access, lack of

market/business-oreinted history for smallholders

System Interaction Weakenesses: Poor access to

information services, lack of demand information,poor

access to financial markets, limited by poor infrastructure

23

Conclusions

46. The international consensus that research is not contributing sufficiently to poverty alleviation

as intended was shared by stakeholders in the natural resources arena, and this yielded

considerable support for the establishment of the RIU Programme in Zambia.

47. Similarly, the notion of an innovations system approach to responding to problems facing the

agriculture and natural resources arena in Zambia was well-received, with practical partnerships

and the engagement of private, public, and non-governmental actors especially valued.

48. An assessment of the Innovations System in the natural resources arena in Zambia has

highlighted strategic opportunities associated with initiatives that respond to framework

conditions, the demand domain, the enterprise domain, the intermediary domain, and the research

domain. These opportunities are, in many respects, intended to complement each other, and are

organised around two strategic thrusts:

(a) Enhancing capacity to demand services and participate in value/market chains by

farmers and intermediaries

(b) Strengthening of knowledge sharing mechanisms and services

49. The assessment also identified the main strengths and weaknesses in the agricultural

Innovations System in Zambia at this time:

Table 3: Main Strengths and Weaknesses in the Agricultural Innovations System

Strength/Weakness Comment

Strengths

Strong demand for RIU in Zambia Stakeholder discussions clearly reflect high demand for RIU in

Zambia. Assessment findings suggest that many stakeholders see

RIU as able to fill an important gap that is undermining progress in

the agricultural sector

Positive policy environment for

innovations

A review of Government policies, and a consideration of how

Government has responded to various initiatives, suggest that the

policy environment in Zambia is positive for strengthening the

Innovations System

Existing networking Existence of stakeholder forums and networks trying to work

together, providing an important network for RIU to influence

ICT infrastructure Despite constraints, ICT infrastructure is improving rapidly

Recognition that current models are

not getting research into use

Stakeholder discussions highlight particular concerns about the lack

of a responsive, relevant, and demand-driven research environment,

and a commitment to ‘getting research into use’

Working models While there are clear problems, there are existing working models

with potential for Innovations System strengthening

24

Strength/Weakness Comment

Weaknesses

A weak policy implementation

environment

While there are a number of very solid policies in Zambia, and while

many of these are supported by relevant legislation, policy

implementation is weak. Measurements of progress in terms of

cross-sectoral issues (e.g., the PRSP, the national development plan)

reflect this lack of clarity in how to link policies with clear actions

A development model that does not

see smallholder agriculture as a key

engine of development

While agricultural is stated as a priority sector, and while

development in the agricultural sector is noted as central to poverty

alleviation, investment and attention is largely focused elsewhere

Length of time RIU will operate in

Zambia

A concern was expressed, on more than one occasion, that what RIU

was trying to accomplish in Zambia would require longer than three

years

Difficulty in reaching poorer

smallholder farmers

Most opportunities for effective innovation platforms focus on

programmes that currently reach households with some access to

capital. While there are a number of cogent reasons for reaching

these farming households, there is an urgent need to bring NGOs

into the innovation platforms that would help to reach very poor

farmers and farming households

Information communication

technology

High cost, heavily regulated internet environment, poor quality

service provision to rural areas

Policy-practice gap Gap between policy and practice, especially in resource allocation to

smallholder service sectors. Although key stakeholders would see

value and buy into an Innovations System approach, overall

commitment is to enhanced minerals development, and less of a

focus on agriculture

Vulnerability Most smallholder farmers are vulnerability to natural disasters, the

narrowing of livelihoods, and labour loss

25

III. Proposed RIU Strategy in Zambia

Introduction

50. The previous chapter included a mapping of the agricultural Innovations System in Zambia,

based on a framework put forward by Arnold and Bell (2001) as adapted by Whiteside (2007).

This mapping highlighted positive framework conditions, a weak demand domain, a mixed enterprise

domain, a mixed intermediary domain, a negative research domain, and a negative infrastructure

environment. It also underlined a number of weaknesses in the functioning of the relationships

between these different domains in a manner than weakened the Innovations System overall.

51. The mapping yielded insights into how to approach RIU Programme design and

implementation in Zambia, with particular attention to how to strengthen the effectiveness of links

across the various domains in a manner consistent with a strengthened Innovations System. The

RIU Programme’s competitive edge is in strengthening the Innovations System that engages

various actors over time, so that the RIU Programme leaves behind a stronger, better functioning

system that can continue to function more effectively in its absence. There are particularly

opportunities in this regard in the information and knowledge market.

52. Key drivers of poverty that were relevant to RIU’s strategic advantages were concluded as the

following:

(a) Narrow livelihoods among poorer households, and lack of resources to diversity to

decrease risk and expand opportunity.

(b) Socio-cultural factors that limit choice, and therefore constrain opportunities for

strengthened livelihoods.

(c) Remoteness and isolation, and consequent lack of access to broader factors that

enhance choice and opportunity, and lack of access to inputs and markets.

(d) A dominant development model that does not prioritise investment in rural

livelihoods.

Framework for the RIU Programme in Zambia

53. Based on the CASDT’s assessment findings and recommendations on strategic opportunities,

and considering the drivers of poverty, the following were identified:

(a) Strategic Thrusts - identifying broad areas for RIU Programme engagement in Zambia.

(b) Innovation Leadership - considering how the RIU Programme in Zambia can be structured,

so that implementation is consistent with the intentions noted in the strategic thrusts.

Innovation leadership rests on a common interest across actors in the coalition.

(c) Innovation Platforms - Indicating platform ideas that are consistent with the intentions of

the strategic thrusts. Innovation Platforms represent actors involved in common actions.

26

Strategic Thrusts

54. Two inter-related Strategic Thrusts have been identified:

(a) Strategic Thrust 1: Enhancing capacity to demand services and participate in value/ market

chains by farmers and intermediaries.

(b) Strategic Thrust 2: Strengthening of knowledge market mechanisms and services.

55. Strategic Thrust 1: Bearing in mind RIU’s poverty alleviation mandate, the extent to which RIU

can add value in Zambia relies on its ability to respond to four key drivers of poverty: 1)

remoteness and isolation; 2) recognising the varied socio-economic circumstances of households; 3)

understanding the socio-cultural determinants that heighten vulnerability and reinforce poverty;

and 4) recognising the difficult decision-making environment around rural livelihoods responses.

In these respects, the point of RIU departure is not a particular commodity or technology, but

rather an inability to diversify and increase economic activity, better share the benefits of this

activity, reduce risk, and take advantage of opportunities as they arise. Commodity chains and

innovative technologies have a roll to play, indeed important ones, but only if they emerge as

opportunities in the implementation of these two platforms.

56. Partnership arrangements should be guided by the following considerations:

(a) Building trust between partners in a National Innovations Coalition, in a Sub-District

Innovations Coalition, and across the two levels (as equal partners), and strengthening

their ability to influence the national and sub-national agendas.

(b) Identifying partners who are experienced in the rural livelihoods arena in semi-remote

areas, and who do not focus only on arable agriculture, but rather consider broader rural

livelihood strategies. The intent is to expand the middle ground, getting the majority of

resource poor to participate in livelihood value chains.

(c) Ensuring the involvement of agencies that are competent in working with very poor

farmers, and who are cognizant of intra-household dynamics, socio-cultural barriers to

economic advancement, and socio-cultural opportunities to improve the magnitude and

distribution of positive economic impacts.

57. Strategic Thrust 2: Strategic Thrust 2 refers to strengthening information and knowledge service

markets. The rationale is that a central element in the effective functioning of the innovations

system of relevance to RIU in Zambia will be to improve the flows of information and knowledge

between actors. This will be undertaken through two linked sets of activities: (a) nationally, and at

sub-national levels, to facilitate and incentivise joint actions and knowledge flows between key

public and private sector actors; and (b) at platform and sub-platform level, to strengthen demand

for and use of information and knowledge services within and across platforms. This Strategic

Thrust would, in part, be a key element of Strategic Thrust 1, but has broader implications for the

RIU Programme in Zambia.

58. Partnership arrangements should be guided by the following considerations:

(a) Private sector engagement should be at the core of Strategic Thrust 2. There are a number

of commercial enterprises of relevance identified by the information markets specialist.

(b) At the meso and local levels, there are a number of intermediaries that could provide

important services, including local entrepreneurs, economic groupings of producers and

apex organisations such as the Zambian National Farmers Union (ZNFU) and the Zambia

Chamber of Small and Medium Business Associations (ZACSMBA), etc.

27

Innovation Coalition

59. There are five key factors that would warrant formation of a National Innovation Coalition

(NIC):

(a) The proposed innovation platforms are diverse and complex, and are set at two levels:

(i) national, focusing on policy issues and operational matters; and (ii) sub-district,

geographically focused in at least one remote area. Supporting these platforms will

need broader guidance, and advocacy, from a national coalition.

(b) The proposed activities for RIU will entail fairly diverse actors working together,

notably communication service providers, input suppliers, research and training

institutions, and non-governmental organisations. The country assessment suggests

that a number of these actors are not necessarily comfortably working together on

matters that affect operations and, for the private sector, the bottom line.

(c) The demand for research outputs will need to come from users of these outputs, with

supply driven by informed demand as a commercial product. The Strategic Thrust for

knowledge markets, and the integration of knowledge markets into the sub-district

geographic Strategic Thrust, will focus on enhancing demand. The Information and

Knowledge Service Markets assessment report has pointed out difficulties that can be

anticipated in this regard, and the need to bring together actors who may not be used

to working together. As with these previous points, supporting these platforms will

require broader guidance, and advocacy, from a national coalition.

(d) Despite a ‘crowded’ rural livelihoods arena, despite shared interests, and despite the

presence of a number of forums for joint action, there is a weak culture of interactive

learning and collaborative action among stakeholders. This process needs to be guided

within a learning framework that reflects how various interests can continue to be

advanced.

(e) An ‘innovation systems approach’ is by no means a logical outcome of these different

actors working together. Instead, it is quite easy to shift to supply driven responses, to

only work with farmers who can engage easily with the market, to shift from economic

enhancement to social protection (particularly an issue with NGOs), and to simply

drop out of the process quite quickly (which may especially be a problem for the

private sector).

60. As noted, work has already started on the formation of a NIC, so that the NIC can assist with

implementation planning. It is important that the NIC be composed of organisations and

businesses that stand to advance their interests through a pooling of their talents, and this means

that the NIC membership needs to be consistent with the platform activities ultimately decided

upon by those involved in the RIU Programme.

61. The question arises as to whether an RIU-supported Innovation Coalition will function

effectively, given that there are already examples of joint action across different organisations. The

short answer is no, unless the interests of these actors can be advanced through their collaboration.

For the private sector, beyond those involved in the communications arena, it is not clear at this

juncture whether the platforms will attract, and retain, their interests, because the return on

investments may be quite low, and very localised in a remote area. This needs to be further

considered during implementation planning.

28

62. A National Innovation Coalition (NIC) is necessary to effectively bring together actors at the

national level to strengthen the Innovations System. The country assessment found a number of

actors that clearly view the RIU approach as consistent with their aims and objectives, but who are

now not working together in a fashion that would yield a more coherent, stronger Innovations

System. While the overall ‘environment’ around the Innovations System is currently quite

challenging, there are organisations and programmes in Zambia that, in the positive policy

environment, can advance the objectives of the RIU Programme in Zambia. In these respects,

partnerships are a logical outcome, engendering trust as activities progress.

63. Given that the Innovations System involves private, public, and non-governmental actors, it is

important to ensure that the NIC reflects the membership necessary to advance the programme in

Zambia. Of particular importance is the involvement of private sector agencies that, acting in their

own interests, can sustain activities into the future. Of equal importance will be the strengthening

of local interest groups that strengthen the influence and role of entrepreneurs at the local level.

64. It is equally important, given RIU’s poverty alleviation mandate, to ensure the engagement of

non-governmental organisations with economic empowerment credentials and working experience with

especially poor households and populations, coupled with avoidance of the common problems facing

most NGOs -- duplication and lack of co-ordination, ill-designed projects, and start-stop actions.

There is a particular need to avoid a social welfare approach in engaging with these especially

poor populations, but ‘going the extra distance’ in engaging with these populations to support

their involvement in the emergent Innovations System.

65. At the national level, the NIC will be instrumental in integrating RNRRS and other research

outputs into the Innovations System in Zambia, with one of the priorities under the National

Innovation Platform focused on supporting this as a component of a broader focus on

strengthening the Innovations System. A review of some research outputs in Zambia, and

consideration of RNRRS research outputs (including cassava as a commodity, but also including

engagement with especially poor households), yielded grounds for optimism; other examples are

contained in the specialist reports contained as annexes to the Assessment Report.

66. In addition to the establishment of a National Innovations Coalition, there is a need to establish

a Sub-District Innovations Coalition (SDIC)2 in the focal area for RIU engagement in rural Zambia.

In part the establishment of the SDIC would help to serve as a countervailing influence to the NIC,

supporting a continued focus on poverty alleviation and, equally importantly, giving voice to

those in the Innovations System that are least likely to influence the process. This means

strengthening organisations involving very poor households and persons, their effective

engagement with the SDIC as influential actors, and their strengthened role as intermediaries in

the Innovations System.

67. The working relationship between the NIC and the SDIC will need to be elaborated during

implementation planning. It is hoped that the existence and actions of the SDIC would serve as an

important countervailing influence to the NIC, in particular in terms of supporting the voice of

those who will not have had any influence on national decision-making processes. But it is

especially important that the establishment and actions of the SDIC influence the direction and

priorities of the NIC, and that the NIC does not view itself as a ‘senior partner’ of, or manager for,

2 The recommendation for the establishment of an SDIC is based on conclusions drawn from the work of the CASDT.

However, during implementation planning and implementation, it may be that strong actors are already working in

ways that will allow a focus on these actors, rather than the establishment of a coalition.

29

the SDIC. The Implementation Plan therefore needs to agree a structure that reflects this

partnership arrangement, and a system of co-learning across the two bodies.

68. SDIC member organisations and other actors at the sub-national level in the Innovations

System are not, of course, simply consumers of research. The very success of the SDIC and the sub-

platforms it will be engaged with relies on the improved demand for knowledge and knowledge

services, and the provision of such services by local actors where possible (and increasing over the

life of RIU).

Innovation Platforms

69. A total of seven Innovation Platforms were identified by the CASDT. After discussions with

the IRG and SMT, it was felt that these should be organised under two platforms. Each of these

platforms and sub-platforms are classified by the area they concentrate in, in the Innovations

System. Three sub-platforms are noted in italics, as they need consideration during

implementation planning:

(a) Framework Condition: Building Trust and Co-Learning, and Strengthening the

Functioning of the System Across Domains

(i) Intermediary Domain: Development of a Knowledge Market Strategy

(ii) Intermediary Domain: Strengthening Radio and Radio Listening Clubs and

Community Radio as Mechanisms for Farmers to Access and Demand Information

(b) Demand Domain/Research Domain/Intermediary Domain: Sub-District Based Semi-

Remote Area Initiative

(i) Intermediary Domain: Development of a Knowledge Market Strategy

(ii) Intermediary Domain: Strengthening Radio and Radio Listening Clubs and

Community Radio as Mechanisms for Farmers to Access and Demand Information

(iii) Enterprise Domain: Conservation Farming

(iv) Intermediary Domain/Research Domain: Agro-Dealer/Farmer-to-Farmer Scheme Support

(v) Demand Domain/Enterprise Domain: Cassava Task Force

70. There are two potential ‘early wins’: 1) Intermediary Domain: Development of a Knowledge

Market Strategy; and 2) Framework Conditions: Building Trust and Co-Learning at the National

Level. Both of these are process wins, the former intended to bring actors together to develop a

common vision about the development of a knowledge market strategy, and the latter intended to

strengthen the Innovations System overall. The remaining platform and sub-platform ideas will

take more time, and need to be preceded by the start-up of the two early win activities.

71. The two early win activities can begin in 2008, and can be part of implementation planning, as

both are consistent with RIU principles. The main platform, focused on building trust and co-

learning, is fully consistent with implementation planning activities, but will eventually require

the formalisation of arrangements under the Implementation Plan. The CASDT believes that the

Agricultural Consultative Forum (ACF) offers the best opportunity for advancing the Innovation

Platform: Building Trust and Co-Learning, and Strengthening the Functioning of the System

Across Domains. During implementation planning, the viability and desirability of this

arrangement needs to be confirmed and, if agreed, RIU would need to make arrangements to effect

the ACF’s involvement in co-ordinating this Innovations Platform.

30

72. For the second early win, RIU will need to provide the services of specialists in the knowledge

market arena to work with the NIC on the development of the strategy. This would have the

added benefit of supporting the involvement of knowledge market actors in the NIC. The strategy

should ensure that it considers how the sub-platform would function under the ACF.

73. Ideally, the Sub-Platform: Development of a Knowledge Market Strategy would yield

important information of relevance to the Sub-Platform: Strengthening Radio and Radio Listening

Clubs and Community Radio as Mechanisms for Farmers to Access and Demand Information.

74. The issue of prioritisation of platforms versus engaging in early wins is complicated by the fact

that the second Innovations Platform: Sub-District Based Semi-Remote Area Initiative is

instrumental in showing how an Innovations System approach can yield actions that have poverty

alleviation outcomes, and in showing how an Innovations System approach can strengthen local

markets and local service provision, rather than just focusing on linking an area to national and

international markets. Nevertheless, the success of this Innovations Platform is fundamentally

based on the success of the first Innovations Platform (and particularly the effectiveness of the

ACF’s co-ordinating role) and the two sub-platforms on knowledge markets and radio listening

clubs/community radio. It is also linked to the establishment and effective functioning of the NIC.

75. ‘Building trust’ under the first Innovations Platform, of course, needs to yield practical outputs.

In early discussions with stakeholders, conservation farming, agro-dealer/farmer-to-farmer

schemes, an support to the activities of the Cassava Task Force were noted as important

opportunities, and as effective vehicles to building relationships. And this is where there are

important links between the two innovation platforms. As avenues for collaboration emerge, these

should be considered in terms of the SDIC as a priority location for activities. This has important

benefits in three respects: 1) it underlines the RIU Programme’s emphasis on actions that set into

motion processes for poverty alleviation; 2) it brings together actors who are experienced in

working with ‘progressive farmers’ with those who are used to working with disadvantaged

households, yielding better spread effects of these activities; and 3) it offers fertile ground for

implementation of the Knowledge Markets Strategy.

76. The intended operations of the two innovation platforms, as well as the key actors ACF, the

SDIC, and the NIC, are summarised in the following figure:

31

Figure 2: Intended System Function and the Operations of Actors in the System

77. The figure reflects the involvement of a number of stakeholders under the NIC, some of whom

(but not necessarily all) would be involved in the two platforms. Similarly, for some actors (but

not necessarily all) working within and with the SDIC, they would be chapters of the same

organisations linked to the NIC and, in some cases, also involved in the first innovations platform.

These are, of course, strategic alliances, and decisions made by various actors in the Innovations

System will guide who is involved and how.

78. The overall functioning of the system, outlining its intentions and accomplishments, is

illustrated in the following figure:

Innovations Platform 1

ACF

Innovations Platform 2

National Innovations Coalition

SDIC

NOTE: Shape denotes stakeholder actor

32

Figure 3: Overview of the RIU Programme Operations in Zambia

Innovation Guidelines

79. Reflecting the approach and principles of RIU, in considering areas of strategic advantage, and

noting threats arising, the following should guide RIU Programme development and

implementation in Zambia:

(a) There is a risk that RIU could support very innovative and worthy activities in Zambia,

but in its mission to support ‘good ideas’, the Programme may lose site of its principle

mandate of alleviating poverty. The core focus should therefore remain poverty

alleviation, with MIL systems in place to ensure that the activities are proceeding in the

requisite manner, and that they are having the desired impacts. However, this does

not mean that RIU directly engages in poverty alleviation. Indeed, while poverty

alleviation will necessarily drive the Zambian programme, this does not mean that all

actions should individually focus specifically in poverty alleviation. Rather, RIU needs

to set into motion a process that will eventually yield poverty alleviation benefits.

Poverty alleviation is therefore the ‘destination’, rather than the ‘point of departure’.

(b) Having noted the centrality of a focus on the eventual impacts of activities on poverty

alleviation, it is important to note that there are numerous actors in the Innovations

System that are key to the effectiveness of poverty alleviation activities, but who are

not themselves poor. This includes in particular farming households and

intermediaries that have the potential to employ others. Specific recommendations

have been made about how to engage with the very poor in such a manner that they

enter the market with more bargaining power (e.g., in terms of labour provision), and

more economic power. Poverty alleviation should be viewed from the point of view of

Strategic Intent

RIU research outputs (RNRRS)-based support to enhance capacity to demand services RIU research outputs (RNRRS)-based support to strengthen information and knowledge market services

Mechanisms

Denotes links between stakeholders within the platforms/NIC

Intended Outcomes In Zambia

Improved functioning of the Innovations System

Alignment with CAADP

Response to the drivers of poverty

Advancing ‘good ideas’

Agenda setting to advance the agricultural sector In RIU

Use of RNRRS/other research outputs through the strength- ening of demand

Testing a poverty-focused approach to country program- ming

Linking RNRRS outputs with system strengthening for poverty alleviation

NIC

IP 1

IP 2

33

livelihoods strengthening and diversification in a broader sense, and not narrowly defined

as activities that yield a focus only on the very poor.

(c) The RIU Programme’s competitive edge is in strengthening the Innovations System that

engages various actors over time, so that the RIU Programme leaves behind a stronger,

better functioning system that can continue to function more effectively in its absence.

There are particularly opportunities in this regard in the information and knowledge

market.

(d) The RIU Programme in Zambia should be guided by a National Innovations Coalition,

comprising an appropriate balance between private, non-governmental, and public

stakeholders.

(i) However, power should not be concentrated only in the hands of the NIC.

While the dynamics of the RIU Programme in Zambia can only be elaborated

during implementation planning, there is a need to establish a Sub-District

Innovations Coalition (SDIC) in the main geographical area reached by the RIU

Programme to strengthen the voice of the most disenfranchised, and to enhance

the influence of local actors. The SDIC should not be seen as a ‘younger

brother’ to the NIC, but instead an equal partner intended to inform the actions

of the NIC.

(e) There is widespread agreement that agricultural research is not serving its intended

purpose in Zambia, and that existing models of ‘getting research into use’ are

ineffective. A key task of the NIC and the SDIC will therefore be to strengthen the

influence of effective demand on knowledge generation within the context of a

learning environment. For the NIC, this may include a systematic review of existing

RNRRS and related research to consider its relevance to activities supported by RIU in

Zambia, and for the SDIC systems to engage with partners on demand for knowledge.

However, this should by no means reinforce supply-driven approaches and supply-

driven demands for ‘more research’. Instead, the review should be conducted in a

manner that demand is enhanced as ideas of relevance to the Zambian situation

emerge, and are seen as useful by local actors.

(f) The ‘capture’ of RIU Programme support is a threat in any country. In Zambia, the key

risk is a shift away from the Programme’s poverty alleviation focus to the support of

‘good ideas’ that, tacitly or overtly, divert the Programme’s activities away from its

mandate.

(g) It is especially important for MIL to ensure that the RIU Programme in Zambia

includes a number of process indicators designed to establish improvements in the

functioning of the Innovations System. In particular, there is a need to measure

whether the processes of engagement during RIU Programme implementation will

yield a continuation of the process following completion of RIU.

Value Added

80. The RIU Programme in Zambia has the potential to add particular value to the agricultural

Innovations System in Zambia as follows:

(a) Strengthen the functioning of the Innovations System itself, thereby supporting the

sustainability of interventions in the agricultural arena.

34

(b) Yield a demonstration effect,

particularly in terms of the sub-

district Innovations Platform.

(c) Serve as a catalyst for demand-

driven research in Zambia.

(d) Help to shift information and

knowledge market service provision

from a few-to-many model to a

many-to-many model.

(e) Help refocus agricultural

interventions in Zambia in a manner

that includes very poor farmers as

effective, economically viable actors

in the Innovations System.

(f) Support gender mainstreaming as a

natural and integral element of programme implementation, rather than as an add on

component.

(g) Recognise labour constraints as a key livelihoods challenge, and the particular problems

association with HIV&AIDS in this regard.

Sustainability

81. The process of implementation planning will need to focus attention on the sustainability

associated with RIU Programme results in Zambia. The involvement of MIL in implementation

planning is especially important in this regard.

82. Related to this, but referring to RIU Programme matters specifically, this would also include

the identification and operationalisation of programme indicators associated with the RIU

Programme’s exit strategy for Zambia. How, in short, will RIU proceed to wind down its

operations in Zambia, and how will it keep actions in this regard ‘in sight’ during implementation?

83. The principles supporting the sustainability of RIU impacts and RIU processes in Zambia were

considered by the CASDT, as were practical issues around how to maximise these impacts. These

principles are as follows:

(a) That RIU Programme implementation in Zambia be closely linked with the CAADP

process in Zambia, and that it work with CAADP and its structures to build alliances as

part of its efforts to strengthen the agricultural Innovations System.

(b) That RIU Programme implementation in Zambia be guided by the NIC, that

implementation of relevant sub-district platforms be guided by the SDIC, and that the

SDIC informs the NIC.

(c) That RIU Programme implementation in Zambia place particular emphasis on enhanced

demand. Given the poverty alleviation mandate of RIU, it is especially important that

local systems that engage with the poor and disenfranchised strengthen the voice of these

persons/households in a manner that strengthens effective demand over time.

(d) That MIL establish its sub-programme presence in Zambia by the end of 2008, through

extended involvement in implementation planning.

(i) Particular attention would need to be paid to the poverty alleviation mandate of the

RIU Programme.

Sub-district

platform

35

(e) That the RIU Programme strengthen information and knowledge markets to a significant

extent during Programme implementation, given its centrality to Programme success. It

is also a particularly ‘weak link’ in the Innovations System, not in terms of the actors per

se, but rather in terms of their experience in working together, and in terms of market

provision of these services.

(f) That the RIU Programme be especially cognizant of the impacts of gender, chronic illness

and premature death (with particular reference to malaria, HIV&AIDS, and maternal

morbidity and mortality), and food insecurity.

(g) That the Implementation Plan for the RIU Programme in Zambia include a clear exit

strategy.

Results

84. The specific results for the RIU Programme in Zambia will emerge from the development of

the logframe with MIL, and as the implementation plan is finalised. These will be derived from

the results as per the RIU logframe. Nevertheless, based on the results of the Country Assessment,

provisional results can be identified. Specifically, it is the intention of the RIU Programme in

Zambia that, by 2011, it will have produced the following:

(a) Improved collaboration among actors in the agricultural Innovations System, and the

continued functioning of a Zambian National Innovations Coalition and a Sub-District

Innovations Coalition.

(b) Strong innovation platforms functioning at the national and sub-national levels.

(c) Integration across innovation platforms, and integration of sub-platforms into the two

main platforms.

(d) Clear examples of the economic and social empowerment of the poor and

disenfranchised.

(e) Clear examples of ‘demonstration impacts’ due to the RIU Programme’s operations in

Zambia.

Further Analysis Required

85. Following approval of the strategy, implementation planning needs to include further analyse

of key aspects of the Innovations System in Zambia. The following should be considered:

(a) The mapping of the Innovations System was completed sufficient for the needs of the

strategy. However, a more detailed mapping is required for implementation purposes. If

possible, this mapping should take into consideration accepted Innovation Platforms/Sub-

Platforms.

(b) The centrality of information markets to the success of the RIU Programme in Zambia

suggests that further diagnosis is required, particularly after Innovation Platforms are

approved.

(c) An MIL diagnostic is required for the RIU Programme in Zambia.

(d) Finally, more detailed consideration needs to be devoted to a detailed exploration of

RNRRS outputs and other materials in terms of approaches to development that do yield

poverty alleviation impacts. There are processes described in a number

36

IV. RIU Programme Development 86. Between now and the end of 2008, a number of implementation planning activities need to take

place. These activities are included in this section of the Country Assessment and Strategy Report.

87. While processes are underway to establish a NIC, consideration should still be given during

implementation planning to other models. One example is the ACF serving as a hub around

which various interest groups are formed, with ACF consultative structures managing broader

interactions.

88. Implementation planning processes should extend beyond stakeholder workshops to increase

smaller group fora as partnerships are identified. Further, stakeholders who have not yet been

engaged in the RIU process need to be brought into the process. The reasons for non-engagement

to date likely vary, and securing their involvement will necessitate one-on-one contacts as well. In

addition, there is a specific need to improve the engagement of NGOs who are involved in

livelihoods initiatives.

89. One particularly important matter is how various Government agencies engage in

implementation planning, the NIC, and the SDIC. To date, these agencies have been insufficiently

involved, yet remain central in particular to the success of the agenda-setting objectives of RIU,

and the sustainability of the SDIC. At this juncture, the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of

Agriculture and Co-operatives is the national ‘link person’ for RIU, which offers RIU an important

opportunity to effectively engage with the various actors within agriculture. However, there are

other important ministries who need to be effectively involved, and at this juncture there is no

effective mechanism for this to occur.

90. There are three donors that have an especially strong influence in the agricultural arena in

Zambia. It remains unclear how these agencies view RIU and its activities, but their support for

RIU is central to programmatic success. This requires specific engagement, through mechanisms

to be identified during the early stages of implementation planning.

91. There are a number of difficult decisions that need to be made regarding the NIC, the two

platforms, and the various sub-platforms. There are also difficult decisions to be made about

identification of a sub-district, as well as the various actors that need to be involved in that

particular process. As these decision processes proceed, it is likely that various differences of

opinion will emerge, highlighting where RIU needs to focus attention in terms of building trust

and strengthening the Innovations System. In particular, challenges will emerge in terms of the

role of the ACF in managing Innovations Platform 1, membership of the SDIC, the relationship

between the NIC and the SDIC, and other challenges.

92. It is easy to lose site of the fact that the purpose of the RIU programme is to strengthen the use

of RNRRS outputs in alleviating poverty, and not just poverty alleviation. In implementation

planning, this focus cannot get lost in the detail and complexity that such planning entails. Care

must be taken to ensure that this does not simply yield a strongly supply-push for research,

whether this be RNRRS or other existing research, or new research.

37

93. Attention should also be devoted to consideration of how RNRRS outputs can be used as part

of the process of partnership building, both at the national and sub-national levels. There are

process lessons to be learned from RNRRS and other research outputs in terms of engagement with

various actors in the system, including farming households (and especially poor farming

households), as well as working with local organisations to strengthen the voice of those

disadvantaged in the process. There are also process lessons associated with commodity chains,

farming approaches, and livelihoods approaches. Importantly, there are outputs associated with

products and approaches that can offer important insights for Zambia. This needs to be described

in some detail in the Implementation Plan.

94. The detailed RIU Programme in Zambia should be developed through a process of systematic

stakeholder engagement in workshop format and through other consultative approaches, with the

timing and level of engagement dependent on decisions made by the Zambia RIU Task Manager

and the availability of facilitation services. This should be coupled with early meetings of the

nascent NIC, facilitated by to-be-identified persons from the CSPDT, the Zambia RIU Task

Manager, and the emergent RIU Programme in Zambia.

(a) Timeline: September - November 2008

95. Initial MIL involvement in the CASDT was withdrawn due to scheduling conflicts. There is

therefore an urgent need for MIL engagement in the Zambian programme design process. This

would be integrated into the Zambian Implementation Plan.

(a) Timeline: September - November 2008

96. It is expected that the implementation plan will be completed by November 2008. RIU support

to ‘early wins’ would mean that implementation planning would parallel the design of the three

priority Innovation Platforms. This would ideally include a more detailed mapping of the

Innovations System.

(a) Timeline: September 2008 - December 2008

38

Materials Consulted ACF (2006). ACF Stakeholder Survey Report 2006, prepared by K. Droppelmann, Monitoring and

Evaluation Section, the Agricultural Consultative Forum Secretariat, Lusaka.

ACF (2007). Gender Equity and Gender Monitoring in the ACF, prepared by J. Kapembwa and M.

Simfukwe for the Agricultural Consultative Forum, Lusaka.

ACF (2008). Agricultural Consultative Forum Breakfast Meeting: What is in the 2008 National Budget for

Zambian Agriculture?, 2008 Agricultural Sector Budget Analysis, comments from FSRP in co-

operation with MACO/ACF/CSO/MSU, Agricultural Consultative Forum, Lusaka.

Albright, K. (2008). “Research Into Use: Linking scientists and users in innovation system”, (mimeo),

National Resources International, United Kingdom.

Albu, M. and A. Griffith (2005). Mapping the Market: A Framework for Rural Enterprise Development

Policy and Practice, Practical Action, Bourton on Dunsmore, Rugby, Warwickshire, England.

Allen, D. and M. Ochs et. al. (2008). Building Pathways out of Rural Poverty through Investments in

Agricultural Information Systems, prepared by the WorldAgInfo Design Team, Cornell University,

United States.

Arnold, E. and M. Bell (2001). Some New Ideas About Research for Development, Technology Policy

Research, United Kingdom.

ASP (2007). Stakeholder Analysis: Final Report, post-ASP Consultative Process Report, Agricultural

Support Programme, Lusaka.

Barnett, A. (2007). “RIU Country Level Interventions”, (mimeo), the Policy Practice (Ltd), Brighton, United

Kingdom.

Barnett, A. (2008a). A Summary of the National Systems of Innovation Approach, adapted with updates

from Journeying from Research to Innovation: Lessons from the Department for International

Development’s Crop Post-Harvest Research Programme ‘Partnerships for Innovation’, the Policy

Practice (Ltd), Brighton, United Kingdom.

Barnett, A. (2008b). “The key elements of a systems approach to innovation”, (mimeo), the Policy Practice

(Ltd), Brighton, United Kingdom.

Barnett, A. (2008c). “Research and Innovation: from a political economy perspective to action”, Draft

Discussion Note, the Policy Practice (Ltd), Brighton, United Kingdom.

Barnett, A. (2008d). “A check list of RIU country level interventions”, (mimeo), the Policy Practice (Ltd),

Brighton, United Kingdom.

Beintema, N., E. Castel-Magalhaes, H. Eliot and M. Mwala (2004). Zambia Agricultural Science and

Technology Indicators, ASTI Country Brief No. 18, International Food Policy Research Institute,

Washington, United States.

Bongaglia, E. (2008). “Zambia: Sustaining Agricultural Diversification”, Organisation for Economic

Cooperation and Development, Geneva, Switzerland.

Campbell, K. (2008). “E-learning and e-reference: an overview”, mimeo.

39

Chileshe, R. (2005). Land Tenure and Rural Livelihoods in Zambia: Case Studies of Kamena and St. Joseph,

a thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Ph.D. in Development

Studies, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.

Chipeta, S., R. Kamona, J. Skagerfelt, and E. Maluba (2008). Extension as a Tool for Farming as a Business.

Learning from 5 Years of Project Experience, Agricultural Support Programme (ASP) Zambia.

Chomba, G. et. al. (2002). “Improving the transfer and use of agricultural market information in Zambia: A

user needs assessment”, Working Paper No. 6, Food Security Research Project, Lusaka.

COMESA (2007a). Progress Report on the Implementation of the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural

Program (CAADP) In COMESA (February 2006-February 2007), Common Market for Eastern and

Southern Africa, Lusaka.

COMESA (2007b). Fourth Meeting of Ministers of Agriculture, Khartoum Sudan, 22nd-23rd March 2007,

Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, Lusaka.

CSO (2003). 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Central Statistical Office, Lusaka.

CSO (2004). Living Conditions Monitoring Survey (2002-2003), Central Statistical Office, Lusaka.

Deininger and Olinto (2002). “Why Liberalisation Alone Has Not Improved Agricultural Productivity in

Zambia: The Role of Asset Ownership and Working Capital Constraints”, mimeo, World Bank,

Washington, United States.

DfID (2004). “Zambia Country Assistance Plan”, Department for International Development (mimeo).

Education Development Centre (2004). “EDC spearheads radio project that taps village-level expertise and

innovation”, http://main.edc.org/newsroom/features/zambia_radio.asp.

FARA (2006). Securing the Future for Africa’s Children. The FARA Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge

Programme. Annual Report 2005, Accra, Ghana.

GART (2004). 2004 GART Yearbook, Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trust, Chisamba, Zambia.

Govereh, J. and M. Weber (2007). “New Agriculture and Implications for Information Development and

Diffusion. Perspectives from Zambia”, FSRP/MSU Zambia, presentation to the WorldAgInfo

Workshop, Livingstone, Zambia.

GRZ (2005). National Gender Policy, Government of the Republic of Zambia, Lusaka.

GRZ (2005). Fifth National Development Plan 2006-2010. Broad Based Wealth and Job Creation through

Citizenry Participation and Technological Advancement, Ministry of Finance and National Planning,

Government of the Republic of Zambia, Lusaka.

Haantuba, H., M. Hichaambwa, and M. Nawiko (2007). “Zambia: Trends in growth of modern retail and

wholesale chains and related agribusiness”, http://www.regoverningmarkets.org.

Haggblade, S. and G. Tembo (2003). Conservation Farming in Zambia, Environment and Production

Technology Division Working Paper No. 108, International Food Policy Research Institute,

Washington.

40

Hall, A. (2007). “Challenges to strengthening agricultural innovation systems: Where do we go from here?”,

United Nations University Working Paper # 38, United Nations University, Maastricht, the

Netherlands.

Hall, A., R. Sulaiman, M. Dhamankar, P. Bezkorowajnyj and L. Prasad (2008). “Reframing technical change:

Livestock fodder scarcity revisited as innovation capacity scarcity”, United Nations University

Working Paper, United Nations University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Hoorik, P. and F. Mweeta (nd). “Use of internet in rural areas of Zambia”, LinkNet Multi-Purpose Co-

operative Society, http://www.icdev.info.

IFAD (1999). Report and Recommendation of the President to the Executive Board on a Proposed Loan to

the Republic of Zambia for the Smallholder Enterprise and Marketing Programme, International Fund

for Agricultural Development, Rome.

IFAD (2005). Report and Recommendation of the President to the Executive Board on a Proposed Loan to

the Republic of Zambia for the Smallholder Livestock Investment Project, International Fund for

Agricultural Development, Rome.

IFPRI (2004). Science and Poverty. An Interdisciplinary Assessment of the Impact of Agricultural Research,

prepared by R. Meinzen-Dick, M. Adato, L. Haddad and P. Hazell, International Food Policy Research

Institute, Washington, United States.

IFPRI (2005). Improved Fallows in Eastern Zambia: History, Farmer Practice and Impacts, Environment and

Production Technology Division Discussion Paper 130, prepared by F. Kwesiga et. al., International

Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, United States.

IFPRI (2008). “RENEWAL: The regional network on AIDS, livelihoods and food security”, International

Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, United States.

IICD (2008). “Rural access: Options and challenges for connectivity and energy in Zambia”, findings of a

study carried out for the International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD) by D.

Mulozi, Zambia Association for the Advancement of Information and Communication Technology.

Jointly published by eBrain Forum of Zambia and IICD, Lusaka.

IMF (2005). Zambia: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Progress Report, International Monetary Fund,

Washington.

International Institute for Communication and Development (2008). “ICT in Zambia”,

http://www.iicd.org/countries/zambia.

Joffe, S. (2008). “Information and knowledge services markets and their role within agricultural innovation

systems”, a paper commissioned by the Research Into Use Programme for discussion at an

‘Information Markets’ think tank meeting on 26th and 27th February, 2008 at the Grange Strathmore

Hotel, Kensington, London, United Kingdom.

Kaplinsky, R. and M. Morris (2006). “The structure of supply chains and their implications for export

supply”, paper prepared for the African Economic Research Consortium, United Kingdom.

MENR (2006). National Environmental Policy, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Lusaka.

Ministry of Communications and Transport (2006). National Information and Communications Technology

Policy, Ministry of Communications and Transport, Lusaka.

41

Ministry of Community Development and Social Services (2007). Final Evaluation Report: Kalomo Social

Cash Transfer Scheme, prepared by W. Colenbrander, E. Schüring, E. Boonstoppel and S. Michelo for

the Ministry of Community Development and Social Services and German Technical Cooperation,

Lusaka.

Ministry of Health (1992). National Health Policy, prepared by the Ministry of Health, Lusaka.

Ministry of Health (2003). Zambia Demographic and Health Survey, prepared by the Ministry of Health in

collaboration with MACRO, Lusaka.

MOAC (2004a). Zambia National Agricultural Policy: 2004-2015, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives,

Government of the Republic of Zambia, Lusaka.

MOAC (2004b). Agricultural Market Development Plan, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives,

Government of the Republic of Zambia, Lusaka.

MOH and the National AIDS Council (2008). Zambia Country Report. Multi-Sectoral AIDS Response

Monitoring and Evaluation Biennial Report 2006-2007, Submitted to the United Nations General

Assembly Special Session on AIDS. Declaration of Commitment. Reporting Period: January 2006 -

December 2007, prepared by the Ministry of Health and the National AIDS Council, Lusaka.

Mulozi, D. (nd). “The important role of telecentres and/or community ICTs in Zambian rural development”,

mimeo, Zambian Association for the Advancement of ICTs, Lusaka.

Musanshi, M. (2004). “Spreading the impact of community radio stations across Zambia”, International

Institute for Communication and Development, http://www.iicd.org/articles.

Mutamba, M. (2007). “Farming or Foraging? Rural livelihoods in Mafulira and Kabompo districts of

Zambia”, Center for International Forestry Research and Rhodes University, UK.

Mweemba, G., A. Pais, G. van Stam (2007). “Bringing internet connectivity to rural Zambia using a

collaborative approach”, LinkNet, http://link.net.zm.

National AIDS Council (2005). National HIV/AIDS/STI/TB Policy, prepared by the National AIDS Council,

Lusaka.

Natural Resources Institute (2007). Background Report: Zambia, Research Into Use, Natural Resources

Institute, University of Greenwich, Chatham Maritime, Kent, United Kingdom.

Ngandwe, T. (2008). “Critics question worth of Zambian science”, SciDevNet, http://scidev.net/news.

NR International (2007). Implementation Plan July 2007-June 2011, Research Into Use, United Kingdom.

Panos Southern Africa (2006). Mixed Signals: The State of Broadcasting in Southern Africa, Panos Southern

Africa, Lusaka.

SHEMP (2008). “Agriculture Commercialisation: Lessons Learnt from SHEMP”, Smallholder Enterprise

and Marketing Programme, Lusaka.

Sibalwa, D. (2006). “Zambia: The Radio Farm Forum”, The Communication Initiative,

http://www.comminit.com/en/node/147725.

42

SHEMP (2008). “Agriculture Commercialisation: Lessons Learnt from SHEMP”, Smallholder Enterprise

and Marketing Programme”, Lusaka.

Swedish Cooperative Centre (2006). “Chongwe farmers get new learning method”,

http://www.sccportal.org.

Thurlow, J. and P. Wobst (2004). “A Country Case Study on Zambia”, submitted to the Department for

International Development as part of the Operationalising Pro-Poor Growth Initiative of AFD, BMZ

(GTZ, KfW Development Bank), DFID, and the World Bank, prepared by J. Thurlow and P. Wobst of

the International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington.

UNDP (2003). Zambia Human Development Report 2003, United Nations, New York.

Whiteside, M. (2007). “Preliminary guidelines for RIU innovation context assessment”, mimeo.

Whiteside, M. and A. Mosha (2008). Demand Lead Innovation Process (DLIP). A study on the feasibility of

a demand led process and zonal competitive fund to support demand lead innovation by research

users, Research Into Use, National Resources International, United Kingdom.

World Bank (2005). Zambia: Poverty and Vulnerability Assessment, Human Development 1, Africa Region,

World Bank, Washington, United States.

Zambia Community Media Forum (2006). “Community media in Zambia”, http://www.researchsea.com.

43

Annex A: Any Further Country-Specific Considerations

46. No additional country-specific considerations were identified.

44

Annex B: Specialist Sub-Report on Innovation Systems

RIU ZAMBIA COUNTRY

ASSESSMENT--INNOVATION

SYSTEMS REPORT

BY

Ebbie Dengu & Diana Banda

MAY-JULY 2008

45

1. BACKGROUND

The purpose of the Research into Use (RIU) Programme is to maximize the poverty reducing impact of the

DFID funded natural resources research produced under the Renewable Natural Resources Research

Strategy (RNRRS) in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. In so doing the programme also aims to increase

understanding of how widespread use of research can be promoted. The Programme will also invest in

getting into use knowledge from research undertaken by others if this is demanded by users and is

complementary/ synergistic to use of outputs from research knowledge previously supported by DFID.

The hypothesis of the RIU is that

an innovation systems approach will prove more effective than linear approaches at getting research

outputs into use for the benefit of the poor.

Definitions and Understanding of innovation systems approach

Innovation

� Innovation is defined as the first significant commercial use of new ideas, new

technologies or new ways of doing things in a place, or by people, where they have

not been used before.

� It is also important to extend the use of pre-existing innovations (that is, systems are

in place, but use is limited geographically or otherwise).

� Not all innovations include commercial use (e.g., innovations in how demand

enhancement is approached).

� Innovation enables more goods or services to be produced with less effort or

resources, and / or produces better or different goods or services.

Innovation Systems

� All innovation takes place within a social, economic, technological “space” in which a

number of actors interact within constraints set by “framework conditions” (policies,

wealth, custom and practice, regulatory and legal frameworks, culture, taxation and

incentives, distribution of political power etc) and “infrastructure” (Banking and

venture capital, transport, telecoms, innovation and business support etc). These

interactions can usefully be considered as part of a “system” which is complex and

evolving through time.

� Network of organizations, enterprises and individuals focused on bringing new

products, new processes, and new forms of organization into productive use.

� it extends beyond the creation of knowledge to include the institutional and policy

context that shapes the processes of knowledge access, sharing and learning.

Innovation Platforms

� A network of partners, working on a common theme and using research knowledge

in ways it has not been used before to generate goods and services for the benefit of

the poor.

� The probability of achieving innovation is likely to be increased by

a. undertaking a “diagnosis” of the “innovation system” as a whole to determine

46

where the constraints lie, which can be most easily removed, and the location

of the most vibrant and dynamic actors which can be supported to innovate.

b. Identifying those parts of the system where intervention is most possible and

most likely to result in successful innovation. This will involve investing in

much more than just “research”. It is likely to involve intervening to improve

the policy environment, building capacities to innovate, and encouraging a

wider and more diverse range of actors necessary for innovation to interact

with each other more effectively and probably build trust- relations between

them. This is referred to as changing the institutional arrangements (the ‘rules

of the game’) and building social capital between the various actors.

c. Enabling the potential users of new knowledge to articulate their needs more

effectively, and to translate these needs into “effective demand” – that is to

strengthen the demand side by amplifying the users’ “voice”.

d. Strengthening organisations and individuals who perform the “intermediary

functions” that enable the suppliers of new knowledge to interact with the

users of such new knowledge, iteratively.

This report is a result of the stakeholder consultation process designed to assess the innovation system in

Zambia and identify key bottlenecks and opportunities for the RIU engagement in Zambia. The RIU

engagement seeks to complement (not to establish new projects) and add value to efforts aimed at enhancing

capacities and effectiveness of the innovation systems in the agriculture and natural resource sector of

Zambia.

2. ZAMBIA MACRO-ENVIRONMENT

Zambia is well endowed with an abundance of natural resources and a rich biodiversity. The country has a

conducive climate, labour, water resources and a landmass of 752,000 square km, 58% of which is suitable

for arable use although only 14% is currently under cultivation.

According to the National Agricultural Policy (2004-2015), agriculture currently contributes 18-20% to GDP,

provides livelihood to 50% of the country’s population. Agriculture also employs 67% of the working

population and 65% of these are women. Agriculture is therefore a critical component of the Zambian

economy and is one of the most powerful vehicles to drive overall economic growth and poverty reduction.

The country has achieved sustained growth of about 6% over the past three years; however the growth in

GDP has not been accompanied by a significant growth in the living standards of the Zambian people nor

growth in employment.

Zambia a country with a population of 11.7 million (World Bank, 2006) is one of the poorest countries in the

world and ranks low on the UNDP 2006 Human Development Index, at 165 out of 177 countries. Infant

mortality rates are among the worst in Sub Sahara Africa. Although the poverty levels have improved in the

recent years, from 73% in 1998 to 68% in 2008, it is estimated that 80% of the population live in conditions of

acute poverty. Zambia has over two-thirds (i.e. around 7 million) of its population living below the national

poverty line of less than a $1 per day, progress on the poverty, hunger, child and maternal mortality and

environmental sustainability targets for the Millennium Development Goals is also poor and a big effort is

required if Zambia is to achieve these targets by 2015 (DFID, 2006).

Although the reforms Zambia has embarked on over the years have achieved economic growth of 6% for

three consecutive years (2005-7) this has to a great extent failed to translate into significant growth in

employment and reduction in poverty especially among the majority rural people, it has ushered in an

enabling policy environment for the provision of goods and services. A number of clearly articulated

policies, strategies and key institutional reforms that focus on poverty reduction in the country have been

47

formulated. These policy commitments include Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs), National Agricultural Policy (NAP), Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP),

Commerce and Trade Policy, Infrastructure- Transport policy; Science and Technology Policy. (App 1

provides a summary of each of these policies). The main thrust of these policy objectives is to facilitate and

support the development of a sustainable and competitive agricultural sector that supports food security at

national and household levels and maximizes the sector’s contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

However the main concern with these policies is the wide gap between articulation at the national level and

implementation on the ground.

3. THE INNOVATION SYSTEM IN ZAMBIA

3.1 Innovation context

Although Zambia has no specific national policy on innovation, the processes of innovation in the

agriculture and natural resources sector are largely framed by the fifth national development plan, the

agriculture policy framework and the Science and Technology Policy and the Science and Technology Act.

These developmental frameworks seek to harness science and technology resources to enhance productivity

and improve livelihoods of the Zambian population through such institutions as NISIR, ZARI, Extension,

universities and strengthening linkages with the private sector and other market players. The national

science and technology policy is currently under review, and with the increased understanding of the role of

innovation systems approach in development the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives plans to give

special attention to policy and institutional arrangements that enhance innovation for development

(especially in smallholder value addition/processing, livestock, tree crops, fisheries & bio-safety).

The agricultural sector, which is the mainstay of the rural economy, consists of about 700 large scale

commercial farmers, about 1500 ‘boma farmers’ (small to medium scale farmers) and over a million

smallholder farming households. The large scale and boma farmers are relatively well off and able to take

advantage of available technologies, unlike smallholder farmers, where less than 20% are able take

advantage of available technologies and services. There are a variety of reasons why smallholder farmers are

not able to access and utilize available technologies. Even in similar agro-ecological zones small-scale

farmers differ considerably in their resources, ability to make investments and take risks, and in their

knowledge, highlighting the need to accommodate such diversity. Differences in resource endowment and

knowledge-related constraints of small-scale farmers explain to some extent why so many smallholder

farmers do not use fertilizers and improved seeds, despite their availability in relatively “high-potential”

and “well-connected” areas (Govera et al, 2002). The combination of weak market linkages and lack of

effective coordination between service providers in the smallholder sector limit interactive learning and

development of adaptive capacities that are necessary for a vibrant innovation system in the agriculture and

natural resources sector.

The Zambia national policy objectives recognize the strong connection between agricultural development

and poverty reduction. However the policy objectives of achieving accelerated growth and competitiveness

in the agricultural sector are not matched by commensurate resource allocation. There is significant

misalignment between policy and resource allocation priorities. For example Zambia under Comprehensive

African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), like other African states, committed to an annual

agricultural growth of 6% through the allocation of 10% of the national budget to the agriculture sector by

the year 2008. (although the commitment is still not signed, it was planned to be signed early 2008, but this

has been put-off). However, since committing itself to the CAADP target, Zambia has averaged an

approximate 4% per annum allocation to the sector. Further, the bulk of the 4% is taken up by the Food

Reserve Agency (FRA) and the Fertiliser Support Programme (FSP) programmes which are designed to

promote maize production despite the government policy priority on crop diversification to include other

crops in addition to maize.

48

As a result of public under investment over the years, Zambia’s agricultural sector has witnessed

deterioration of research, extension and other institutional services from government. There are no

indications that this situation will change in the immediate future given the current resource allocation

patterns. In fact some stakeholders describe the public research and extension services as having “virtually

collapsed”. Nevertheless, there are grounds for optimism. The consultation process showed that where the

Research and Extension services have been appropriately aligned with donor funded agricultural

development programmes (e.g., the Agricultural Support Programme (ASP), they have delivered effectively.

The challenges are in the sustainability of improvements from such short term donor funded programmes.

Strong evidence from southern Africa as well as throughout the world indicates that long–term public

investment in research and development, extension services, rural infrastructure, and food safety and

quality systems have high pay-offs and are among the most important drivers of agricultural growth and

competitiveness (see for example Working Paper 20 of the Food Security Research Project (FSRP), (Dec 2006).

The agriculture sector is also dominated by a large number of donor/grant and loan funded agricultural

development programmes. The majority of these programs have a short to medium–term operational span.

For example among the twenty or so projects in the sector only three projects have been running for about

five years. These are Smallholder Enterprise and Marketing Project (SHEMP), Agriculture Sector Investment

Programme/Zambia Public Investment Programme (ASIP/ZAMPIP), both of which are operating in the

Eastern Province of Zambia, and the Small-scale Irrigation Project (SIP), which operates in Sinazongwe,

Mazabuka, and Chongwe districts.

Both SHEMP and ASIP/ZAMPIP project objectives are similar and aim to improve smallholder incomes by

improving smallholder access to input and output markets and other services from the private sector.

Other programmes running since 2006 include the Agricultural Development Support Programme (ADSP),

the Agricultural Diversification and Food Security Project (ADFSP), and the Kwando-Zambezi Tsetse and

Trypanosomiasis Eradication Project. The ADSP is aimed at advancing smallholder agricultural

commercialization in a number of provinces. The ADFSP seeks to improve agricultural diversification in

Western and North Western provinces, while the Kwando-Zambezi Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis Eradication

Project operates in Southern, Lusaka and Eastern provinces.

A number of challenges that arise from managing this large number of development programmes have been

identified. From the stakeholder consultations the key challenges may be described as lack of effective

coordination, lack of sharing and interactive learning, and consequently limited development of adaptive

capacities that would lead to sustainable improvements in smallholder farm communities as a result of these

development interventions.

3.2 Key Stakeholder Categories

The Country Assessment identified a wide range of stakeholder categories in the agriculture and natural

resources sector for pro-poor innovation in Zambia. (See fig 1)

3.2.1 Research and Extension Services

The research and extension service are dominated by government through ZARI, MACO-Extension and now

there are complementary services by private public partnerships and the private sector especially through

seed and agro-chemical industry companies.

The Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI) is the main government agricultural research arm and it

has a network of nine research institutes covering all the provinces of Zambia. Its main focus is on soils and

crops research to generate and adapt technologies that increase productivity of farming communities.

Through its farming systems and social science division it facilitates identification of farmer training needs

and linkages with extension services. Historically, it also produced a wide range of written materials for the

49

extension service and farmer audiences in English, although in recent years these publications have been

quite few in number. ZARI collaborates with the universities in Zambia, as well as the National Institute of

Scientific and Industrial Research (NISIR) on specific projects, for example the development of disease free

improved planting materials.

For almost twenty years, the government-supported research systems (ZARI, NISIR, University of Zambia

(UNZA) etc.) have suffered from declining public investment which has reduced their effectiveness and

impact of their research outputs on the smallholder in particular and agriculture in general. In addition the

NARS suffers from institutional and policy constraints. For example, stated research priorities are generally

not matched with resource allocation sufficient to attain even priority results. Current institutional

arrangements have also not encouraged strong linkages between farmers, extension services, markets and

research organisations, and development of various fora for sharing, learning and collective accountability.

The science and technology council (NSTC) for example has a science and technology mandate that cuts

across all sectors but reports to a sector ministry which limits its ability to influence

performance/effectiveness in agricultural research which is under a different ministry. Lack of strong

horizontal and vertical stakeholder linkages mean that research may not be well informed by the situation

on the ground and may not be demand driven. This would point to the need for an appropriate innovations

forum that encourages linkages between different stakeholders and sectors at different levels.

ZARI is currently developing an outreach programme designed to strengthen farmer, extension services,

market and research linkages by bringing together stakeholders at the district level. All research officers are

required to allocate 25-30% of their time to the outreach programme. For example, Mochipapa Research

station in Choma brought together stakeholders that included farmers, organisations, NGOs, seed

companies, agro-dealers, and MACO-extension service and came up with a resolution affirming the need for

stakeholder meeting facilitation capacity (liaison officer) in December 2007. However this process is also

constrained by resources required to bring together stakeholders on a regular basis, and reflects the under

financing noted above.

There are public private partnerships (PPP) that have developed in response to resource and capacity

challenges in public research and extension services in Zambia and these include Golden Valley Research

Trust (GART), the Livestock Development Trust (LDT) and the Cotton Development Trust (CDT). GART is

the most established and effective of these PPP’s and focuses on crop and livestock research for development

in the smallholder sector working closely with ZNFU and CFU as well as ZARI. It has managed to tap into

some of the donor-supported agriculture development programmes to promote some of its technologies e.g.

oxen based tillage systems and conservation farming.

ZARI also works with international research centres like the Centre for International Tropical Agriculture

(CIAT), International Centre for Maize and Wheat (CIMMYT), International Centre for Research on Agro-

Forestry (ICRAF) and International Institute on Tropical Agriculture (IITA) to increase productivity and crop

diversity in the smallholder sector. There are, for example, programmes promoting improved beans, open

pollinated maize varieties, agro-forestry and cassava. The programmes bring together research scientists,

NGO’s (e.g. PAM) extension staff, agro-processors (e.g. for cassava) and smallholder farmers.

3.2.2 Government Extension Services

The MACO extension service has a decentralised system that goes from national, provincial and district to

the camp level. Although the system has been described by some stakeholders as having “virtually

collapsed” it still retains a presence in the smallholder communities, is seen as a key actor in the agriculture

sector, and therefore represents a major knowledge resource to these communities. Camp officers are the

frontline contact persons between these communities and government services.

There is evidence that where agricultural development programmes (e.g., ASP) have worked with and

invested in the MACO extension officers they have been able to deliver effective services. This is an

50

indication that where appropriate arrangements are put in place it is possible to realise the potential of the

“currently demoralized and under-resourced” extension services for the benefit of the development

programmes and communities. However the challenge is the sustainability of such approaches given the

short term funding horizons of these development programmes.

There is also evidence from the consultation process that in an extension camp or block area there is a

multiplicity of NGO and government programmes targeted at the farmer. Where the programmes had

contradictory messages they had potential to cause significant levels of confusion on farmers in smallholder

communities. However where there is close collaboration across the interventions, the camp officer would

serve as a knowledge resource for these programmes and therefore reduce confusion and contradictions in

messages promoted and mobilisation systems used in the smallholder community.

The MACO-extension services collaboration with Kaluli Development Foundation (KDF) in Southern

province provides a good example of collaborations that have worked well. The KDF intervention used

MACO extension staff to train community based farmer agents in crops and livestock as community

auxiliaries with good results. The farmer agent system has potential for replication to cover a wide area if an

appropriate incentive structure (transport, uniforms, and recognition) is put in place.

The MACO extension services suffer from a number of operational, policy and institutional constraints:

• The resource allocation at the national budget level and within the MACO do not always reflect the

policy objectives and priorities on the ground. The district services get a fraction of their submitted

budgets and are consequently confined to their offices rather than going out to meet farmers.

• The institutional arrangements in the ministry do not encourage strong farmer/extension and

research linkages as the different directorates at head quarters focus more on territorial priorities

than linkages that enhance effective use of research based knowledge.

• At the district level it was felt that the research/extension linkage was virtually non-existent and

consequently formal information flows between research, extension and farmers were not working.

The market linkages which encourage uptake of improved technologies are often missing except

where extension officers are funded to participate for example in seed company demonstrations.

• “Government policies are elaborate but implementation is very limited mainly due to poor

understanding of priorities at farmer level and misaligned resource allocation and not the lack of

resources!” added a concerned and long serving district stakeholder.

• There was a sense (from the district perspective) that some of the research is not relevant to the

smallholder communities and that potentially useful research is not packaged in accessible forms.

This would point to the need for mechanisms and intermediaries for packaging research based

knowledge for use by farmers. MACO field officers were concerned that basic “how to” manuals for

a variety of crops were no longer available or accessible to both extension staff and farmers. The

liaison unit and NAIS were possible candidates for capacity building to provide such services as

were some of the Agri-BDS providers like ABF and commodity associations.

There was a contested view from the stakeholder consultations that research and extension should recognise

the need for segmenting farmers for more effective targeting of their efforts. It is estimated that about 50% of

the smallholder households are in the survival mode (very poor) and barely participate in the value/market

chains. The view was that these are perhaps more appropriately targeted by social protection programmes

while the transitional and empowered farmers are the appropriate target for productivity enhancing

innovations. The later category is more likely to access and make use of research based knowledge to

improve their situation than the very poor category.

51

Fig 1: Zambia Agric Innovation Systems Stakeholders

Domain Key Actors Opportunities Challenges

Framework

Conditions

Government of Zambia

Policy-related forums, such as

the Agricultural Consultative

Forum, Community Natural

Resources Consultative

Forum, Agriculture Sector

Advisory Group

Policies are largely in place,

including covering key cross-

cutting themes.

Commitment to CAADP.

Openness to innovation.

Interest in RIU.

Lack of financial commitment

to the agricultural sector,

emphasis on maize and

subsidies.

History of loan write-offs.

Politicization of co-

operatives.

Culture and society Strong systems of social

capital.

Strong systems of local

leadership.

Strong presence of churches

and other forums for social

organisation.

High levels of poverty.

History of dependency, lack

of support for local

initiatives. Lack of history of

innovation and

entrepreneurship.

Some social constraints

affecting the ability of women

to fully benefit from farming

activities.

Other Population has a history of

seeking economic

opportunities anywhere in the

country.

Improving levels of education.

Lessening in problem of

corruption.

Education standards remain

constrained by under-

financing and high levels of

poverty, limited ability to pay

for secondary and higher

education.

Demand

Domain

Consumers Reasonably strong urban

demand for farm produce.

Indications of strong urban

demand for certain types of

produce (e.g., organic produce)

Weak purchasing power.

Poorly developed markets in

rural areas.

Consumer preferences for

imported goods (China,

South Africa).

Local, regional, international

markets

Examples of export-oriented

production (particularly

cotton, but also coffee,

flowers).

Poorly developed markets in

rural areas.

No clear regional competitive

advantage for agricultural

produce.

Uncertain Government

commitment to expanding

agricultural exports.

Research funders and

incentives

Donor support to ZARI,

NISIR, universities

Government support to

ZARI, NISIR, universities

Commodity focused research

by private sector (e.g., cotton).

Some, albeit limited, research

by non-state actors.

Very inadequate and

inappropriate financing of

natural resources research.

Lack of public financing, lack

of private alternatives.

Poor incentives for

researchers in public

institutes and universities.

Producers - local

entrepreneurs involved in on-

farm production

Markets active when attention

concentrated in an area.

Poor market infrastructure

weakens position of

producers.

Enterprise

Domain

Farmers and other natural

resource users - smallholders

Some farmers with surplus

show responsiveness to

initiatives.

Very poor farmers show

responsiveness to income-

generation initiatives.

History of subsidies, loan

write-offs.

Restricted market activity.

Constrained production.

Gender division of labour not

commensurate with benefits

from labour provision.

52

Domain Key Actors Opportunities Challenges

HIV&AIDS has worsened

labour shortages.

On-farm smallholder

production low wages.

Severe poverty, especially in

remote areas.

Stakeholder mapping showed

weak linkages of any

agencies to smallholder

farmers, except NGOs.

Commercial farmers Very responsive to market

opportunities.

Out-grower employment

potential.

Suggest willingness to work

with smallholder farmers, but

uncertain.

Limited out-growers,

problems facing quality

control, market price, etc.

Limited horizontal

integration with smallholder

farmers.

In some areas, affected by

poor infrastructure,

inadequate transport.

Farmer and producer

organisations

Zambia National Farmers

Union

National Peasants and Small-

scale Farmers Association

Organic Producers and

Processors Association of

Zambia

Zambia Dairy Producers

Association

Poultry Producers

Association

Coffee Growers Association

Zambia Export Growers

Association

Co-operative societies

Politically influential ZNFU.

Active ZNFU membership,

some 250,000 members in

district associations and

commodity associations (the

latter mostly in cotton)

Represented in consultative

fora.

Most smallholder producers

are not involved in any

farmers union.

Co-operatives are often weak

and ineffective.

Peasant Farmers Association

weak.

Agro-industries in cotton,

tobacco, sugar, maize, stock

feed and beer brewing also

important.

Cotton sector most well

developed (Dunavant, Clark

Cotton, China-Mulungushi).

Tobacco (Tombwe Processing,

Zambia Leaf Company,

Standard Commercial

Tobacco Services, Tobacco

Development Company,

Daimon).

Largely successful in some

commodity chains, notably

cotton.

Interests represented in

consultative fora.

Mixed success in some

commodity chains (e.g.,

coffee).

Limited agro-processing

takes place in Zambia.

Markets for processed good

limited in Zambia.

Preference for imported

products with low prices

(e.g., China) or preferred

quality (e.g., South Africa).

Intermediary

Domain

Extension Services -

Government extension NGO

extension officers - – KATC,

others who employ extension

agents?

Private sector extension

affiliated with outgrower

schemes or employed by seed

Government extension system

has good coverage on the

ground

When government extension

officers have been provided

with additional resources and

incentives through ADPs have

been able to preform well.

Government extension

system weak.

Institional linkages between

research and extension weak.

Public extension officers have

no economic or institutional

incentives to seek new

knowledge or transmit it to

53

Domain Key Actors Opportunities Challenges

companies, processors or

organised groups of farmers

farmers.

NGOs – PAM, World Vision,

CARE, Swedish Cooperative

Centre, Conservation

Farming Unit, etc.

Providing some working

models for enhancing local

innovation systems e.g. local

agro dealer agent farmer to

farmer service system.

Catalyzing and nurturing

innovations in value addition

e.g. cassava processing and

product development.

Largely weak connections to

national research institutions

Quality of extension

messages variable

Lack of coordination with

government and other NGOs

Weak linkages with private

sector companies.

Short term initiatives that are

not sustainable

Community-based

Organisations – churches,

schools, Radio Listening

Clubs, Study Circles, Farmer

Organisations (20 – 50

members), community radio

stations

Demonstrated efficacy in

improving access to and

uptake of new information

Can provide an entry point for

services

Lack of access to demand

driven services; inability to

pay for service

Limited organizational and

institutional capacity to

articulate their own needs.

Training institutions - Kasisi

Agricultural Training

Institute (KATC), Zambia

Forestry College, the Natural

Resources Development

College, Zambia College of

Agriculture, Popota Tobacco

Training College, Zambia

Institute of Animal Health,

Katete College of Agricultural

Marketing, Chapula

Horticultural Training

Institute, Kasaka Fisheries

Training Institute

KATC in particular has been

successful in improving the

uptake of organic farming

technologies

Weak linkages with

mainstream research and

extension systems to bring

about more widespread

uptake of research based

knowledge and poverty

reduction.

Infomediaries

National Agricultural

Information Service (NAIS),

National Technology

Business Centre, journalists

(Panos, farmer-agents

(through PROFIT and

Dunavant). Also see NGOs,

Farmer and Producer

organisations,

Positive Government attitudes

towards greater private sector

involvement in the sector.

Providing good service to

better off farmers

Lack of appropriate business

models to support

sustainable information

services to small-scale

farmers, particularly those in

remote areas

ICT sector (radio, mobile

phone, internet

services)Communications

Authority of Zambia

Internet service providers (11

in total), of which 6 provide

services in rural areas

Mobile telephone providers

(MTN, Cell Z, CELTEL)

National Science and

Technology Council (NSTC)

Telecentre operators

eBrain

Community radio stations

Rapid advances in the ICT

sector.

Actors in the system know

each other, scope for improved

co-ordination.

LinkNet focused on improving

communications infrastructure

and services for groups in rural

areas.

Most advances that are

central to significant

improvement in ICT will not

be available during the life of

the RIU supported initiatives

in Zambia.

High cost, heavily regulated

internet environment, poor

quality service provision to

rural areas.

eBrain (a forum for

advancing the use of ICTs to

promote development) is

weak in the agricultural and

54

Domain Key Actors Opportunities Challenges

LinkNet

ZNFU SMS market

information serviceRadio

Farm Forum (operated by

NAIS)

natural resources arena.

Private sector intermediaries -

Cotton (Dunavant, Clark

Cotton, China-Mulungushi);

paprika (Cheetha, Bimzi);

tobacco (Tombwe Processing,

Zambia Leaf Company,

Standard Commercial

Tobacco Services, Tobacco

Development Company,

Daimon); Horticulture (York,

Lusaka Agricultural

Cooperative Union); Sugar

(Zambia Sugar Co.); Livestock

Products (Land O’ Lakes).

Private sector intermediaries

likely reach more smallholder

farmers than anyone else,

mostly in cotton and paprika

They provide more sustainable

approaches to services

Dealing with small and

spreadout transaction that

lack of economies of scale.

Poor infrastructural services

Business development

intermediaries - donor

supported intermediaries and

forums, most notably

PROFIT.

Agri-Business Forum.

Zambia Chamber of Small

and Medium Business

Associations.

Food Security Research

Project

Zambia Agribusiness

Technical Assistance Centre

MACO’s Agribusiness Unit

National Technology

Business Centre

Zambia Association of

Chambers of Commerce and

Industry (ZACCI)

Various small initiatives.

The recent formation of two

new government agencies

dealing with business issues

suggest increasing awareness

on the part of government of

the importance of business

development services (BDS).

ADPs such as ASP and SHEMP

have demonstrated that once

farmers have access to market

and market info and

understand value of BDS, they

are willing to pay.

Business development

services not reaching poorer

farmers.

Many small-scale farmers’

lack the mindset and the

access to markets need to

profit from BDS.

Current project based BDS

approaches are not

sustainable

No culture of paying for BDS

in the smallholder sector.

Commodity and Trade

Associations - Cotton

Association of Zambia;

Zambia Association of High

Value Crops; Tobacco

Association of Zambia;

Livestock Processors

Association; Millers

Association of Zambia;

Bankers Association of

Zambia; Association of Micro-

Financing Institutions;

Zambia Chamber of

Commerce; Coffee Board of

Zambia; Zambia Seed Traders

Association; Grain Traders

Association.

Associations are providing a

forum for increasing trust and

transparency in commodity

value chains

A framework for building

common standards and

spreading best practices.

Weak linkages between

associations and grassroot

producers.

The voice of the smallholder

communities is weak in these

associations.

Returns to the farmer are low

due to poor productivity and

low prices.

55

Domain Key Actors Opportunities Challenges

Research

Domain

Research institutes - ZARI,

NISIR, Golden Valley

Agricultural Research Trust,

NRDC, FSRP, NAIRC,

Central Valley Research

Institute, Cotton

Development Trust, Livestock

Development Trust. Also

research services offered by

Department of Research and

Specialist Services,

Department of Agriculture

and Field Services, Fisheries

Department, Forestry

Department

ZARI has a network of nine

research stations covering all

nine provinces and is working

to strengthen links between

research stations and extension

providers (public, private,

NGO) at the district level.

Good collaboration between

ZARI, NISIR and UNZA.

GART has a working

relationship to the ZNFU and

Commercial Farmers Union, as

well as ZARI.

Formation of the public private

trusts has increased

responsiveness of research

institutions to some segments

of the innovation system

(agribusiness, commercial

farmers)

In general poor linkages with

extension and other

information service

providers.

Lack of market oriented

research

Farmers have little input into

setting research agenda.

Mechanisms that are

supposed to feed farmer

demand back up the line are

not functioning.

Difficulty tapping farmer

knowledge

Universities - UNZA system,

agricultural colleges. At

UNZA, School of Agriculture,

School of Veterinary

Medicine, Department of

Agricultural Engineering

Existing collaborative

relationships with other

research institutions.

Research capacities currently

under utilized

Universities suffer from

resource constraints and low

morale.

NTSC The National Science

and Technology Council

With a mandate that cuts

across all sectors of the

economy its well placed to

provide leadership in setting

an enabling science &

technology policy framework

Despite being responsible for co-

ordinating research in Zambia, the

NSTC is accountable under a

single sectoral ministry, limiting

its ability to influence research

that falls under other ministries.

- It has a bureaucratic control

rather than a sharing and learning

culture.

Private sector - ZNFU,

FEWSNET, DUNAVANT,

Agricultural Business Forum,

Grain Milling Association, co-

operatives, ZEGA, input

suppliers.

These stakeholders offer

opportunities for shaping the

research agenda and help

make it more relevant to

smallholder communities

The diversity of interests with no

facilitation limit the contribution

of these stakeholders to shaping

the research agenda that is of

benefit to smallholder

communities.

NGOs - CARE, World Vision,

Programme Against

Malnutrition, International

Development Enterprises

(IDE) are most active in the

natural resources arena in

rural Zambia. Others include

Heifer International, Harvest

Help, Oxfam, Women in

Agriculture, the Cooperative

League of the United States

Overseas (CLUSA), Total

Land Care, Pelum.

Zambia Association for

Research and Development.

Considerable experience in

working with especially poor

households.

Extensive experience in

integrating livelihoods

support, food security, and

social protection.

IDE and CLUSA experienced

in programmes targeting

small-scale producers and

various commodities

Some NGOs that work in

livelihoods support lack the

experience to do so, and may

approach income generation

in the agricultural sector from

a social protection

perspective.

Considerable confusion about

how to mix social protection

and income generation, lack

of recognition that the two

can be well integrated.

Tendency of some state actors

to consider very poor farming

households as not relevant to

market developments.

56

Domain Key Actors Opportunities Challenges

International and regional

organisation research -

CGIAR, CIAT (African

Network on Soil Biology and

Fertility; Pan-African Bean

Research Alliance; Southern

African Bean Research

Network); Southern Africa

Root Crops Research

Network, CIMMYT (Soil

Fertility Consortium for

Southern Africa), CIFOR,

World Fish Centre, World

Agro-forestry Centre (Agro-

forestry Research Network

for Southern Africa), IFPRI,

Alliance for Green Revolution

in Africa, African

Agricultural Technology

Foundation.

CAADP - FARA, co-

ordinating the Regional

Agricultural Information and

Learning System, and

Dissemination of New

Agricultural Technologies in

Africa.

Aligned with CAADP.

Active in Zambia, linked with

research agencies and

programmes.

No clear examples of

international organisation

support for Zambian

initiatives to link research

funding with partnerships

with farmers, NGOs, farmer

organisations, and the private

sector.

Infrastructure

Transport and marketing

Agro-dealer and processing

companies, FRA

_ To a limited extent ICT’s are

easing some of the major

communication and marketing

problems in rural areas.

land tenure system is in part there

for political control, rather than

innovation and investment

lack of industrial development

zones falling under land boards

for business investments

-the lack of or poor state of

physical infrastructure for

transport & marketing in

smallholder communities.

-lack of economies of scale in the

marketable surpluses of

smallholder communities.

Banking, savings and credit,

informal finance

Micro-Bankers Trust,

Commercial Banks

Emergence of contract farming

and support services from such

BDS agencies as ABF help

build trust between the banks

and producers.

Poor loan repayment culture

About seven banks have gone

broke in the past 30yrs due to

non performing

Regulations and standards

Opportunities for self

regulation through commodity

& trade associations

Development of domestic

markets e.g. for organic

produce whose standards are

within the reach of smallholder

communities.

Economic Partnership

Agreements considered by

ZNFU and ESAFF to have

negative impact on

smallholder farmers.

Innovation and business

support systems

Limited but expanding

coverage of ICT’s

Existing working models e.g.

Limited infrastructural

services (tele-

communications & electricity)

57

Domain Key Actors Opportunities Challenges

the ZNFU cellphone based

market information services.

to support innovation and

business support systems

Information systems Limited but expanding

coverage of ICT infrastructural

services

Cost of accessing the ICT

services is still prohibitive for

smallholder communities.

3.2.3 Farmer Organisations

The Zambia National Farmers Union is the main farmers’ organisation and is viewed as strong and

influential especially at national level. Its membership is comprised of:

• 54 District Associations with a combined total of some 40-50,000 members;

• 13 commodity associations (with about 200,000 members, of which 180,000 of these are in cotton);

• Some 700 large scale commercial farmers and 18 corporate members and agro-businesses.

This ZNFU membership structure reflects its strong business and commercial representation. The ZNFU is

also well linked and represented in research and policy arenas, for example it is a key member of ACF and

GART. It has also a decentralised structure linked with MACO extension service through its District

associations and the rural information resource centres initiative in all districts that ZNFU is operational. Its

commodity associations are able to deal with sector specific issues, of which the cotton growers association

is the most active.

Despite broad membership and its strong policy influence, it is still perceived by some stakeholders as not

adequately catering for the majority of smallholder farmers in Zambia who are trapped in poverty, low

productivity and risky production systems. At the community level farmers are weakly organised to

articulate their needs to research and extension services or to ZNFU. A Peasant Farmers Association is

emerging to represent the bottom half of the smallholder communities. The peasant association initiative is

relatively new and lacks capacity. There is need for mechanisms for strengthening farmer organization at the

community level as part of enhancing demand for research knowledge and building innovation capacities at

that level.

Cooperatives are another form of farmer organization that is active in the smallholder sector. The MACO

has promoted cooperatives in smallholder communities for a long time and these input/output marketing

cooperatives provide the main entry points for such PRP programmes as FSP. There was a sense that these

cooperatives have been politicised and tend to be active towards national parliamentary elections. They are

also perceived to be promoting a culture of dependency as they are recipients of heavily subsidized inputs

from government and have poor repayment records. The subsidized inputs not only distort the

development of local input markets but also cause farmers who can otherwise afford to purchase

commercial inputs to wait for the FSP and loose out on planting time and therefore yield potential of their

crops.

3.2.4 Agro-industry companies.

There are a number of input/output and processing companies providing services to the farming

community. These companies also belong to associations that are part of the Zambia National Farmers

Union and this should enhance their understanding of the challenges and opportunities in the smallholder

communities.

The agri-input/output companies are particularly active in cotton, tobacco, sugar and maize sectors. Cotton

and maize are the main commercial crops of the smallholder sector. Although the number of cotton

producers has shrank over the past few years by up to 40%, investment into the cotton sector is increasing as

four more ginneries opened in the past two years. Cotton and agri-input companies have developed their

own farmer agent and input credit systems designed to increase productivity and secure produce for their

58

own markets. These farmer based local support systems provide potential entry points for efforts aimed at

enhancing knowledge flows and use of improved technologies to increase productivity and improve

livelihoods.

The grain milling, stock feed and beer brewery companies are also major players in agriculture sector with

potential to enhance the diversification thrust in the smallholder sector by providing a market for alternative

crops like sorghum/millets and cassava.

3.2.5 Business Development Services (BDS)—intermediaries

There is a wide range of service providers that provide advice and information services to farming

communities and these include private sector agro-companies, commodity and trade associations and sector

forums e.g. ABF, PROFIT. Some of the associations are affiliated to the Zambia Chamber of Small and

Medium Business

Associations (ZCSMBA) and ZNFU. Their main aim is to improve the competitiveness and the operating

environment of their members.

The agri-business forum (ABF) provides facilitation services in contract farming which include access to

information and knowledge as well as access to financial and business support services. ABF is also engaged

in advocacy to improve the policy environment of contract farming.

PROFIT is a donor (USAID, SIDA &EU) funded business development support service programme. It

facilitates/catalyzes value chain development through development of a network of rural village farmer

agents and productivity enhancement in smallholder agriculture. It identifies opportunities for linking

farmers with commercial service providers that lead to viable business transactions. It provides a cost

sharing mechanism between farmers and agro-dealers/suppliers in the training of farmers and farmer agents

(who sell products & services on commission). To date it has a reach of 100 000 households with input agent

scheme and 20 000 herd of cattle through its vet services.

Although there are a number of BDS initiatives supporting SME’s and the agricultural sector, it was clear

from the stakeholder consultation that there was little sharing and learning between the different initiatives.

Some stakeholders even suggested that there were cultural constraints to sharing experiences in the

Zambian context. However its more likely that the different stakeholder agendas, funding and institutional

arrangements are the major constraints to more effective collaborative ways of working, sharing and

development of adaptive capacities.

3.2.6 Policy related Intermediaries

There a number of policy related forums which include Community Natural Resources Consultative Forum,

the Agricultural Consultative Forum and the Agriculture Sector Advisory Group (AgSAG) which was

established during PRSP process and is chaired by the Permanent Secretary of the ministry of Agriculture.

The AgSAG is used as a forum to engage with government, agree on policy direction.

The ACF is a membership organization bringing together a wide range of institutional stakeholders from

farmer organizations, private sector, government, research organisations and NGO’s. It facilitates policy

dialogue, advice and building of social capital among stakeholders. The Food Security Research Programme

which provides support for ‘evidence based policy formulation’ is one of the main collaborating partners of

ACF. In addition the ACF hosts other initiatives like the cassava working Groups exploring opportunities for

commercialization of cassava in collaboration with Programme Against Malnutrition (PAM).

Despite the existence of policy related forums in the agriculture and natural resource sector there is still a

weak culture of sharing, learning and collective accountability on what is working or not working in

smallholder development intervention. For example the mis-alignment between policy priorities and

59

resource allocation continues in the agricultural sector. One of the key missing ingredients to effective

sharing and learning is lack of facilitation capacities to support this interactive way of working.

3.2.7 Non Government Organizations (NGO’s)

Zambia has a vibrant NGO sector with most of the major international NGO’s represented, for example

CARE, WVI, Africare, PLAN, CRS, Oxfam and SNV.

In addition there are well established local NGO’s e.g. PAM; natural resource based NGO’s such as Kasisis

and PELUM, and a network of faith based organizations delivering services to smallholder communities.

The main thrust of NGO’s is humanitarian activities that range from relief and recovery activities in times of

emergencies like floods, drought; and HIV/AIDS and advocacy to development activities that support

capacity building and income generation in smallholder communities. NGO’s play an important role in

smallholder communities that are largely marginalized and trapped in low productivity and poverty.

However the NGO sector face challenges of coordination, fragmentation and duplication of services, short

term planning and funding horizons that do not allow sufficient time for development of social capital and

capacities necessary for sustainable development of these communities.

In order to deal with some of the coordination challenges, most NGOs or network representatives participate

in key government related stakeholder forums at national and district levels and have also developed a

number of sector NGO forums where they meet and share experiences of their programmes. For example

there are NGO forums on agriculture, water and sanitation, advocacy and education and members take

turns to convene these coordination meetings.

4. INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE FLOWS (Also see a separate report by Steen Joffe and Sarah Carriger)

The key stakeholders in the innovation systems – ZARI, MACO, agro-industry companies and BDS

intermediaries including NGO’s, farmers and farmer organizations, commodity/sector associations and

forums are the main actors in information and knowledge flows in the smallholder sector. Although

stakeholders face sector specific challenges in the supply and demand information & knowledge chain as

outlined in section 3, it is clear that communication between stakeholders and access to relevant information

are critical bottlenecks to vibrant innovation systems in the Zambian agricultural and natural resources

sector. ZNFU emphasised the need for infrastructural and information services that facilitate production and

marketing decision making in the smallholder sector.

There are opportunities for RIU to build on existing initiatives in rural information centres, community

radios, rural farmer/agro-dealers schemes to enhance capacities in packaging and dissemination of demand

driven information in the smallholder sector. Some of the stakeholders already involved include ZNFU,

ABF, MACO/NAIS; GART and ZARI.

5. KEY CONSTRAINTS/BOTTLENECKS IN THE ZAMBIA AGRIC INNOVATION SYSTEMS

The stakeholder consultation identified a wide range of bottle necks in the agriculture and natural resource

innovation systems for smallholder communities. These include policy, institutional, farmer organization

and markets; and they are summarised below:

• There is a significant gap between policies articulated in the agriculture sector and implementation

on the ground for example on budget investment targets and support to livelihood diversification.

This is largely due to misalignment between priorities of policy objectives and resource allocation at

national level and within the sector ministries which do not adequately reflect realities in the field.

The misaligned resource allocation priorities have severely degraded market, technical and

infrastructural services to the smallholder communities.

60

• Institutional arrangements in the innovations value chain do not encourage effective collaboration,

sharing and interactive learning between institutions and their programmes. Territorial priorities

limit linkages and communications between key stakeholders in the value chain. In addition there is

a weak or no culture of sharing lessons and experience and as result initiatives are always starting

and not building on past experiences.

• Productivity in smallholder communities is very low with maize yields of less than a ton and cotton

yields of 600kg per hectare. In addition there is lack of recognition of farmer’s indigenous

knowledge and diverse livelihood activities. The main focus is on maize and cotton at the expense of

other alternative crops, livestock especially small stock and fisheries.

• There are weak innovation systems approaches in smallholder value chains—instead there is

fragmentation of initiatives and services to the sector and limited market integration.

• The majority of the smallholder farmers are resource-poor and weakly organized at the grassroots

level to deal with rapid changes and emerging economic (e.g. strengthening of the ZMK), social,

(HIV/AIDS) governance (managing contests for political power) and environmental (drought &

floods) challenges. While ZNFU is strong at the policy level, at the grassroots levels farmers lack the

capacity to negotiate competitive conditions and terms with markets and other service providers

(govt & NGO’s). As result some intervention programmes are inappropriate and in fact keep

smallholder communities busy but poor and promote a culture of dependency.

• Information markets in the smallholder sector are generally dysfunctional and farmers are not able

to access information that they need to make informed decisions. Government extension services in

the smallholder sector are severely curtailed except where they are working closely with an ADP.

• Low population densities spread out over vast territories make transaction costs of service provision

very high. This is further worsened by poor infrastructural services in the rural areas.

6. OPPORTUNITIES TO BUILD ON- FOR VIBRANT INNOVATION SYSTEMS IN THE NATURAL

RESOURCES SECTOR.

The Zambian environment has many opportunities that the RIU can build on to achieve its purpose of

widespread use of research outputs and poverty reduction. The stakeholder consultation identified some

these opportunities that are summarised below.

• Zambia has a conducive investment environment as evidenced by investment inflows especially into

the mining sector that have contributed to the significant increase in the national revenue base. The

challenge is on capacities and innovative ideas to use the resources effectively to improve

livelihoods of the majority smallholders.

• There are already a number of networks and forums that bring stakeholders together and there are

opportunities to make this function effectively as part of the innovation system.

• ZNFU launched a cell-phone based market information system which offers opportunities for

expansion to cover other information and advisory services.

• Community radios have been tried in a number of districts and there are opportunities to review

effectiveness and potential for scaling up.

• There are existing systems and working models for example the PROFIT rural farmer agent scheme

and thematic initiatives e.g. conservation agriculture which offer opportunities for scaling up islands

of success.

• The gaps between policy priorities and implementation provides an opportunity for developing

mechanisms for stakeholder sharing, learning and development of collective accountability in the

development arena.

61

7. EMERGING PRIORITY ENTRY POINTS FOR RIU

There a number of opportunities that the RIU Programme can use to engage in the Zambia innovation

system and the country assessment identified the following as priority areas.

• Building a culture of sharing, interactive learning and collaborative action: Explore the

opportunity of convening a national forum or mechanism designed to catalyze the innovation

system in Zambia by building on existing innovation related platforms. This would involve bringing

together existing platforms and stakeholders to address policy and institutional bottlenecks in the

agricultural innovation systems of Zambia.

• Operationalizing innovation systems approach in a district or thematic platform: The country

assessment process identified conservation agriculture (CA) and the agro-dealer farmer agent

schemes as entry points for building geographic and thematic innovation platforms for practical

action and building adaptive capacities in utilizing research outputs. These two schemes (CA &

agro-dealer/farmer to farmer services) are particularly attractive as they bring together different

stakeholders and existing networks and allow stakeholders to identify new ways of doing things

and adapt them to their circumstances.

The two schemes are linked to resource intensive programmes that have economies of scale and

would facilitate scaling up of emerging lessons. Conservation agriculture is appropriate as it

addresses key issues of low productivity and low input farming in the light of rising costs of inputs.

In addition there is debate and energy around the two subjects of 1) conservation agriculture and

sustainable livelihoods 2) the need to reinvent public/private extension services as key components

to transform smallholder communities in sustainable ways. These are strategies that promote

production and market linkages, secure rural livelihoods and do not condemn rural households to

peri-urban slums in search of better but limited opportunities in the urban areas.

• Building capacities for transforming information & knowledge into practical and accessible

forms for smallholder communities. This would involve bringing together stakeholders (technical,

market info services etc) in this sector to collectively identify bottlenecks and develop options for

removing these and enhancing capacities for more effective info and knowledge flows in the sector.

8. STRATEGIC THRUSTS FROM THE ZAMBIA CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP

The strategic thrusts developed through the Zambia workshop process resonate well with the key entry

points identified by the assessment team. The strategic thrusts provide a useful framework for guiding the

Zambia RIU engagement which would in turn further clarify priorities within these thrusts. We provide

below indicative areas to focus on within each strategic thrust, clearly further engagement with stakeholders

would be required to elaborate specific activities as part of the Zambia RIU implementation process.

8.1 Strategic Thrust 1: Facilitation of Coalitions of Interests or Platforms

One of the critical bottlenecks identified in the Zambia innovation systems is a weak culture of interactive

learning and joint or collaborative action among stakeholders. This is despite the existence of a number of

forums that bring stakeholders together, e.g. ACF and sector advisory groups (SAG’s). Facilitation for

collective action and change is the key ingredient that is missing (not more single agency conventional

projects). Facilitation allows stakeholders to engage with each other & themselves in open ways that enhance

their ability to learn from, work with each other and hold each other accountable for example on what works

and what does not work in subsidized inputs, maize production and marketing policies and conservation

agriculture. These multi-stakeholder platforms would be more effective if they are linked to resource-

intensive sector programmes and/or Innovation Funds that allow stakeholders to creatively pursue

identified bottlenecks in the system. This strategic thrust would, through facilitation, contribute to:

62

• Sharing, interactive learning and collective action in the innovation system

• Mind set shift from supply driven mode to enhancing innovation systems approaches. For example

a systems thinking approach would allow stakeholders to put into context conservation agriculture

versus what smallholder farming systems they envisage 10, 20, 30 yrs down the road in Zambia.

Hopefully this would throw up questions on what policies, resource allocation and dominant

approaches are required to move in the selected direction.

• Development of specialised innovation platforms which are linked to each other nationally and

regionally (e.g. agro-BDS; CA)

8.2 Strategic Thrust 2: Enhancing capacity to demand services and participate in value/market chains by

farmers and intermediaries.

The basis for this strategic thrust is the recognition by stakeholders of weak representative and producer

structures at the community level and a sense that communities are regarded as beneficiaries and recipients

of services rather than people who have a right to those services. This dominant way of thinking has resulted

in supply driven approaches, very weak demand pull for services and limited participation of smallholder

communities in value/market chains. The challenge therefore is how to increase knowledge of available

options, voice and participation of farmers in the value chain. This would in turn increase demand for

knowledge as smallholder representative voices and engagement with the market increase. There are a

number of possible activities that build on existing initiatives that can be used as vehicles to achieve the

underlying aim of this strategic thrust. These would include interlinked thematic and geographical

platforms that allow stakeholders to come together to identify systemic bottlenecks and find solutions to

these. The table below indicates some of the actors already engaged in one way or another to enhance

demand for services and participation by farmers in the value chain.

ZNFU Farmer mobilization, market

information services

KATC Research, demos, training in

conservation agriculture.

and organic farming,

extension

MACO Policy, extension, training,

research, etc.

ASP Farmer mobilization,

farming as a business,

linkages

ABF Facilitating contract farming

PROFIT Facilitation of farmer

commercial linkages;

Farmer based services

GART, LDT, CDT, CFU Research, training,

extension, conservation

agriculture.

Commercial agricultural

companies

Supply products and

services and buy produce,

transportation processing

8.2.1 Capacity Facilitation:

Facilitate organizations working on agro-BDS initiatives (aimed at enhancing capacity of farmers and their

organizations to participate in value chains) to come together into a platform or learning group to share and

learn new ways of enhancing capacity of farmers & producer groups to demand services. The platform

63

would need to be linked to specific learning geographical (district) and/or thematic sites. While selection of

thematic learning sites would depend on stakeholders, it is more appropriate to select those that allow

smallholder communities to participate actively and for their voices to be heard. This is particularly

important for this thrust which is aimed at enhancing capacity of farmers and intermediary groups to

demand services and opportunities to participate in value chains. This strategic thrust would effectively:

• Build facilitation capacities in key stakeholders to enhance demand by farmers and their

organizations.

• Support capacity building initiatives for effective participation in value chains (e.g. through

conservation stakeholder learning groups/platforms; agribusiness service centres e.g. by Zambia

chamber of MSME

• Identify and support initiatives that enhance market linkages (e.g. contract farming, agribusiness

services)

8.2.2 Scaling-up working models

The country assessment process identified some working models that can be reviewed and scaled up

through RIU support. For example Farmer-Farmer based services are used by many agro-dealers and agro-

industry companies for input supplies and for produce procurement. Although in general companies are

reluctant to share their incentive structures in their schemes there is scope to learn about the potential of this

way of service delivery to expand participation in value chains and increase demand for knowledge by rural

communities. There is potential to drive rural non-farm enterprises by building on the current efforts of

agro-dealers and processors.

This thrust would effectively:

• Identify and review working models of service provision through the innovation platform processes

• Facilitate linkages for scaling-up working models of smallholder service provision.

8.3 Strategic Thrust 3: Knowledge sharing mechanisms and services

This strategic thrust cuts across the other thrusts and some of the components under this thrust would be

integrated into the first two. However there is scope to bring together actors in knowledge management and

services to share experiences, identify good practices and working models. This would include identifying

market based information and knowledge services and seeking ways to strengthen and scale them up.

9. THE CONSULTATION PROCESS

• Review of key policy and programme documents of the agriculture and natural resources sector of

Zambia- May

• Inception meeting and consultation with key informants & stakeholder interviews - May

• Assessment of the agric & NR innovation systems context- -bottlenecks & opportunities.

• Field visits – May-June

• National consultative workshop & feedback – June

• Innovation systems assessment report and strategy outline – July

64

10. APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Zambia Policy Context:

Zambia Policy context and Information and Knowledge Flow

D.J.Banda

June 2008

1.0 Zambia Context

1.1 Policy Environment

The Government of the Republic of Zambia has since 1991 made significant strides in restructuring its

economy that for a long time was characterized by copper monoculture. Over the years, and as a result of

Zambia’s preference for an open market system, momentous changes in terms of priority setting and

resources allocation has been brought about. The general policy of the Government since 1991 has been to

provide an enabling policy environment for the provision of services and goods. The development of

sectoral strategies by the various public institutions has therefore resulted in the existence and adoption of

legal policy frameworks. A number of strategies, policies and key reforms that focus on poverty reduction in

the country have been formulated. This section provides a summary of the relevant legal instruments used

in addressing issues of poverty reduction namely; Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs), National Agricultural Policy (NAP), Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP),

Commerce and Trade Policy, Infrastructure- Transport policy; Science and Technology Policy.

a) Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP-2000)

The Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) introduced in the year 2000 was used by the Government in

its attempt to move the economy towards a higher growth rate of between 6-8% per annum and in assisting

the government reduce poverty by intensifying its effort to remove obstacles to private sector development.

Such growth scenario entailed undertaking capital-intensive and investment driven growth in key economic

sectors with a special focus on agriculture and rural development. The main elements of the strategy were to

improve rural infrastructure; create rural employment opportunities through the promotion of large –scale

enterprises; strengthen the linkage of smallholder farmers to commercial producers and agribusinesses;

stimulate smallholder rural enterprises; help poor people improve food production techniques and

strengthen social services in education, health and sanitation. There were also attempts to integrate policies

related to HIV/AIDS, gender and protection of the environment into all rural poverty reduction initiatives

and across the main sectors of the economy.

(http://ruralpovertyportal.org/English/regions/Africa/zmb/approaches.htm).

b) Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) ushered in an era which opened up the whole process of

having rich and poor countries declare their solidarity and determination to ridding the World of poverty by

2015. Zambia is a member to the Millennium Declaration which has paved a way to ensuring that world

leaders worked together to promote human dignity and equality to achieve peace, democracy and

environmental sustainability (HDR, UNDP, 2003). The Government as a condition to the MDGs remains

committed to tackling issues of extreme poverty and hunger; achievement of universal primary education;

reduction of child mortality; improving maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases;

ensuring environmental sustainability and developing a global partnership for development

(http://www.milleniumcompaign.org/site/pp.asp). To a larger extent, the indigenization of the MDGs

presents a human development challenge not only to the government but also to the Zambian people and all

its cooperating partners. Zambia’s major initiative to realizing the MDGs presently has been through the

development of an MDG-based National Development and the undertaking of an intensive publicity

campaigns since 2003 by the MDG Task Force comprising Government, civil society, academia, private

65

sector and the UN System. This includes holding the established Government and the UN system MDGs

Race every year until 2015 (http://www.mdgmonitor.org/factsheet_00.cfm?c=ZMB).

c) National Agricultural Policy (NAP, 2004-2015)

The Government also recognises the need to strengthening and expanding emerging opportunities in the

country and indeed the important role agricultural sector plays in an economy. According to the current

National Agricultural Policy (NAP,2004-2015), the overall policy objective is to facilitate and support the

development of a sustainable and competitive agricultural sector that secures food security at national and

household levels and maximizes the sector’s contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In principal,

agricultural sector is expected to contribute to the economy in terms of increased production, sector

liberalization, and commercialization, promotion of public and private sectors partnerships and provision of

effective services that will ensure sustainable agricultural growth.

Within the policy of the liberalization of the agricultural sector, the Government is mandated to ensure

private sector participation in inputs distribution, output marketing, agro–processing and to encourage agri-

business strengthen linkages with smallholder farmers. Under these institutional reforms, the role of the

public sector is being confined to policy formulation, enforcement of legislation, provision of market

information, regulation and inspection, maintenance of the national strategic food reserves, financing and

control of pest and diseases of national importance control, and providing rural and agricultural

infrastructure needed for efficient sector growth etc. In partnership with private sector, the provision of

agricultural services i.e. research and extension, (NAP, 2006).

d) Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP2006-2010)

The President of the Republic of Zambia President Levy Mwanawasa S.C. in 2007 officially launched the

Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP2006-2010) and the Vision 2030. As a legal instrument, the FNPD

focuses on issues of good governance, improving health, education and the infrastructure, and encouraging

foreign investment. The FNDP embraces the PRSP which until very recently used to be the main instrument

for poverty reduction in the country, the Transitional National Development Plan (TNDP, 2002) and

domesticates the millennium Development Goals and all other international development initiatives. The

theme of the FNDP is “Broad Based Wealth and Job Creation through Citizenry Participation and

Technological Advancement”. The major focus will be on 1) pro-poor growth-oriented sectors that create

employment and income opportunities for the poor, including in particular rural development, agriculture

and manufacturing, and 2) economic infrastructure and human resources development. The FNDP draws

attention to those sectors that maximise growth stimulation as well as those, such as agriculture, education

and health, that best address the plight of the poor.

The primary objective of Vision 2030 is to make Zambia a prosperous middle income nation that would

provide opportunities for the improvement of its people’s lives. It is also stipulated that both the FNDP and

the Vision should lead to the consolidation of district development plans as articulated by the people of

Zambia through the District Development Coordinating Committees (DDCCs), Provincial Development

Coordinating Committees (PDCC) and Sector Advisory Groups (SAG) and other civic organisations.

Apart from the FNDP being a broad based approach that seeks the means to improve the standards of living

of people and to provide interactive ways of fostering development, The FNDP is currently well received

and perceived to have been very consultative having involved stakeholders from diverse occupations and

all areas of the country (i.e. at grassroots, district, province and national levels). Its major focus that of

identifying of growth areas in the districts, identifying priority development areas and obtaining key

recommendations that would ensure economic growth and wealth creation is also a positive development.

66

e) Commerce and Trade Policy.

The commerce and trade policy is committed to ensuring that Zambia benefits from various trade links. The

country is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) at multilateral level and a member of the

Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and the Southern African Development

Community (SADC) at the regional level. The country also benefits from the various preferential trade

arrangements providing access to foreign markets such as EU Everything-But-Arms initiative (EBA) and the

USA and ‘Canadian Initiative’ African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) including its participation in

the European Union- African Caribbean Pacific Cotonou Trade Protocol and current negotiations to

Economic Partnership Agreements- an outfit of the Eastern and Southern Africa. It is the Government desire

through the Private Sector Development Programme(PSDP) to continue with the identification of

appropriate trade expansion measures while, the promotion of domestic trade, investment and export issues

shall continue to be worked on using the Multi-Facility Economic export Zones (MFEZ) (FNDP, 2006-2010).

f) Infrastructure- The Transport policy

The Government in 1995 adopted the Construction Industry Policy and constituted through the Act of 2003

the National Council for Construction (NCC) which is now the legal body for the registration and regulation

of all contractors and consultants in the sub-sector and enforces construction standards

The Transport policy of 2002 in particular, instituted the Road Development Agency (RDA) as unit under

the Ministry of Works and Supply. RDA manages all roads in Zambia. It is expected that the policy, will

during the FNDP period help the sector address the challenges of poor state of infrastructure, low private

sector participation, slow pace of sector restructuring and poor funding for infrastructure, vandalism and

the like. In this vein , the Ministry of Works and Supply will continue to review and develop appropriate

policy and legal frameworks that promote public–private partnerships in the construction and maintenance

of public infrastructure while, a comprehensive Information Management System is to be established and

maintained for tracking and storing of the operations of the sector at the same time acting as an information

provision for clients and stakeholders.

In conformity with the Decentralisation (i.e. seeks to devolve power to the lower levels) Policy of 2002, the

implementation of FNDP is expected to take on board the district and province concerns as expressed in

regional plans to catalyze the whole process of mobility and quality of life of communities by providing

access to education and health amenities (FNDP, 2006-2010).

.

g) Science and Technology Policy

The1996 formulated National Science and technology policy currently under review generally allows the

promotion and exploitation of science and technology as an instrument for developing environmentally,

friendly and indigenous technology aimed at improving the quality of life in Zambia while, the objective of

research and development is to embed science and technology as part of the culture of the key economic

sector and to promote competitiveness in the production of a wide range of quality goods and services.

There are a number of research centres established namely Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI),

National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research ( NISIR)-formerly National Council for Scientific

Research (NCSR), National Malaria Control Centre (NMCR), Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trust

(GART), Universities, and the Tropical Diseases Research Centre (TDRC) to undertake science and related

research.

Following the rationalisation programme of the science and technology, two units have been created. The

National Science and Technology Council with a view to coordinate, monitor and implement science and

technology policies as well as to advise the Government on the same and; the National Technology Business

Centre (NTBC) whose function is to promote research and development products to the end users - i.e.

industry and the commercial sector (FNDP, 2006-2010).

67

h) Information

Information service sector has as its goal the mandate to increase media and access and out reach throughout

the country in order to promote free information on development programmes as well as to have a well

informed citizenry fully utilizing Information and Communication Technology for national development.

During the PRSP/TNDP, a number of programmes were implemented most significant of these being the

improvement of radio reception in the country. The Government procured 56 FM radio transmitters that

have since been installed in a number of districts and therefore the existence of Community radios.

The sector currently operates under a number of statutes such as the Independent Broadcasting Authority

(IBA) Act of No. 17of 2002; Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC) Amendment Act No. 20 of

2002 Cap. 154. It is however expected that more harmonisation and review and work still will continue to be

operationalised through the FNDP.(FNDP, 2006-2010).

i) Social protection

With reference to policies and practices that protect the livelihoods and welfare of people suffering from

critical levels of poverty and deprivation and/or vulnerable to risks and shocks, the social protection seeks

through the Ministry of Community Development and Social Services (MCDSS) during the FNDP place

emphasis on the asisting the most vulnerable with basic services that enhance their standard of living.

It is expected that relevant Ministries will in collaboration with the affected communities handle some of the

interventions aimed at addressing the challenges of vulnerability in general and in particular the social

protection. The Government has put in place the Disaster Management structure with its Secretariat as a hub

for coordination mechanism and promotes the vision of “safety net” (FNDP, 2006-2010).

1.2 Socio-economic context

Zambia is a country well endowed with an abundance of natural resources and a rich biodiversity. The

country has a conducive climate, labour and a landmass of 752,000 square km (58% of which is suitable for

arable use though only 14% is currently under cultivation), and water resources. Zambia is considered one

of the country’s among the wettest in Southern Africa Approximately 13% of Zambia’s total land area is

wetland. Agriculture in Zambia therefore is of high potential for it offers enormous unrealized potential that

needs to be fully exploited that can have positive impact on national food security, incomes for the majority

of the population, the balance of payments account and economic growth at the same time generate export

earnings.

The spurred growth in the mining, construction and transport sectors including economic reform measures

taken have over the years led to the country attain a tolerable level of stability in major macro economic

indicators. The country’s economy is for instance, reported to be enjoying a sustained growth of around 5.5%

per annum in 2005 and 6.2% per annum in 2006 (UNDP Report, 2006 and World Bank (2006). The economic

growth scenario is being planned to average 6.1% per annum during the period of 2006-2011.

The institutionalised reforms that aimed at liberalising the agricultural markets especially, have recorded

some positive results. The Zambia-European Community Country Strategy Paper and National Indicative

Programme for the period 2008-2013 report, states that substantial increases have been achieved in primary

agricultural commodities, floricultural products, horticultural products and processed foods while, the net

enrolment rates for primary education have improved from 71% in 2000 to 85% in 2004. Good progress is

also being made in the fight against HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases with services becoming widely

available for the Mother to Child Transmission (PMTCT) of HIV. Currently, over 90% of the districts are

having some PMCT service sites (DFID, 2008).

According to the National Agricultural Policy (2004-2015), agriculture currently contributes 18-20% to GDP,

provides livelihood to 50% of the country’s population. Agriculture also employs 67% of the working

68

population and 65% rural of the women. In this way, agriculture has very strong links to the economy and is

therefore one of the most powerful vehicle to generating overall economic growth and to the reduction of

overall poverty.

However, the growth in GDP has not been accompanied by a significant growth neither in the living

standards of the Zambia people nor in the growth in employment.

Zambia a country with a population of 11.7 million (World Bank, 2006) is one of the poorest and ranks low

on UNDP 2006 Human Development Index, at 165 out of 177 countries. Infant mortality rates are among the

worst in Sub Sahara Africa. The poverty levels though have improved in the recent years, 73% in 1998 to

68% in 2008, it is estimated that 80% of the population live in conditions of acute poverty. Zambia still is one

of the poorest country with over two-thirds (i.e. around 7 million) of its population living below the national

poverty line of less than a $1per day. The current MDG progress on the poverty, hunger, child and maternal

mortality and environmental sustainability targets is also poor and a big effort is required if Zambia is to

achieve these targets by 2015 (DFID, 2006). The implication being that the reforms have to a great extent

failed to translate into higher economic growth and reduction in poverty especially among majority rural

people.

1.3 Information and Knowledge flows

a) The environment

The Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives has a National Agriculture Information Service (NAIS) as its

outreach army in ensuring that the flow of agricultural information takes place between information

producers and information consumers. NAIS is mandated to provide an information link between the

farming community and agricultural technocrats and is being encouraged to disseminate agricultural

information of all kinds through the radio, print and electric media to promote improved farming

knowledge among rural households. The well established agricultural extension department of, MACO

throughout the country including the farmer to farmer and out - grower schemes interfaces being

encouraged at the village level are all involved in the dissemination of information to end users.

Information sharing more especially at national levels takes place through established networks, fora e.g.

where various stakeholders from different sectors such as water and sanitation, education, advocacy, child

protection, agriculture and energy sectors meet. Facilitation of sector meetings usually rotates between

members. Networking is currently a popular media for information sharing among NGOs such as World

Vision and Profit as well as holding of monthly or quarterly meetings. Information flow is also taking place

through community radios and through the contact farmer approach anchored in the current extension

approach. ASP is on record as one of those very successful programmes using the contact farmer approach

on the ground in promoting “farming as a business” among small scale farmers in rural communities.

In addition, there are donor funded programs that encourage innovative field days and demonstrations

including the usage of (most of which though is dilapidated) Farmer Training Institutes as outreach points

for farmer programs. Technical staff linkages between NGOs and MACO staff at the field level during the

promotion of agro-products to farmers during field days and establishment of associations (e.g. Veterinary

Associations) have started becoming very good avenues for sector interactions and sharing of information

while, training resource manuals, booklets and leaflets continue to be other sources of information reaching

to end-users. Croppack input supply provides manuals and fliers to their farmers through the Community

Agents.

b) The issues

Indications from the field discussions are that scientific research findings rarely gets to end users for the

reason that most researchers prefer carrying out more of the adaptive research on their own without asking

consumers what their research needs are. Even where good research outputs are generated, the researchers

are not in the habit of publishing any of their research findings. As such, there is no information coming

69

through pamphlets, guides or any such to be given to farmers for knowledge and guidance on correct

practices. For example, it is recommended in some of the past manual guides that fertilizer must always be

applied at ploughing (where maize crop is concerned) but farmers up to now do so after plant has

germinated - sometimes fertilizing their crops when it is at knee high level.

The current policy does not seem to support research in terms of budget allocation as usually very small

budgetary amounts are allocated towards research activities and this poses a serious constraint to research

and development activities. The investment that goes into research in terms of cost and implementation of

innovation is a disincentive to many end users and cannot by far be met by smallholder farmers. Coupled

with this, is the poor funding of research institutions, poor rewarding system of researches, poor marketing

strategies for research and the unfair placement of research/innovation. Despite there being lots of good

research outputs, due to recent institutional reforms very weak linkages between research and extension

now exist. It was also observed that the isolated way in which researchers are developing technologies

without the involvement of extension workers at farm trials stage has further contributed to the existing

weak linkages, the communication chain between generators of research and end users becoming too long

thus, hindering the flow of information from reaching farmers. The research – extension – farmer linkage

was identified to be a major constraint to information dissemination. To some extent, this has led to the

highly compromised ability of the farmer to making a choice with regard to best agricultural practices.

Though most researchers prefer carrying out more of the adaptive research, the Intellectual Property Rights

(IPS) that is silent on benefit sharing procedure for instance for the role played by plant breeders, continues

to be a disincentive to research undertakings. Researchers feel there is no mandate for them to brag about

their successes in coming up with research outputs. Besides, there is neither up to date specific policy on

innovation nor a legally constituted forum for research institutions to come together and share research

/technology information as was the case in the past when a national committee under the former National

Scientific Research Council (NRSC) existed. During then, regular meetings for sharing information used to

be held.

c) Public/private partnerships in info markets

The Government policies in place have all been passed through an Act of Parliament and therefore provide

an enabling environment in which public/private partnerships have both the political and government

support to exist. Evidence in the districts reveals that some private partnerships between the public and

private sector with sometimes some element of suspicion have been successfully forged. For instance,

Croppack agents get trained by extension officer from the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives

(MACO) while joint field days among farmers with regard to the promotion of agro-products being

promoted by the private sector take place in collaboration with the public sector workers.

However, there is evidence of such partnerships duplicating each others effort or work in the catchment

areas. Likewise NGOs who tend to work directly with farmers have sometimes collided in these catchments

with other service providers offering similar services. Many NGOs operating in the SIMILAR catchment

areas, do not know what each one of them does and generally, the coordination of efforts is usually weak

among them. Such situations are actually compounded by the fact that there is no policy that provides a

guiding framework to linking various stakeholders. As a result, emerging practical issues at ground level

remain unaddressed. For instance, even though the current advocacies on use of lime in farmers’ fields by

ASP seem to be contrary to MACO’s research recommendations, there is no forum to bring this and iron it

out. Despite there being an elaborate policy that stipulates the importance of monitoring and evaluation of

the implementation of the Agricultural programmes and activities to determine the rate of implementation

impact, the implementation of the National Agriculture Policy is weak. When consultative meetings are

called to discuss implementation, such meetings called have been poorly attended by especially high

profiled people such as the Directors.

Through the public restructuring processes, MACO has continued to lose experienced staff most of who

have left for greener pastures. This move has affected both the block and camp levels in terms of staffing,

70

coverage areas and farmer targets. To a large extent staff morale has been lowered, coverage distances have

increased and very little information trickle to farmers is taking place. Transport is also still a great challenge

in the way dissemination of information to farmers by extension agents is concerned. Farmers are in fact

reported to be complaining that the extension and the whole liberalization process are not responsive to

their needs e.g. the presence of briefcase maize traders has not provided the much needed Maize market

links while plenty wrong things (e.g. knowledge gap in plant spacing) continue to be done without

extension advices.

While it can be said that there generally is no policy constraint on forging of links with farming

communities, majority farmers continue to be constrained in terms of resource such as inputs, labour,

financial, information and knowledge. Farmers still display some rather high dependency syndrome where

they still want to be given agro-products on credit or things free of any charge. They also seem not to grasp

the concept of pulling of resources together to meet for instance transport costs for their goods and services.

Instead, they expect free service deliveries to be made or to be engaged in out-grower scheme arrangements.

Such farmers’ environment is making it slightly difficult to convincing service providers to believe that

smallholder farmers are a viable group and presents a readily available good market for agri-business. The

policy contradictions inherent especially in the Fertilizer Support Programme (FSP) whereby it is now

supposed to be weaning off cooperatives that seem to have started acquiring agricultural inputs on their

own and the continued display of weak mechanisms for phasing out such co-operators has not helped in

trying to encourage farmers to stand on their own.

Researchers feel that the major constraint at the farmers’ level pertaining to use of research and thus forging

of partnerships is the farmers’ attitude towards technology. Farmers’ social cultural perception to

technology is that of suspicion and both their tradition and lack of knowledge hinders them from adopting

innovations. Coupled with this is the element of technological benefits or in economic terms “opportunity

costs”. Farmers prefer adopting technologies with short term benefits to long term yielding benefits such as

growing of trees. Farmers also tend to be resistant to new technology the first time e.g. Conservation

Farming upon its introduction was associated with cultural interference with some farmers being scared of

the new ways of farming as they were not prepared to take up risks.

d) Specific Case

Profit facilitate service providers that are willing to engage in models that enable smallholders access to

agro-inputs targeting mainly farmers above just ‘surviving’ levels and are relatively secure and are aspiring

to create wealth or reap profits. Profit is currently working with 3 input suppliers (i.e. Croppack Ago

Services, Mineland Agricultural Development Services and AgiVet Africa) and in their collaboration, a

Community Agent concept has been introduced in Mumbwa.

Service providers work directly with community based suppliers i.e. farmers who have been catalyzed into

being agents chosen based on the following selection criteria:-

Steps in Selection process –

1) Gives information to input suppliers

2) A meeting is held to introduce willing agents to the community- meant to seek acceptance of

agents by community people

3) Once selected (based on agents credibility, trustworthiness business mindedness i.e. traders),

agent undergoes training to be able to translate information to farmers

4) Agents encouraged to sale 3-4 products of the approved 7 products and presents product

knowledge to farmers in a community meeting

Upon selection, farmers place orders with agent on pre-paid arrangements and the main focus of the model

is that farmers must receive product knowledge before or on delivery of ordered products. Agents work on

commission basis ranging from 10% mainly for crops to 20% for mainly livestock products.

Farmers incentives are through:-

71

• Inputs are delivered to farmers by agent thereby cutting on farmers transport, time and

effort to securing the same

• Product knowledge is provided to farmers unlike when they purchase products off shelf in

shops-normally will purchase without obtaining proper information

• Agents sell products throughout the seasons unlike where retailers only sell products

during peak season

• Farmers allowed to make payments on agro inputs in two instalments first as advance

payment during the first 6months and the other after another 6 months at an agreed upon

period.

Input suppliers have technical staff on the teams who provide the technical information to agents. Some

agents are also into sprayer services so far 17 such agents have received training and are certified sprayers.

This group is expected to increase in June during the planned training sessions being organized by Profit.

Agents working on livestock products are expected to graduate into Community Livestock Workers

(minimum qualification required grade 9). Presently, there are 90 community based agents in Mumbwa.

These offer service in delineated catchment areas. Sometimes due to distances, agents have sub contracted

other sub-agents to assist in the promotion activities.

The common modes of Information Flow include technical staff interacting with MACO staff at ground level

during the promotion of products to farmers especially during field days, Coordinators meetings being held

on monthly basis, belonging to Veterinary Association established where doctors meet and share ideas,

through Agro associations, field days for Agro-inputs and provision of training resource manuals and

leaflets including holding Community promotion events, event that affords input suppliers get feedback on

promoted products, collaboration through other fora such as through the established laboratory located in

the show ground in Lusaka and during

Strategic planning meetings that on individual basis are held every 6 months with Profit. Individual service

providers also conduct on regular meetings, produce monthly work plans and may seek the services of a

consultant

Through the Fertilizer Support Program (FSP) most input suppliers have been linked up with MACO and

this has motivated input suppliers. Agri-Veterinary staff goes through government veterinary on cattle

population and submits monthly report of activity to be undertaken while government veterinary explains

which diseases are handled by government such as foot and mouth. MACO also trains Agric Veterinary’s

Community Livestock Agents,

The main feedback loop in all this is through the community promotion events, consumer surveys carried on

maize variety called bullet-being promoted by Croppack and carrying out contact reviews after 12 months.

d) Information markets

A number of respondents indicated not knowing of any known established Information markets but are

aware of the direct links being forged between agro dealers and farmers. The Farmers National Farmers

Union (ZNFU) was identified as one such an institution on the ground trying to establish some kind of a

market information system. Through their facilities one could access and purchase agricultural products via

a mobile phone service.

72

Annex C: Specialist Sub-Report on Communications

RIU Zambia Programme

Communication to Support Agricultural Innovation

Assessment and Strategy (DRAFT)

July 2008

Sarah Carriger

73

Introduction

At the country-level, RIU’s communication activities focus on:

• promoting an information markets approach to improve sustainable, demand-driven provision of

research-based NR knowledge;

• strengthening capacity of information intermediaries to source, package and deliver knowledge to

meet demand;

• identifying and resolving communication gaps in innovation platforms to remove bottlenecks, build

trust, and encourage common action;

• and documenting and sharing lessons learned with partners and the larger development community.

As a foundation for these activities, this report focuses on mapping knowledge flows between different actors in

the Zambian innovation system, analysing the factors that influence those flows, and identifying possible entry

points for RIU to add value to existing initiatives.

The potential role of ICTs in improving knowledge flows and the prospects for fostering an information and

knowledge services market in Zambia are treated in more detail in the report on information and knowledge

services markets.

Communication for innovation

RIU’s approach considers communication—the transfer of information from one person or organisation to

another—within an agricultural innovation systems context. This means looking at the flows of information

among the different actors necessary for innovation—researchers, farmers, processors, traders, buyers,

consumers, credit institutions—with particular attention to intermediary organisations that facilitate the flow of

information between other actors. Such “infomediaries” might include NGOs, farmer organisations, public and

private extensionists, training organisations, schools.

To improve communication for innovation requires developing more holistic communication models that

address the incentives and constraints for different actors to demand and supply new knowledge. In contrast to

the traditional research communication model where information is transferred from researcher to extensionist

to farmer, RIU takes the perspective that:

• Everybody in the system is both a potential provider and user of information.

• Different types of information are required for innovation—not just research-based information, but

also farmer knowledge, market information, etc.

• Information and knowledge services that will support pro-poor innovation can be stimulated

through market-making arrangements and improved financial and other incentives.

Mapping knowledge flows in the Zambian innovation system

Poorly functioning innovation systems often suffer from two communications-related problems: limited flow of

appropriate information between actors (because of infrastructural, institutional, social or economic factors) and

limited ability of actors to use information received. Zambia’s innovation system suffers from both of these

problems to a degree.

Gaps and blockages in the knowledge flow in the Zambian innovation system:

• In general there are poor linkages between Zambia’s infomediaries and its knowledge generating

institutions. The result is that little new knowledge enters the system and what little does enter is either

not adapted to the Zambian smallholder context or is not of good quality.

• The vast bulk of Zambia’s small farmers—an estimated 85%—do not have access to the information

they need to improve their livelihoods. Channels for farmers to convey demand are for the most part

absent, and most small farmers do not have the mindset or incentives to demand information.

74

• The public extension system is poorly resourced and extension agents have no economic or institutional

incentive to seek new knowledge or transmit it to farmers.

• Knowledge users have little input into research agendas. Mechanisms that are supposed to feed

farmers’ research needs back up the line are not functioning.

• With few exceptions (e.g. KATC) researchers and knowledge infomediaries have not been able to

effectively tap farmer knowledge, including indigenous knowledge.

Several reasons for hope:

• Some of the government agencies (e.g. ZARI and the NAIS) are aware of these gaps and are looking for

solutions and new partnerships.

• Zambian agricultural researchers do publish their results, which means knowledge is captured and

could be repackaged for other audiences.

• The creation of the public-private trusts has made research more responsive to certain segments of the

innovation system—primarily large-scale agribusiness.

• There are a number of private infomediaries servicing large- and medium-scale farmers, agribusinesses

and organised groups of small farmers—suggesting that there is an emerging information and

knowledge services market in Zambia.

• Agricultural Development Programmes (ADPs) have had some success in sensitizing farmers to the

value of information and linking them to service providers. Farmers who have seen the value of

information are willing to pay for it, if it meets their specific needs and can be clearly linked to market

opportunities.

a. Knowledge Generators

In the formal sector, agricultural knowledge generation is dominated by the Zambia Agricultural Research

Institute, followed by the three public-private trusts, and the University of Zambia. Other players include:

Copperbelt University; several specialized departments under the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives

(MACO); the National Institute for Scientific & Industrial Research (NISIR) under the Ministry of Science,

Technology & Vocational Training; and the Forestry Department under the Ministry of Tourism, Environment

& Natural Resources.

In addition to the two major universities, there are a number of small colleges and training institutes, many of

which engage in some degree of collaborative research. These include the Zambia Forestry College, the Natural

Resources Development College, Zambia College of Agriculture, Popota Tobacco Training College, Zambia

Institute of Animal Health, Katete College of Agricultural Marketing, Chapula Horticultural Training Institute,

Kasaka Fisheries Training Institute, and Kasisi Agricultural Training Centre.

There are also several private companies engaged in research, including: Dunavant (cotton production),

Zamseed (breeding, seed production), and the Maize Research Institute (breeding).

Table 1: Primary formal knowledge generating institutions

Organization Area of research Communication channels/links

Government agencies

Zambia Agricultural Research

Institute (ZARI)

applied & adaptive research in

crops & livestock production,

post-harvest, socio-economics &

farming systems

outreach through provincial

research centres, training, field

days, publications (bulletins,

brochures, crop production

guides), website (in progress)

Department of Research &

Specialist Services, MACO

veterinary services & tsetse fly

control outreach

75

Fisheries Research Branch,

Fisheries Department, MACO

capture fisheries & aquaculture

extension (through 19 aquaculture

stations, 5 of which do research),

training, demonstrations,

publications

Central Veterinary Research

Institute, MACO

diseases, animal health services, publications

Forest Research Unit, Forestry

Department, MTENR

forestry management,

utilization, appropriate

technologies

publications, extension, training

National Institute for Scientific

& Industrial Research, MSTVT

food technology, livestock &

pests, water resources training, publications

Public-Private Trusts

Golden Valley Agricultural

Research Trust (GART)

conservation farming,

smallholder livestock systems,

technologies (production &

post-harvest)

field days, field schools, training,

publications (technical manuals,

fact sheets), workshops, radio, TV,

website

Livestock Development Trust livestock production & diseases,

breeding training, outreach, publications

Cotton Development Trust production technologies outreach

Universities

University of Zambia (UNZA),

School of Agriculture

crops, soils & animal

production BSc & MSc programme, in-service

training, partnerships (project-

based), consultancies, publications

UNZA, School of Veterinary

Medicine

animal health—livestock, fish BSc & MSc programmes,

veterinary services, publications

UNZA, Dept. of Agricultural

Engineering

land and water management

technologies, food processing BSc programme, in-service

training, consultancies,

workshops, publications

UNZA, Institute for Economic

& Social Research, Ag. & Rural

Development Programme

policy, socio-economics,

farming systems publications, workshops,

partnerships (project based)

Copperbelt University, School

of Natural Resources &

Environmental Sciences

forestry biology &

management, fisheries

management

BSc programme in forestry,

extension, consultancies

i. Research networks

Research in Zambia is ostensibly coordinated by the National Science and Technology Council. However, what

this means in practice is unclear. Annual research meetings used to be held by the National Commission of The

National Research Council, but this institution no longer exists. Researchers from different institution share

knowledge with each other primarily through scholarly publications, participation in workshops and

conferences, and through direct collaboration on specific projects.

Zambia’s research institutions are linked to others in the region through the activities of SADC’s Food

Agriculture and Natural Resources Directorate. Specific networks and projects involving Zambian researchers

include: the Seed Security Network, the Information Core for Southern African Migratory Pests, the

Management of Indigenous Forests Project, and the Domestication and Commercialization of Indigenous Tree

Fruits Project.

76

Zambian researchers also participate in a number of regional networks managed by CGIAR Centres (CIAT,

IITA, CIMMYT and the World Agroforestry Centre). These include:

• African Network on Soil Biology and Fertility (AfNET)

• Pan-African Bean Research Alliance (PABRA)

• Southern African Bean Research Network (SABRN).

• Southern Africa Root Crops Research Network (SARRNET);

• Soil Fertility Consortium for Southern Africa (SOFESCA);

• Agro-forestry Research Network for Southern Africa (ARENA-SA).

ii. Communication channels/links from knowledge generators to knowledge users

Zambia’s research institutions use a variety of channels (see Table 1) to communicate their knowledge to other

actors in the innovations system—including farmers, infomediaries, and agribusinesses. Main channels for

knowledge flow include: publications, extension, field days and other types of demonstrations.

In general, research institutions do not employ staff specialized in packaging information for non-scientific

audiences. At ZARI, the capacity of the Central Services department, which is responsible for packaging, is

oriented towards providing documentation and library services rather than producing materials for non-

scientific audiences.

Publication: Most of the research institutions produce publications—although the budget for this type of

activity is declining. Publications aimed at farmers and extension providers include crop production guides,

bulletins, pamphlets, manuals, and posters. Very few of these are available in local languages. The majority of

publications are produced on an ad hoc basis as outputs of specific (often donor-funded) projects, rather than as

part of a systematic process of packaging research findings.

Extension: ZARI and many of the other institutes transfer knowledge to extension providers and farmers

through training courses and collaboration on specific projects. In addition, several research institutes provide

some degree of extension and/or advisory service directly to farmers, for example, the Livestock Development

Trust and the Cotton Development Trust.

On the whole, institutional linkages between Zambian agricultural research institutions and public and private

extension are weak. They are slightly stronger in fisheries and forestry, since both research and extension fall

under the purview of the same department. Due to restructuring or lack of budget, a number of the institutional

linkages that connected research and extension under MACO have been lost.

In theory, the NAIS is supposed to facilitate transfer of knowledge from research institutions to the public

extension system; in practice the budget and institutional mechanisms for this are absent. ZARI is attempting to

remedy this situation by restructuring its research stations to focus more on outreach to extension providers

(public, private, NGO) at the district level.

Field days: Most of the research institutes and private sector entities engaged in research hold field days to

publicise new varieties and technologies to farmers and extension providers. GART’s in particular were praised

by informants. GART also has a network of contact farmers who assist in conducting on-farm demonstrations

and field schools.

Field demonstrations seem to be an effective channel for technology transfer in Zambia—the most effective

according to GART (2004). But the reach of this channel is limited since most farmers and extension agents

cannot afford the expense of travelling outside of their immediate area.

ICTs—radio, TV, internet: Researchers from ZARI, GART, and UNZA contribute regularly to radio

programmes produced by the National Agricultural Information Service and the Zambia National Farmers

Union (ZNFU). These programmes reach large numbers of farmers and their efficacy is increased by long-

standing radio listening groups, many of which are driven by women. There are also examples of research

institutions disseminating findings through community radio stations operating in project areas.

ZARI and GART both have functioning websites and ZARI is the process of making its website an information

hub. However, internet access is still limited for the vast majority of farmers and extension providers.

77

b. Infomediaries

The main types of information service providers operating in Zambia include membership-based organisations,

public and private extension providers, NGOs, farmer-agents, business service providers, and government

agencies tasked with disseminating information produced by the national research system. Although media

outlets do not provide information services per se, they do serve as important infomediaries—community radio

stations in particular.

Membership-based organisations, e.g. the Agribusiness Forum, the Organic Producers and Processors

Association (OPPAZ), ZNFU, provide a range of services to their members—primarily large and medium scale

commercial farmers, organized groups of small-scale farmers, and agribusinesses. Such services include

sourcing and packaging production information to meet member needs; printing and distributing information

of potential interest to members in the form of e-bulletins, magazines, position and research papers; and linking

members to other service providers. Most of these services are provided from Lusaka, although ZNFU has

information centres at the district level.

Private extension: The vacuum caused by the failure of public extension has opened up a market for private

extension services to farmers. Private extension agents are employed by seed companies, processors, and

organized groups of commercial small-scale farmers.

NGOs: Many NGOs also provide extension information, although few provide regular, on-going services. The

Kasisi Agricultural Training Institute (KATC) is an exception—providing a range of information services to

farmers in the Chongwe district and beyond. These include training, extension, a school-based demonstration

programme, and a radio programme. The Swedish Cooperative Centre and the Conservation Farming Unit are

also quite active in this area, as well as PAM through its work with the Cassava Task Force.

Public extension: MACO has an extensive public extension network that spans national, provincial, district,

block and camp levels. The network is poorly resourced and considered by many to be dysfunctional. However,

when camp and district extension officers were linked to ADPs who provided additional resources and

incentives, they were able to perform well.

Farmer-Agents: The cotton ginner Dunavant and the ADP PROFIT have facilitated the training of farmer agents

who provide extension information as well as serving as agents for the ginner in the case of Dunavant and agro-

dealers in the case of PROFIT.

Government agencies responsible for disseminating information: The NAIS is tasked with packaging and

disseminating agricultural information and serving as a liaison between ZARI and extension, primarily through

District Agricultural Information Officers. The national-level link appears to have broken during the

restructuring process that eliminated the post of Research Liaison Officer. The National Technology Business

Centre (NTBC) is a newly formed agency under the Ministry of Science, Technology & Vocational Training to

promote R&D products and facilitate technology transfer.

c. Knowledge users and access to information services

The country’s 1,500 large- and medium-scale farmers and agribusinesses have relatively good access to

information services. They are able to demand information through membership organizations such as the

Agribusiness Forum (ABF) and the Zambia National Farmers Union (ZNFU), and they have the facility to

contract research directly from the public-private research trusts—The Golden Valley Development Trust

(GART), The Livestock Development Trust (LDT) and The Cotton Development Trust (CDT)—and engage

consultants from the university research system.

Better-off smallholders—generally those farming from 5 – 20 ha—are also able to access many of these services

by banding together in cooperatives and associations. These so called “cell-phone farmers” are able to access

market information (and markets) through ZNFU’s SMS-based market information system. They are able to

demand and access information and link to other service providers through group memberships in

organizations such as ABF, ZNFU, and OPPAZ. Through ZNFU’s contract with GART, they are able to demand

research. They are able to access business development services, microfinance, and market linkages through

organisations such as Zambia Agribusiness Technical Assistance Centre (ZATAC) and the Zambia Chamber of

Small and Medium Business Associations (ZCSMBA). A number of the associations also employ their own

78

extension officers. These farmers are well-situated to take up and apply new technologies and to benefit from

internet and cell-phone based interventions.

Zambia’s poorer farmers—generally those farming less than one hectare—do not have good access to

information services. These farmers, who account for approximately 85% of Zambia’s smallholders, are cut off

from information flows by poor transportation and communication infrastructure and are forced to rely on the

dysfunctional public extension system for information. Because of lack of access to input and output markets

and other types of services (financial, business development), they have little incentive to demand and apply

new knowledge. The National Association for Peasant and Small-Scale Farmers of Zambia has emerged to meet

the needs of this group, but currently it has no capacity to provide regular information and knowledge services

to its members.

Agricultural Development Programmes (ADPs) such as SHEMP, ASP and PROFIT have had some success in

reaching poorer farmers (although not the poorest) and enabling them to participate in knowledge services.

These programmes have provided evidence that poor farmers are willing to pay for services, even information

services (although most consider such services MACO’s responsibility), if the information provided meets their

specific needs and can be linked to market opportunities. In general, the ADPs worked by encouraging farmers

to approach farming as a business (rather than a subsistence activity) and by helping them to link to input and

output markets and service providers (information, financing, business development). ASP and the farmer agent

schemes run by Profit and Dunavant have also had some success in supporting the development of local service

providers.

Opportunities

d. Radio and other ICTs

The potential of cell phones and the internet to connect different actors and improve the delivery of demand-

driven information is discussed in the report on information and knowledge services markets. These

technologies do offer exciting opportunities, but in terms of achieving significant impact within the project

timeframe and reaching women and poorer farmers, radio offers the best opportunity in Zambia for the

following reasons:

• Radio reaches more farmers than all other ICTs combined (internet, TV, and cell phones) and unlike

other ICTs, it is readily accessible to women and poorer farmers.

• Farmers are accustomed to using radio as medium for accessing information and learning—radio

listening clubs affiliated with Radio Farm Forum (RFF) have been active since the 1960s. Sibalwa (2000)

reports that 52% of 240 farmers interviewed reported that they had learned new methods of farming

and had increased their yields through RFF Listening Groups.

• Community radio stations are strong in Zambia, providing localized, community-driven content in all

nine of Zambia’s provinces. These stations have helped to empower local communities and connect

them to government and other services. For example, Musanshi (2004) documents examples of farmers

using community radio to demand information on inputs and women using their local radio station to

demand literacy classes.

There are several projects focused on the use of radio for development that are already operating in Zambia. The

most significant for RIU is the Panos/NAIS project to improve the interactivity of Radio Farm Forum. The project

has supplied listening clubs, over half of which are driven by women, with mini-discs so that they can record

their questions after listening to the programme. These recordings are collected, and the questions are addressed

at the beginning of the following week’s programme. Panos also provides three day training for the clubs,

including leadership, thematic issues and technical training. They are also training District Agricultural

Information Officers to work with the listening clubs. RIU could add value to this initiative by working with

Panos and NAIS to include a focus on use of the clubs as platforms for farmers to demand information and

access services.

There are also two USAID programmes that offer potential lessons:

79

• Zambia Quality Education Services Through Technology (QUEST) - uses the Interactive Radio

Instruction methodology to teach life skills and AIDS education to out-of-school children through

community radio stations.

• Zambia Community Radio Project (ZCR) - is partnering with community radio stations to create a

series of village-based radio programmes. Entitled Our Village, the programmes are designed by

communities to address their development needs and tap local technical knowledge.

e. Projects to improve knowledge flows

There are a number of programmes and projects in Zambia aimed at improving information flows in

agriculture. These programmes offer opportunities for cooperation and lesson learning for RIU.

National:

• Development of an Effective Information Flow System—focuses on Misamfu, Northern Province and

Mount Makulu near Lusaka (IICD)

• Strengthening the Agricultural Information Flow and Dissemination System of the National Agricultural

Information Services (IICD)

• Communicating Research (implemented by Panos with support from DFID) – strengthens links between

researchers and journalists

Regional:

• Regional Agricultural Information & Learning System (RAILS)

• Dissemination of New Agricultural Technologies in Africa (DONATA)

Both of these are coordinated by the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) and have timelines

(2007-2012) that roughly coincide with RIU’s. These initiatives are still fairly new and have yet to engage widely

with Zambian researchers. However, the potential for RIU to feed into these programmes or vice versa is worth

exploring.

• Strategic Analysis Knowledge Support System (SAKSS) coordinated by IFPRI

f. Functioning innovation platform on cassava

The Cassava Task Force is an existing innovation platform that could offer a quick win for RIU. The Task Force

brings together innovation system actors (research institutions, farmer organisations, NGOs, government

agencies, processors and other private sector companies) to accelerate commercialization of cassava, a high

potential crop in Zambia. The Task force has already gone a long way in identifying gaps and blockages and

working towards common solutions. Research-based knowledge was one of the key gaps identified.

RIU could add value by facilitating the evaluation and possible promotion of RNRRS outputs (10 deal

specifically with cassava) and by building communications capacity within the platform—this was identified as

a key need by the task force coordinator. Specifically the Task Force needs support to develop and implement a

communication strategy targeted at different audiences (farmers, industry, policy makers and consumers) and

to document and share lessons learned.

The Task Force offers a significant learning opportunity for RIU. By documenting the process RIU could provide

a convincing example of the innovations system approach and potential lessons for RIU Zambia and the larger

RIU programme.

g. Information-related constraints to agricultural innovation

• Weak linkages between information and knowledge service providers (including public extension) and

research institutions. Most of the information and knowledge service providers interviewed reported that

the country’s research institutions were unresponsive to requests for information and that they source most

of the information they provide to their clients through the internet, international partners, and private

sector commercial entities.

80

• Much of the information produced by the Zambian research system is not packaged appropriately for small-

scale farmers or even information service providers. The vast bulk of publications produced by research

institutions are aimed at other researchers. Of publications aimed at farmers and extension providers (crop

production guides, bulletins, pamphlets, manuals, posters), very few are available in local languages. The

majority are produced on an ad hoc basis as outputs of specific (often donor-funded) projects, rather than as

part of a systematic process of communicating research findings.

• Knowledge users have little input into setting research agendas. Mechanisms that are supposed to feed

farmer information needs back up the line don’t work. ZARI and other public research institutions are

struggling to find cost-acceptable methods of soliciting stakeholder input in an environment where their

funding is decreasing.

• Policy makers do not value research (at least when it comes to budget allocations) nor do they appreciate the

role of information and knowledge services (particularly private sector services) in fostering innovation and

economic growth in the agricultural sector.

• The vast majority of poor farmers are not able to access the information services. They also do not have the

mindset or capacity necessary to use information to improve their livelihoods.

h. Strategy

To have the biggest impact on poverty, RIU needs to concentrate on reaching small-scale farmers farming less

than one hectare. Improving knowledge flows to these farmers will not be enough; poor farmers also need to be

turned on to the value of information and given the capacity to articulate demand and plug information into

decision-making frameworks—enabling them to make decisions that will improve their livelihoods, not merely

their productivity.

Strategically, given the programme’s short timeframe, it makes sense to build on initiatives that are already

having some impact on the ground, such as the ADPs (particularly the ones that are coming to an end this

year—SHEMP and ASP), and to take advantage of communication technologies that are already widespread

and that have proved acceptable and accessible to both men and women and the poorer segments of the

population—i.e. radio.

To improve the functioning of the agricultural innovation systems as a whole, RIU needs to explore ways of

fostering local information service markets—for example, through the farmer-agent model used by Dunavant

and PROFIT and the lead farmer model established by ASP. And it needs to strengthen the capacity of existing

service providers to source, package, and deliver information to smallholders. This would include:

• Strengthening linkages to research institutions,

• Identifying business models to make service provision to smallholders financially sustainable, and

• Finding ways of using ICTs to reduce transaction costs.

Finally, RIU could help to create an enabling environment for improved knowledge flows by publicising success

stories and contributing evidence to support existing advocacy efforts—for example, those led by ACF, FSRP

and the Zambia Community Media Forum.

The specific entry points/opportunities described in the next section contribute to all three strategic thrusts

identified during the stakeholder consultation process:

Thrust 1: Facilitating coalitions of interest or platforms

Thrust 2: Enhancing the capacity of farmers and intermediaries to demand services and participate in value

chains

Thrust 3: Developing knowledge sharing mechanisms and services

In terms of operationalising the strategy, most of the communications activities described could be carried out

under a platform on information and knowledge services. This platform could bring together different actors

into task groups—for example, one focused on internet/cell phone-based mechanisms for strengthening linkages

among service providers and potential clients (including other service providers) and one using radio to

81

strengthen farmer demand for and access to information. Where possible, RIU should link to other programmes

(regional and national) aimed at improving knowledge flows in agriculture.

i. Entry points/opportunities for RIU to add value

Opportunity 1: Facilitating a platform (or task group under a larger platform on information and knowledge

services) to strengthen radio as a channel for farmers to demand and access information and for infomediaries

to market services. Possible activities include:

• Working with community radio stations to improve the quality of their agricultural programming.

Could include knowledge sharing and capacity building on how to involve the community, source and

package information, highlight farmer knowledge and success stories, and attract advertisers of

agricultural goods and services.

• Working with Panos and NAIS to make Radio Farm Forum more responsive to farmer demand and

build the capacity of Farmer Listening Groups to demand information and access services.

• Developing a radio-based distance learning package that would give farmers the skills and decision-

making frameworks they need to source information and use it to improve their livelihoods. Could be

linked to Radio Farm Forum Listening Clubs and Swedish Cooperative Centre Study Circles, many of

which have retired teachers as facilitators. Also this is a possible mechanism for scaling up some of the

training provided by the successful Agricultural Development Programmes, such as SHEMP and ASP.

Potential partners: Panos, Zambia Community Media Forum, Zambia Media Trust, NAIS, ZNFU (particularly

district information centres), SCC, NTBC, community radio stations

Links to other programmes: Zambia Community Radio Project (USAID), PANOS/NAIS project (DANIDA), ADPs

Potential outputs, outcomes and results: Better provision of farmer-driven information, farmers able to demand and

use information to improve livelihoods, farmers better able to access service providers.

Risks/constraints: Poaching of community radio staff by commercial stations, possibility of government control

through threats to revoke license (risk is slight unless content is politicised)

Opportunity 2: Capacity building for information service providers on sourcing and packaging information to

meet client needs (drawing on RNRRS models and outputs), marketing their services, and developing business

models for extending service to poorer farmers (could also be an activity under a platform on information and

knowledge services)

Potential Partners: ZNFU, NAIS, OPPAZ, ABF, KATC

Potential outputs, outcomes and results: Capacity of information service providers to source and package

information and to participate in information and knowledge service market improved, expansion of services to

poorer farmers

Opportunity 3: Building communications capacity in the Cassava Task Force and documenting lessons

learned. Specifically building communications capacity of staff from one or more task force members and

providing MIL support.

Potential partners: PAM, ACF, Zambia Association of Chambers of Commerce & Industry (ZACCI), FreshPict,

Tiger Feeds, MACO (Agribusiness Unit), NSRI, UNZA, FRSP

Links to other projects and programmes: FAO cassava project and JICA food diversification project, FRSP, Cassava

Transformation in Southern Africa project (covers Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania & Zambia), CAADP

(through pillar 4 objective: To mobilize the large potential of cassava to contribute to food security and income).

Potential outputs, outcomes and results: RNRRS outputs put into use, evidence for innovations system hypothesis

generated, lessons on facilitating commodity-based innovations platform documented and shared, increased

participation of farmers in cassava value chain.

Risks/constraints: Trained communications staff poached by another organisation or prevented from working on

task force activities

82

Opportunity 4: Improving knowledge flows between research institutions and infomediaries and farmers. In

particular building on RNRRS outputs documented in the “Spreading the Word section of the database, e.g.

CPP58: Capturing farmer’s demands and involving them in research and CPP37: Finding better ways of

disseminating research results, LPP28: Helping people access the information they need.

Potential partners: ZARI, MACO, NSIR, GART, CDT, LDT

Links to other projects and programmes: see section e above on projects to improve knowledge flows

Potential outputs, outcomes and results: use of RNRRS outputs to improve knowledge flows in the Zambian

innovations system

Risks: partner interest, willingness to institutionalise new approaches, human/financial resource constraints

Opportunity 5: Communicating to policy makers and farmers the importance of research-based information.

RIU could add value to existing efforts by providing evidence and success stories to support advocacy.

Potential partners: ACF, FRSP, ZARI, NTSC, ZNFU (Institute for Economic & Social Research), ADPs, Panos

Links to other projects and programmes: Communicating Research (the DFID-funded Panos project) could be a way

of linking to a network of journalists who have been sensitised to research into use issues.

Potential outputs, outcomes and results: Budget allocated for research increased; role of information and knowledge

services in fostering innovation and the role of the private sector in providing those services considered in the

revision of the National Science and Technology Policy and MACO policy and institutional arrangements.

Risks/constraints: Policy changes not made or made on paper but not implemented

j. Other issues/constraints with implications for RIU’s success in Zambia

• Literacy in Zambia is fairly high according to official statistics, with around 80% of the population over

the age of 15 able to read and write in English (CIA Factbook). However, informant interviews suggest

that in rural areas the percentage is significantly lower. Since the literacy level is lower for women than

for men according to both official statistics and informant interviews, fewer women than men are able

to directly access knowledge through text-based mediums (publications, internet, SMS).

• In 2002, the government passed the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation Act, which would in

effect restructure ZNBC into an authentic public service broadcaster, with an independent board of

directors and ultimate regulation by an Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA). The IBA would

govern all forms of broadcasting under the aegis of a transparently recruited board of directors.

Implementation, which is to be carried out by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Services

(MIBS), has been held up by the Ministry’s opposition to nominations for the Boards of Directors.

• To reach communities, getting the support of the local headperson or chief is critical. These traditional

authority figures have the power to spread new knowledge and mobilise communities or, if they aren’t

brought on board, to block knowledge flows and participation.

83

Annex D: Specialist Sub-Report on Information Markets

RIU ZAMBIA PROGRAMME

INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE SERVICE MARKETS

ASSESSMENT AND STRATEGY

September 2008

Steen Joffe

84

Introduction

The Zambia CSPDT Terms of reference include an element shared between the Communications Consultant

and the Information Markets Consultant.

This report focuses in particular on the role of ICTs in Zambia to network different actors, the opportunities

for intermediaries in such networks and the prospects for emergence of an information and knowledge

services marketplace that works to deliver benefits for the rural poor. The separate Communications report

focuses on mapping information and knowledge flows and modes of communication; also on identifying the

main 'knowledge generating' agencies and networks.

Information and Knowledge Service Markets (IKSM)

In the context of an innovation systems approach, the information and knowledge services market can be

thought of as operating between innovation system actors; in other words the interactions between these

actors and the services that enable flows of information and knowledge between them.

These interactions and flows are often weak in low income emerging economies, and the rural poor

particularly disadvantaged : Thus, the Knowledge Markets approach:

� Works through existing development initiatives at the community and small enterprise level to

strengthen effective demand for, and use of, knowledge services.

� Supports initiatives that build networks between rural service providers, their clients, and other

actors – facilitating ‘many-to-many’ exchanges of information.

� Promotes sustainable business models to pay for the provision of information, content and

brokerage services through these networks using smart subsidies where necessary.

Such actions strengthen rural markets as more and better information becomes available about the

availability, nature, price and quality of essential services that can make markets work for small farmers. The

result is a better coordinated system that complements existing local knowledge through interactions with

advisory and training services, credit providers, and input and output market intermediaries, bringing

together value-chains and strengthening demand ‘pull’ on research agencies.

IKSM in Practice : methodology

� Understand the existing structure of the knowledge economy : how knowledge flows and what

factors influence these flows in relation to rural/nr livelihoods

� Understand major drivers of change : economic, social, policies and programmes that influence

these flows and the people/enterprises involved, with particular attention to the intermediary

services sector

� Identify (potential) services, providers and institutional/networking arrangements that will enable

these key people/enterprises to be better connected, informed, knowledgeable, and make optimum

use of research based knowledge

� Assess conditions for the provision of these services and networks and help to bring them about

making best use of public-private partnerships and alliances between ICT service providers and

other actors based on sustainable business models that incentivise information flows.

85

Zambia ICTs Sector : Mapping

Policy and Regulation

Zambia recognises ICT as a priority sector within the Poverty Reduction Strategy Programme and the Fifth

National Development Plan 2006-2010, where-in "ICT shall be integrated in the agricultural sector reform

process in order to contribute to the social and economic revival of the country." At the sub-regional level

Zambia has been an active player in ICT initiatives under COMESA and SADC. The UN ECA's Sub-Regional

Development Centre for Southern Africa (SRDC-SA) is located in Lusaka.

A new ICT Policy was agreed in 2006. The Ministry of Communications and Transport is charged with

coordination, oversight and implementation. Within agriculture, the policy makes a number of

commitments oriented towards improving productivity and competitiveness of the agricultural sector

through increased use of ICTs, including facilitating private sector investment in infrastructure and services

in all Farming Blocks and Farm Resettlement Schemes, and instituting necessary supportive policy

measures.

The Communications Authority of Zambia (CAZ) is responsible for regulating the provision of

telecommunications products and services in the country : issuing licences, promoting competition,

promoting the interests of consumers and other users of ICT services/ products etc. Additionally, CAZ is

responsible for administering the utilisation of the Radio Frequency Spectrum. CAZ administers a Rural

ICT Development Basket financed through a 5% levy on licensed operators in the communications sector,

which is intended to subsidies the provision of ICT services in rural and underserved areas.

International Gateway for Satellite Access

The International Gateway is terrestrial and based at Mwambeshi Satellite Station. under the control of the

Zambia Telecommunications Company (ZAMTEL). Both the voice and data international gateways are

liberalised, however a $12 million license fee is payable by licensees; this situation has led to complaints by

GSM mobile companies and ISPs about unfair competition.

National and Regional Optical Fibre Cable Network Projects

Zambia is not yet linked to the and The East African Submarine Cable System (EASSy) fibre optic project is

intended to connect Zambia and five other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa to the global internet backbone;

this will improve access and reduce costs for connectivity, but it is unlikely to be effective within the next

five years. In the interim the country depends on foreign satellites for its Internet and fixed telephone line

communications. There are initiatives underway to establish a fibre optic backbone for national use and in

preparation for international fibre link. These are being carried out by the Copperbelt Energy Corporation

and the Zambian institutions, ZAMTEL and ZESCO. The ZESCO fibre network is likely to reach a theoretical

coverage of 80% of real population within a year.

Internet Service Providers

In the early 1990s Zambia was, after South Africa, the first country in Sub-Saharan Africa to pioneer the use

of Internet services. The driving force behind this was the University of Zambia (UNZA) which, in 1994,

spun-off ZAMNET, which is now a separate ISP Company. However, this advantage has not been exploited

and the country now lags behind many African countries that started Internet services in a more liberalised

and low cost environment. There are eleven registered Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in Zambia. Out of

these, six provide services to rural areas with an estimated 17,800+ clients, these are:

� ZAMTEL Online

� Zamnet Communication Systems

86

� Coppernet Solutions

� Microlink Technologies

� UUNet Zambia

� Africonnect

Over 50% of services provided by the ISPs are concentrated in the major towns along the line of rail where

there is relatively good telecommunication infrastructure, lower capital and operations costs and a high

number of potential customers. Services available for the rural areas include CDMA, offered by ZAMTEL,

and GPRS, offered by CELTEl and MTN, as well as VSAT satellite systems offered by some ISP companies.

VSAT systems are more frequently used in the rural areas than in the towns. Wireless broadband is

predominantly available to urban users. WiMaX and MESH are also being introduced and will further the

potential for rural connectivity solutions.

Mobile telephone providers

MTN, Cell Z and CELTEL are the main mobile telephone service providers in Zambia. Celtel have

approximately 80% of the market, with circa 2 milllion subscribers (AfricConnect pers comm). Celtel and

MTN offer internet conectivity via mobile phones, using GPRS and EDGE, while WiMaX is being

considered.

The access speed ranges from 30 to 160 kbps. To use GPRS with Celtel one needs to have a PC-card (ZMK

950,000) or USB-card (ZMK 1,170,000), referred to as ‘SAMBA’. Cost of usage are ZMK 1,600/ MB and one

can also purchase bundles of 100 MB for ZMK 85,000.

Telecentres and other localised ICT initiatives

Internet cafés and business bureaus offer telephone, email/Internet access in major urban centres; much less

so in rural towns. There were about 300 licensed telecenters across the country by 2004 against 108 in the

year 2000. There are a number of local projects aimed at integrating use ICT initiatives in rural Zambia. The

Zambia Association for Advancement of Information and Communication Technologies (ZAA-ICT), is an

active NGO in this area; the International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD) has

supported a number of such initiatives.

The Macha Mission multipurpose community telecentre, supported by LinkNet(www.linknet.zm), is using

Ku-Band and C-band VSAT for its connectivity services. This centre is linked with the South African Meraka

Institute, a leading wireless technlogy R&D centre, and also has a Memorandum of Undertanding with TNO

in Holland for the application of research outputs from that organisation. It has ambitious plans to establish

additional centres in other Districts of Zambia. Another community access initiative operates in Namwala in

Southern Province where AfriConnect is supporting a rural connectivity business outlet in partnership with

a local entrepreneur. The Namwala project uses the CELTEL mast on a rental basis (www.namwala.com).

Another multipurpose teleentre, at Chinyunyu, Chongwe District is was established by the Kasisi

Agricultural Training Centre (KATC) with technical and financial assistance from UNIDO. This centre uses

50 * 50 watt solar panels for it’s energy supply.

Other initiatives are the Lusaka’s peri-urban Chawama Youth Project that offers of ICT skills to local youths

in the Chawama Compound; similarly the Kalomo Women’s Group in Kalomo, Southern Province. The

Kachabe Youth enterprise that was supported by IICD through partnerships to use ICT in its business is now

reported to be ‘a growing small scale manufacturing enterprise in Lusaka’. Other community projects are in

Ndola, Copperbelt province. There are also upcoming telecenter initiatives in Lusaka Matero compound and

University of Zambia supported by UNESCO and Microsoft respectively.

87

Overview of connectivity in Zambia : issues and constraints

� There are estimated to be approximately 12,000 Internet subscribers in Zambia and an additional

30,000 Internet users mainly patronising Internet cafes.

� The quality of internet services is variable; poor in rural areas. Much of rural Zambia has no

landlines; local copper is poor and won't carry adsl broadband. Private and community information

centres, telecentres and Internet cafés are beginning to enhance access for populations in rural areas,

however rural mobile and wireless services are also subject to outages due to poor electricity

infrastructure.

� Within the last 10 years Cell Z, CELTEL and MTN have extended their services and coverage to

rural districts with technologies such as GPRS and EDGE. However, the cost of using the Internet

through the mobile phone services is still relatively high.

� The cost accessing the Internet cafes in rural areas is five times higher than in the urban areas. In

some cases, it costs between ZMK 500 – ZMK 1,000 to access the Internet (about 0.10-0.25 USD) in

the rural areas compared to an average of ZMK 100.00 (0.025 USD) per minute in Lusaka and the

Copperbelt.

� Connectivity is relatively expensive in Zambia compared to other countries in the region. In 2007, a

typical monthly cost of domestic internet access varied from ZMK 200,000 to ZMK 20,000,000 (40-400

US dollars). The cost of a 1 mbs fibre connection is currently approximately $6,000/month versus

$300/month for a similar service in Kenya. The minimum total investments for Ku-Band V-SAT

range from $25,000 to $30,000, with monthly rates starting at around $770 for 256 kbps download.

� It is expensive to operate as an ISP; each wireless transmitter cost about $40 - 50k and can serve

approximately 200 access points within a radius of 30km. Relatively high import tariffs and taxes

are imposed on ICT products and services ; there is a 5% duty on all PCs and 15 - 25 % duty on other

computer hardware (routers, servers etc).

� The current regulatory framework in telecommunications and broadcasting sub-sectors is widely

seen as failing in important respects to address the challenge of expanding access and provision of

services required to meet National ICT policy goals. One oft-cited issue is ZAMTEL’s monopoly and

de facto exclusion from the sector regulator’s jurisdiction (CAZ). This is seen as raising costs and

weakening competition in fixed, mobile and internet services, while the prohibitive IGW licence fee

of US$ 12 million is estimated by the World Bank to be depriving 30,000 households of access to

telephone services.

� The National ICT Policy has drawn criticism from those who say it should emphasise private-sector

involvement. For example the policy does not address Zambia's involvement in the East African

Submarine Cable (EASSy) project. The only telecommunications company so far signed up to

EASSy, ZAMTEL, is state-run and enjoys a near monopoly over the project in Zambia, leaving little

room for private sector involvement.

Intermediaries in the Information and Knowledge Services Market

In a thriving agricultural sector, farmers utilise a range of services that provide access to knowledge across

all fronts – indeed their success and outlook in the modern world is increasingly defined by their uptake of

such services. In innovation system terms such services and their providers are often termed

‘intermediaries’. The interactions between these organisations form the distribution channels and linkages

that enable research based knowledge to circulate and mix with other forms of knowledge and flow within

the innovation system. The extent to which these interactions are supported by relevant services to enable a

dynamic exchange, and the incentives to engage in such interactions, are key elements of the scope for

supporting IKSM.

It is possible to distinguish key types of intermediaries and examples in the Zambian context :

88

Note : more specific detail on these organisations and initiatives is provided elsewhere within this

Assessment report.

Public sector/NGO Information 'outreach'

� The main government mandated body is the National Agricultural Information Service (NAIS), this

is fundamentally an information dissemination service, primarily by broadcasting via ZNBC, but

also through literature, and as an advisory service.

� MACO extension services including field days with research agencies.

� Many NGOs and faith-based organisations engaged in providing information (Women for Change,

PAM, Envirogreen, PELUM etc).

Market linkage services and intermediaries : technical advisory, credit, business development, agents,

buyers, processors etc.

� Various programmes such as ASP and PROFIT that are operating as market linkage schemes,

embodying a value chain approach and providing a structured programme through organised

groups to train/develop capacity of lead farmers/services providers to operate as rural

entrepreneurs.

� Those operating as technical services and market linkage providers within a specific sub-sector, e.g

OPPAZ and KATC for organics, or value chain, e.g. Dunavant in cotton outgrowing and others in

tobacco, sugar etc.

� Those providing market information services, e.g. the ZNFU SMS (text message) price and buyer

information services.

� Those operating within input and output distribution channels.

� Small enterprise networks and BDS such as via the Zambia Chamber of Small and Medium Business

Associations and the new BDS voucher scheme to be operated through District Agricultural

Business Associations

Telecentres, (rural) ICT initiatives, and other interactive communications services

� As discussed above there is much going on in this area. Telecentres have the potential to be further

involved in market linkage and knowledge services but often struggle to develop sustainable

business models.

� Community radios also have potential to operate as an interactive medium for rural communities.

� In Zambia there is also an (inter)active 'blogosphere' which are a useful source of information,

discussion and contacts; some of the main ones are o Maravi o Mine Watch Blog o Gershom Ndlovu o Mwankole o Zambia Landsafe Investment o Zambia Chronicle o Zambia Conservation o Zambia Forests o Lusaka Sunrise o Manena o Mweshi o Young African Leaders

89

Coordination/Learning

� 'top level' policy forums such as ACF; apex organisatations such as ABF and OPPAZ

� The eBrain Agriculture Thematic Group

� IICD supported networks between NAIS/ZARI/eBrain

� Study circles supported by Swedish Cooperation Centre

� Other research and technology networks

Some Factors Affecting Development of the Information and Knowledge Services Market for Pro-Poor

Innovation in Zambia

ICT service environment

This dimension was discussed extensively above : a combination of high costs; weak regulatory

environment; limited incentives for private operators; lack of capacity to implement the new ICT Policy. One

of the evident factors is the difficulty that the relevant public sector elements of the communications sector :

the Ministry of Transport and Communications, MACO, CAZ, and forums such as eBrain, are having in

coordinating initiatives to support expansion of rural services and particularly the interface with and relative

roles of these bodies and private sector operators such as Celtel and others. The lack of a common vision or

'gameplan' is very evident.

'Demand side' for knowledge services

Some of the 'empowerment' dimensions affecting demand are discussed in other sub-reports. A key issue is

the necessary transition between decades of dependency on public services towards the capacity of farmers

to make land use and production decsions geared towards markets. This change of mindset and attitude to

risk will not come quickly or easily, although (apparently) successful programmes such as the ASP are

demonstrating ways forward, at least for some section of the one million or so village households in

Zambia.

One factor not covered in the sub-report but nonetheless essential is an understanding of the relationship

between the farm and non-farm economy and livelihoods, and linkages between these and other sectors;

also social and political economic drivers influencing knowledge flows. The orientation of any new

information services that may be proposed by RIU in Zambia must take these in to account.

Intermediary Services

As the rural economy becomes more market oriented then the nature of the knowledge requirements

changes; becomes more dynamic and more specialised. At the moment the 'intermediary knowledge

services' sector, including NAIS and the many NGO initiatives, is not well geared up to respond to such

demands; they are generally supply driven and have problems of sustainability in the absence of links into

centres of effective demand for Knowledge. There seems to be a lack of coordination or clear policy

concerning agricultural services (a vital knowledge intermediary function); multiple parallel initiatives exist;

initiatives such as : ASP, PROFIT, CFU, various outgrower schemes, etc. ‘go their own way’ with limited

evidence of lesson learning or institutional development at the 'centre'. Indeed some of the initiatves are

effectively parallel extension serivces and some also overlap with each other. Without coordination and

competition in the market for such services such duplication and a lack of specialisation is inevitable.

90

Policy Environment

The political nature of the maize production system and the related subsidy regime has a number of knock-

on effects for the knowledge market. For one thing this environment undermines incentives for low input

mixed agricultural systems and thus also demand for new knowledge to raise productivity of these systems.

The same distorted environment, inefficiencies in the distribution, timing and pricing of inputs, allied to

information asymmetries, increases opportunity for rent seeking behaviour of 'brief case' traders with the

knock on effect of undermining trust in the private sector intermediary system.

The Other Side of the Coin : Positive Factors

Note : no account taken here of potential effects of the President's illness or of short-medium term impacts

of rising world food prices on the Zambian economy.

� Zambia has a relatively stable and fast growing economy. The recent Euromoney conference in

Lusaka is evidence of the interest in this economy within international finance markets. Within the

agriculture sector slow but steady market reforms are taking place.

� There is long term commitment from donors including DFID to continue to support economic

development in Zambia.

� There is a great deal of tacit 'how-to' knowledge within a variety of existing actors operating within

the agriculture sector.

� Within the ICT sector there is also evidence of an accelerating pace of change. The government has

recently called for greater participation of the private sector in expansion of services into rural areas

and the CAZ rural development fund is allocated specifically to this end. There has been recent

discussion about additional incentives including tax-breaks for rural expansion; also some progress

re: the intrenational gateway license, and restructuring of ZAMTEL. The recently announced

investment by Malysian firm M-mobile in the first mobile-phone handset manufacturing plant in

Zambia, should be good for the sector.

� Notwithstanding the constrained environment, there are some centres of strong capacity in the ICT

sector and strong linkages with regional centres of expertise. The successful ZNFU price/buyer

information services is evidence of the potential for existing actors (in this case ZNFU, Celtel,

AfriConnect and the SHEMP programme) to coordinate activities to good effect.

RIU Zambia Information Markets Strategy

There are many existing component elements of an information and knowledge services market within the

Zambian innovation system. These are outlined and discussed in table 1. Existing actors already have

capacity and access to capital and could identify/implement solutions; by and large these actors already

know each other; viable service solutions almost certainly exist technically and even commercially through

an appropriate public-private partnership. Essentially all the necessary ‘pieces’ exist, however there is

coordination problem in that no player acting alone has has either individual incentive or in some cases an

appropriate mandate or implementation capacity.

RIU potentially has a role to play in facilitating common ground between the key actors in this area. On the

basis of discussions to date these would seem to be : the regulator CAZ; MACO and the Ministry of

Communications; one or more mobile phone companies (initial discussions with Celtel illustrate a degree of

interest); one or more ISPs, such as Africonnect; one or more farmers organisations such as ZNFU and strong

programmes working with them such as SHEMP, ASP; one or more agribusiness apex organisations such as

ZCSMBA, ABF, OPPAZ; one or more of the telecentre initiatives particularly Macha and Chiniyunyu; one

one or more technical service providers with an existing 'clientele' or potential users of such a service such as

KATC, PROFIT; additionally, from a capacity development perspective : NAIS and eBrain.

91

An Innovation Platform in this area could be charged with developing/enabling:

� opportunities for networking/information service that would work well in Zambia to link

innovation system actors including rural actors, technical and market linkage service providers,

research agencies, credit providers and others;

� the basis for public-private partnerships where the provision of such services is not commercially

viable;

� enhanced institutional capacity at the interface of agriculture and communications sectors to resolve

coordination problems and overcome bottlenecks in implementation of existing ICT policy including

'unlocking' the Rural Development Fund currently administered by CAZ.

Capacities required for IKSM in Zambia and availability of relevant services

Services that strengthen capacity of rural communities and/or service providers to participate beneficially in IKSM and exert an

effective demand for knowledge through an intermediary network.

Organisation and prorammes such as KATC and ZACSMBA, ASP, SHEMP, PROFIT, and some of the telecentre inittiatives,

notably LinkNet, making some headway; however cultural elements of the rural 'knowledge system' and dependency issues

mitigate against rapid progress.

Services that offer low cost communications in rural areas.

ISPs and ICT providers but are currently constrained by high costs and weak regulatory system.

Services that help AIS actors to ‘find’ each other, and find out about each other, puts them in touch, and enables them to

identify themselves as part of an innovation system.

'Offline' fora such as ACF, OPPAZ, Agriculture Business Forum and eBrain; community radio, telecentre services and other

interactive services; the existing science, technology and research networks all provide this role to some extent. However

there is little ‘horizontal’ information flows between these networks.

Services that facilitate and support low cost peer to peer communications for information and knowledge exchange between

innovation system actors.

The ZNFU SMS price/buyer information services is one good partial solution. Discussions with Celtel and others suggest

that there is interest and potential to develop further.

Services that enable low cost transactional exchanges of agricultural information and services including cashless payment

mechanisms.

Again ZNFU is one mechanism (to the extent that the service is paid for via the price of the SMS) but there is no current

service operating for financial transfers via mobile phones in payment for services. AfriConnect (and probably others) are

working on an m-banking scheme.

Services that actively broker information and knowledge flows within the market (that might otherwise not take place,

including promoting linkages with other regional/international knowledge services).

This independent brokerage role is essentially missing. The District Agribusiness Centres (ZACSMBA) and perhaps the ZNFU

information centres (not clear)) provide elements of this function if effective as a 'clearing house' for problems faced by

farmers and potential solutions. Forums such as OPPAZ and ABF are also partial solutions within their own networks.

Services that selectively subsidise participation in IKSM transactions through provision or administration of electronic vouchers

or other suitable mechanism

No service available via ICT service but an offline equivalent is starting up via the voucher scheme for business development

services to be administered by ZACSMBA

Services to generate suitably packaged content for farmers

The classic 'knowledge on the shelf' problem is pervasive. The bottleneck in Zambia is probably not capacity to generate

such material, but the lack of coordinating market mechanisms to link people that can generate such content with clearly

articulated demands, distribution networks and adequate financial/professional rewards.

92

Note : within Zambia, unlike some other RIU focus countries, the potential exist for a distributed approach

to the provision of information market services, rather than necessarily via a single provider or service. The

key issue is to address incentives for the private sector to offer services, rather than, necessarily, to 'pick a

winner'. Any public funding or subsidy element should be directed at (i) coordination activities, (ii) demand

side support and capacity development, and potentially (iii) supporting development of generic underlying

technologies, such as mobile software interfaces that will be easily utilised by (farmers/)service providers in

local language. The means to direct any demand side subsidy must be thought through carefully as the long

tradition of subsidised services in Zambia has been a contributing factor in the slow progress towards a

market economy benefitting the smallholder sector.

Note : such a platform MUST be practically oriented and private sector friendly otherwise it will be

ineffective. The facilitation skills to work with such a platform should include technical/business experience

within the ICT sector.

It will be important for any IKSM initiative/platform that it is linked into parallel activities that help to

develop specific capacity and effective demand within rural communities to ‘pull’ on ICT based information

networks. Note : Existing DFID-financed work from Bolivia may be highly relevant here.

The means to implement a suitable, targeted voucher-based demand subsidy for information or information

brokerage services should be explored. The existing ZACSMBA voucher mechanism may provide an entry

point to look at innovations in this area, including potentially use of mobile phone airtime transfers.

Involvement of NAIS may potentially help to reorient and capacitate NAIS towards a more service/demand

oriented approach.

Strategically, the main focus should be to work at the intermediary level with service providers and meso

organisations rather than directly with farmers (except lead/commercial farmers). Graduates from

programmes such as ASP, or PROFIT, or agents within the Cotton value chain, are fledgling rural

enterprises that need support.

The approach should be to work in an action research mode to pilot use of service within existing activities

(or platforms RIU supports) with emphasis on horizontal networking between these rather than

centralisation : e.g. demonstrate cross exchange of knowledge and development of services between

intermediaries already working with or linked to KATC and/or Chinyunyu plus the Macha Community,

ZCSMBA District Agribusiness Centres, relevant research agencies etc.

93

SOURCES

Pers communications : meetings (see Annex)

Haantuba, H., Hichaambwa, M., Nawiko, M. 2007. “Zambia : Trends in growth of modern retail and

wholesale chains and related agribusiness. Information Sheet. April 2007.

http://www.regoverningmarkets.org

Hoorik, P and Mweeta, F. (Date?) “Use of internet in rural areas of Zambia. LinkNet Multi-Purpose Co-

operative Society. http://www.icdev.info/contributions/328.pdf

IICD 2008. “Rural Access: Options and Challenges for Connectivity and Energy in Zambia”. Findings of a

study carried out for the International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD) by Dean L.

Mulozi, Zambia Association for Advancement of Information and Communication Technology (ZAA-ICT),

Zambia. Jointly published by eBrain Forum of Zambia/IICD. 1st edition: January 2008 – KEY SOURCE

Mulozi, D (undated) “The important role of telecentres and/or community ICTs in Zambian rural

development”. Zambian Association for the Advancement of ICTs (ZAA-ICT).

Mweemba, G. Pais, A.V. Stam, G van. 2007. “Bringing Internet connectivity to rural Zambia using a

collaborative approach”. Linknet. http://link.net.zm/files/Macha_Paper_for_ICTD2007.pdf

Zambia Ministry of Communications and Transport 2006. National Information and Communications

Tecnology Policy. Ministry of Communications and Transport. Lusaka April, 2006.

Miscellaneous Links and Articles on the Net

SciDev 2007. “Zambian ICT policy 'fails to address key issues”. April 2007.

http://www.scidev.net/en/news/zambian-ict-policy-fails-to-address-key-issues.html

Zambian Economist (blog) 2007 “Zamtel's monopoly....why I oppose it”. Posted Sunday, 22 July 2007.

http://zambian-economist.blogspot.com/search?q=zamtel+monopoly

IDG News Service 2008 “First Zambian mobile-phone plant to open in August”.07/07/2008.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/070708-first-zambian-mobile-phone-plant-to.html?hpg1=bn

eBrain - http://www.ebrain.org.zm/

AfriConnect - http://www.africonnect.co.zm/

Celtel Zambia appeals to lawmakers for cheap IGW :

http://www.telecompaper.com/news/article.aspx?cid=614902

Zambia raises US$4 million for rural ICT fund : IDG News Service Daily Stories - http://www.idgns.com

Zambia invites private sector for ICTs. Jun. 06, 2008. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/060608-

zambia-invites-private- sector-for.html

World Bank Economist gives Zambia's IGW fee thumbs-down. Monday, April 14, 2008.

http://www.postzambia.com/post-read_article.php?articleId=40296

94

Annex E: Specialist Sub-Report on Policy Context and

Information and Knowledge Flows

DRAFT REPORT D.J.Banda

June 2008

1.0 Zambia Context

1.1 Policy Environment

The Government of the Republic of Zambia has since 1991 made significant strides in restructuring

its economy that for a long time was characterized by copper monoculture. Over the years, and as

a result of Zambia’s preference for an open market system, momentous changes in terms of

priority setting and resources allocation has been brought about. The general policy of the

Government since 1991 has been to provide an enabling policy environment for the provision of

services and goods. The development of sectoral strategies by the various public institutions has

therefore resulted in the existence and adoption of legal policy frameworks. A number of

strategies, policies and key reforms that focus on poverty reduction in the country have been

formulated. This section provides a summary of the relevant legal instruments used in addressing

issues of poverty reduction namely; Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs), National Agricultural Policy (NAP), Fifth National Development

Plan (FNDP), Commerce and Trade Policy, Infrastructure- Transport policy; Science and

Technology Policy.

a) Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP-2000)

The Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) introduced in the year 2000 was used by the

Government in its attempt to move the economy towards a higher growth rate of between 6-8%

per annum and in assisting the government reduce poverty by intensifying its effort to remove

obstacles to private sector development. Such growth scenario entailed undertaking capital-

intensive and investment driven growth in key economic sectors with a special focus on

agriculture and rural development. The main elements of the strategy were to improve rural

infrastructure; create rural employment opportunities through the promotion of large –scale

enterprises; strengthen the linkage of smallholder farmers to commercial producers and

agribusinesses; stimulate smallholder rural enterprises; help poor people improve food production

techniques and strengthen social services in education, health and sanitation. There were also

attempts to integrate policies related to HIV/AIDS, gender and protection of the environment into

all rural poverty reduction initiatives and across the main sectors of the economy.

(http://ruralpovertyportal.org/English/regions/Africa/zmb/approaches.htm).

b) Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) ushered in an era which opened up the whole

process of having rich and poor countries declare their solidarity and determination to ridding the

World of poverty by 2015. Zambia is a member to the Millennium Declaration which has paved a

way to ensuring that world leaders worked together to promote human dignity and equality to

achieve peace, democracy and environmental sustainability (HDR, UNDP, 2003). The Government

95

as a condition to the MDGs remains committed to tackling issues of extreme poverty and hunger;

achievement of universal primary education; reduction of child mortality; improving maternal

health, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability

and developing a global partnership for development

(http://www.milleniumcompaign.org/site/pp.asp). To a larger extent, the indigenization of the

MDGs presents a human development challenge not only to the government but also to the

Zambian people and all its cooperating partners. Zambia’s major initiative to realizing the MDGs

presently has been through the development of an MDG-based National Development and the

undertaking of an intensive publicity campaigns since 2003 by the MDG Task Force comprising

Government, civil society, academia, private sector and the UN System. This includes holding the

established Government and the UN system MDGs Race every year until 2015

(http://www.mdgmonitor.org/factsheet_00.cfm?c=ZMB).

c) National Agricultural Policy (NAP, 2004-2015)

The Government also recognises the need to strengthening and expanding emerging opportunities

in the country and indeed the important role agricultural sector plays in an economy. According to

the current National Agricultural Policy (NAP,2004-2015), the overall policy objective is to

facilitate and support the development of a sustainable and competitive agricultural sector that

secures food security at national and household levels and maximizes the sector’s contribution to

Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In principal, agricultural sector is expected to contribute to the

economy in terms of increased production, sector liberalization, and commercialization, promotion

of public and private sectors partnerships and provision of effective services that will ensure

sustainable agricultural growth.

Within the policy of the liberalization of the agricultural sector, the Government is mandated to

ensure private sector participation in inputs distribution, output marketing, agro–processing and

to encourage agri-business strengthen linkages with smallholder farmers. Under these

institutional reforms, the role of the public sector is being confined to policy formulation,

enforcement of legislation, provision of market information, regulation and inspection,

maintenance of the national strategic food reserves, financing and control of pest and diseases of

national importance control, and providing rural and agricultural infrastructure needed for

efficient sector growth etc. In partnership with private sector, the provision of agricultural services

i.e. research and extension, (NAP, 2006).

d) Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP2006-2010)

The President of the Republic of Zambia President Levy Mwanawasa S.C. in 2007 officially

launched the Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP2006-2010) and the Vision 2030. As a legal

instrument, the FNPD focuses on issues of good governance, improving health, education and the

infrastructure, and encouraging foreign investment. The FNDP embraces the PRSP which until

very recently used to be the main instrument for poverty reduction in the country, the Transitional

National Development Plan (TNDP, 2002) and domesticates the millennium Development Goals

and all other international development initiatives. The theme of the FNDP is “Broad Based

Wealth and Job Creation through Citizenry Participation and Technological Advancement”. The

major focus will be on 1) pro-poor growth-oriented sectors that create employment and income

opportunities for the poor, including in particular rural development, agriculture and

manufacturing, and 2) economic infrastructure and human resources development. The FNDP

96

draws attention to those sectors that maximise growth stimulation as well as those, such as

agriculture, education and health, that best address the plight of the poor.

The primary objective of Vision 2030 is to make Zambia a prosperous middle income nation that

would provide opportunities for the improvement of its people’s lives. It is also stipulated that

both the FNDP and the Vision should lead to the consolidation of district development plans as

articulated by the people of Zambia through the District Development Coordinating Committees

(DDCCs), Provincial Development Coordinating Committees (PDCC) and Sector Advisory Groups

(SAG) and other civic organisations.

Apart from the FNDP being a broad based approach that seeks the means to improve the

standards of living of people and to provide interactive ways of fostering development, The FNDP

is currently well received and perceived to have been very consultative having involved

stakeholders from diverse occupations and all areas of the country (i.e. at grassroots, district,

province and national levels). Its major focus that of identifying of growth areas in the districts,

identifying priority development areas and obtaining key recommendations that would ensure

economic growth and wealth creation is also a positive development.

e) Commerce and Trade Policy.

The commerce and trade policy is committed to ensuring that Zambia benefits from various trade

links. The country is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) at multilateral level and a

member of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and the Southern

African Development Community (SADC) at the regional level. The country also benefits from the

various preferential trade arrangements providing access to foreign markets such as EU

Everything-But-Arms initiative (EBA) and the USA and ‘Canadian Initiative’ African Growth and

Opportunity Act (AGOA) including its participation in the European Union- African Caribbean

Pacific Cotonou Trade Protocol and current negotiations to Economic Partnership Agreements- an

outfit of the Eastern and Southern Africa. It is the Government desire through the Private Sector

Development Programme(PSDP) to continue with the identification of appropriate trade

expansion measures while, the promotion of domestic trade, investment and export issues shall

continue to be worked on using the Multi-Facility Economic export Zones (MFEZ) (FNDP, 2006-

2010).

f) Infrastructure- The Transport policy

The Government in 1995 adopted the Construction Industry Policy and constituted through the

Act of 2003 the National Council for Construction (NCC) which is now the legal body for the

registration and regulation of all contractors and consultants in the sub-sector and enforces

construction standards

The Transport policy of 2002 in particular, instituted the Road Development Agency (RDA) as unit

under the Ministry of Works and Supply. RDA manages all roads in Zambia. It is expected that

the policy, will during the FNDP period help the sector address the challenges of poor state of

infrastructure, low private sector participation, slow pace of sector restructuring and poor funding

for infrastructure, vandalism and the like. In this vein , the Ministry of Works and Supply will

continue to review and develop appropriate policy and legal frameworks that promote public–

private partnerships in the construction and maintenance of public infrastructure while, a

comprehensive Information Management System is to be established and maintained for tracking

97

and storing of the operations of the sector at the same time acting as an information provision for

clients and stakeholders.

In conformity with the Decentralisation (i.e. seeks to devolve power to the lower levels) Policy of

2002, the implementation of FNDP is expected to take on board the district and province concerns

as expressed in regional plans to catalyze the whole process of mobility and quality of life of

communities by providing access to education and health amenities (FNDP, 2006-2010).

.

g) Science and Technology Policy

The1996 formulated National Science and technology policy currently under review generally

allows the promotion and exploitation of science and technology as an instrument for developing

environmentally, friendly and indigenous technology aimed at improving the quality of life in

Zambia while, the objective of research and development is to embed science and technology as

part of the culture of the key economic sector and to promote competitiveness in the production of

a wide range of quality goods and services. There are a number of research centres established

namely Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI), National Institute for Scientific and

Industrial Research ( NISIR)-formerly National Council for Scientific Research (NCSR), National

Malaria Control Centre (NMCR), Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trust (GART), Universities,

and the Tropical Diseases Research Centre (TDRC) to undertake science and related research.

Following the rationalisation programme of the science and technology, two units have been

created. The National Science and Technology Council with a view to coordinate, monitor and

implement science and technology policies as well as to advise the Government on the same and;

the National Technology Business Centre (NTBC) whose function is to promote research and

development products to the end users - i.e. industry and the commercial sector (FNDP, 2006-

2010).

h) Information

Information service sector has as its goal the mandate to increase media and access and out reach

throughout the country in order to promote free information on development programmes as well

as to have a well informed citizenry fully utilizing Information and Communication Technology

for national development. During the PRSP/TNDP, a number of programmes were implemented

most significant of these being the improvement of radio reception in the country. The

Government procured 56 FM radio transmitters that have since been installed in a number of

districts and therefore the existence of Community radios.

The sector currently operates under a number of statutes such as the Independent Broadcasting

Authority (IBA) Act of No. 17of 2002; Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC)

Amendment Act No. 20 of 2002 Cap. 154. It is however expected that more harmonisation and

review and work still will continue to be operationalised through the FNDP.(FNDP, 2006-2010).

i) Social protection

With reference to policies and practices that protect the livelihoods and welfare of people suffering

from critical levels of poverty and deprivation and/or vulnerable to risks and shocks, the social

protection seeks through the Ministry of Community Development and Social Services (MCDSS)

during the FNDP place emphasis on assisting the most vulnerable with basic services that enhance

their standard of living.

98

It is expected that relevant Ministries will in collaboration with the affected communities handle

some of the interventions aimed at addressing the challenges of vulnerability in general and in

particular the social protection. The Government has put in place the Disaster Management

structure with its Secretariat as a hub for coordination mechanism and promotes the vision of

“safety net” (FNDP, 2006-2010).

1.2 Socio-economic context

Zambia is a country well endowed with an abundance of natural resources and a rich biodiversity.

The country has a conducive climate, labour and a landmass of 752,000 square km (58% of which is

suitable for arable use though only 14% is currently under cultivation), and water resources.

Zambia is considered one of the country’s among the wettest in Southern Africa Approximately

13% of Zambia’s total land area is wetland. Agriculture in Zambia therefore is of high potential for

it offers enormous unrealized potential that needs to be fully exploited that can have positive

impact on national food security, incomes for the majority of the population, the balance of

payments account and economic growth at the same time generate export earnings.

The spurred growth in the mining, construction and transport sectors including economic reform

measures taken have over the years led to the country attain a tolerable level of stability in major

macro economic indicators. The country’s economy is for instance, reported to be enjoying a

sustained growth of around 5.5% per annum in 2005 and 6.2% per annum in 2006 (UNDP Report,

2006 and World Bank (2006). The economic growth scenario is being planned to average 6.1% per

annum during the period of 2006-2011.

The institutionalised reforms that aimed at liberalising the agricultural markets especially, have

recorded some positive results. The Zambia-European Community Country Strategy Paper and

National Indicative Programme for the period 2008-2013 report, states that substantial increases

have been achieved in primary agricultural commodities, floricultural products, horticultural

products and processed foods while, the net enrolment rates for primary education have improved

from 71% in 2000 to 85% in 2004. Good progress is also being made in the fight against HIV/AIDS,

malaria and other diseases with services becoming widely available for the Mother to Child

Transmission (PMTCT) of HIV. Currently, over 90% of the districts are having some PMCT service

sites (DFID, 2008).

According to the National Agricultural Policy (2004-2015), agriculture currently contributes 18-

20% to GDP, provides livelihood to 50% of the country’s population. Agriculture also employs

67% of the working population and 65% rural of the women. In this way, agriculture has very

strong links to the economy and is therefore one of the most powerful vehicle to generating overall

economic growth and to the reduction of overall poverty.

However, the growth in GDP has not bee accompanied by a significant growth neither in the

living standards of the Zambia people nor in the growth in employment.

Zambia a country with a population of 11.7 million (World Bank, 2006) is one of the poorest and

ranks low on UNDP 2006 Human Development Index, at 165 out of 177 countries. Infant mortality

rates are among the worst in Sub Sahara Africa. The poverty levels though have improved in the

recent years, 73% in 1998 to 68% in 2008, it is estimated that 80% of the population live in

conditions of acute poverty. Zambia still is one of the poorest country with over two-thirds (i.e.

around 7 million) of its population living below the national poverty line of less than a $1per day.

99

The current MDG progress on the poverty, hunger, child and maternal mortality and

environmental sustainability targets is also poor and a big effort is required if Zambia is to achieve

these targets by 2015 (DFID, 2006). The implication being that the reforms have to a great extent

failed to translate into higher economic growth and reduction in poverty especially among

majority rural people.

1.3 Information and Knowledge flows

c) The environment

The Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives has a National Agriculture Information Service

(NAIS) as its outreach army in ensuring that the flow of agricultural information takes place

between information producers and information consumers. NAIS is mandated to provide an

information link between the farming community and agricultural technocrats and is being

encouraged to disseminate agricultural information of all kinds through the radio, print and

electric media to promote improved farming knowledge among rural households. The well

established agricultural extension department of, MACO throughout the country including the

farmer to farmer and out - grower schemes interfaces being encouraged at the village level are all

involved in the dissemination of information to end users.

Information sharing more especially at national levels takes place through established networks,

fora e.g. where various stakeholders from different sectors such as water and sanitation, education,

advocacy, child protection, agriculture and energy sectors meet. Facilitation of sector meetings

usually rotates between members. Networking is currently a popular media for information

sharing among NGOs such as World Vision and Profit as well as holding of monthly or quarterly

meetings. Information flow is also taking place through community radios and through the

contact farmer approach anchored in the current extension approach. ASP is on record as one of

those very successful programmes using the contact farmer approach on the ground in promoting

“farming as a business” among small scale farmers in rural communities.

In addition, there are donor funded programs that encourage innovative field days and

demonstrations including the usage of (most of which though is dilapidated) Farmer Training

Institutes as outreach points for farmer programs. Technical staff linkages between NGOs and

MACO staff at the field level during the promotion of agro-products to farmers during field days

and establishment of associations (e.g. Veterinary Associations) have started becoming very good

avenues for sector interactions and sharing of information while, training resource manuals,

booklets and leaflets continue to be other sources of information reaching to end-users. Croppack

input supply provides manuals and fliers to their farmers through the Community Agents.

d) The issues

Indications from the field discussions are that scientific research findings rarely gets to end users

for the reason that most researchers prefer carrying out more of the adaptive research on their own

without asking consumers what their research needs are. Even where good research outputs are

generated, the researchers are not in the habit of publishing any of their research findings. As such,

there is no information coming through pamphlets, guides or any such to be given to farmers for

knowledge and guidance on correct practices. For example, it is recommended in some of the past

manual guides that fertilizer must always be applied at ploughing (where maize crop is

100

concerned) but farmers up to now do so after plant has germinated - sometimes fertilizing their

crops when it is at knee high level.

The current policy does not seem to support research in terms of budget allocation as usually very

small budgetary amounts are allocated towards research activities and this poses a serious

constraint to research and development activities. The investment that goes into research in terms

of cost and implementation of innovation is a disincentive to many end users and cannot by far be

met by smallholder farmers. Coupled with this, is the poor funding of research institutions, poor

rewarding system of researches, poor marketing strategies for research and the unfair placement

of research/innovation. Despite there being lots of good research outputs, due to recent

institutional reforms very weak linkages between research and extension now exist. It was also

observed that the isolated way in which researchers are developing technologies without the

involvement of extension workers at farm trials stage has further contributed to the existing weak

linkages, the communication chain between generators of research and end users becoming too

long thus, hindering the flow of information from reaching farmers. The research – extension –

farmer linkage was identified to be a major constraint to information dissemination. To some

extent, this has led to the highly compromised ability of the farmer to making a choice with regard

to best agricultural practices.

Though most researchers prefer carrying out more of the adaptive research, the Intellectual

Property Rights (IPS) that is silent on benefit sharing procedure for instance for the role played by

plant breeders, continues to be a disincentive to research undertakings. Researchers feel there is

no mandate for them to brag about their successes in coming up with research outputs. Besides,

there is neither up to date specific policy on innovation nor a legally constituted forum for research

institutions to come together and share research /technology information as was the case in the

past when a national committee under the former National Scientific Research Council (NRSC)

existed. During then, regular meetings for sharing information used to be held.

e) Public/private partnerships in info markets

The Government policies in place have all been passed through an Act of Parliament and therefore

provide an enabling environment in which public/private partnerships have both the political and

government support to exist. Evidence in the districts reveals that some private partnerships

between the public and private sector with sometimes some element of suspicion have been

successfully forged. For instance, Croppack agents get trained by extension officer from the

Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MACO) while joint field days among farmers with

regard to the promotion of agro-products being promoted by the private sector take place in

collaboration with the public sector workers.

However, there is evidence of such partnerships duplicating each others effort or work in the

catchment areas. Likewise NGOs who tend to work directly with farmers have sometimes

collided in these catchments with other service providers offering similar services. Many NGOs

operating in the SIMILAR catchment areas, do not know what each one of them does and

generally, the coordination of efforts is usually weak among them. Such situations are actually

compounded by the fact that there is no policy that provides a guiding framework to linking

various stakeholders. As a result, emerging practical issues at ground level remain un addressed.

For instance, even though the current advocacies on use of lime in farmers’ fields by ASP seem to

be contrary to MACO’s research recommendations, there is no forum to bring this and iron it out.

Despite there being an elaborate policy that stipulates the importance of monitoring and

101

evaluation of the implementation of the Agricultural programmes and activities to determine the

rate of implementation impact, the implementation of the National Agriculture Policy is weak.

When consultative meetings are called to discuss implementation, such meetings called have been

poorly attended by especially high profiled people such as the Directors.

Through the public restructuring processes, MACO has continued to lose experienced staff most of

who have left for greener pastures. This move has affected both the block and camp levels in terms

of staffing, coverage areas and farmer targets. To a large extent staff morale has been lowered,

coverage distances have increased and very little information trickle to farmers is taking place.

Transport is also still a great challenge in the way dissemination of information to farmers by

extension agents is concerned. Farmers are in fact reported to be complaining that the extension

and the whole liberalization process are not responsive to their needs e.g. the presence of briefcase

maize traders has not provided the much needed Maize market links while plenty wrong things

(e.g. knowledge gap in plant spacing) continue to be done without extension advices.

While it can be said that there generally is no policy constraint on forging of links with farming

communities, majority farmers continue to be constrained in terms of resource such as inputs,

labour, financial, information and knowledge. Farmers still display some rather high dependency

syndrome where they still want to be given agro-products on credit or things free of any charge.

They also seem not to grasp the concept of pulling of resources together to meet for instance

transport costs for their goods and services. Instead, they expect free service deliveries to be made

or to be engaged in out-grower scheme arrangements. Such farmers’ environment is making it

slightly difficult to convincing service providers to believe that smallholder farmers are a viable

group and presents a readily available good market for agri-business. The policy contradictions

inherent especially in the Fertilizer Support Programme (FSP) whereby it is now supposed to be

weaning off cooperatives that seem to have started acquiring agricultural inputs on their own and

the continued display of weak mechanisms for phasing out such co-operators has not helped in

trying to encourage farmers to stand on their own.

Researchers feel that the major constraint at the farmers’ level pertaining to use of research and

thus forging of partnerships is the farmers’ attitude towards technology. Farmers’ social cultural

perception to technology is that of suspicion and both their tradition and lack of knowledge

hinders them from adopting innovations. Coupled with this is the element of technological

benefits or in economic terms “opportunity costs”. Farmers prefer adopting technologies with

short term benefits to long term yielding benefits such as growing of trees. Farmers also tend to be

resistant to new technology the first time e.g. Conservation Farming upon its introduction was

associated with cultural interference with some farmers being scared of the new ways of farming

as they were not prepared to take up risks.

f) Specific Case

Profit facilitate service providers that are willing to engage in models that enable smallholders

access to agro-inputs targeting mainly farmers above just ‘surviving’ levels and are relatively

secure and are aspiring to create wealth or reap profits. Profit is currently working with 3 input

suppliers (i.e. Croppack Ago Services, Mineland Agricultural Development Services and AgiVet

Africa) and in their collaboration, a Community Agent concept has been introduced in Mumbwa.

Service providers work directly with community based suppliers i.e. farmers who have been

catalyzed into being agents chosen based on the following selection criteria:-

102

Steps in Selection process –

5) Gives information to input suppliers

6) A meeting is held to introduce willing agents to the community- meant to seek

acceptance of agents by community people

7) Once selected (based on agents credibility, trustworthiness business mindedness i.e.

traders), agent undergoes training to be able to translate information to farmers

8) Agents encouraged to sale 3-4 products of the approved 7 products and presents

product knowledge to farmers in a community meeting

Upon selection, farmers place orders with agent on pre-paid arrangements and the main focus of

the model is that farmers must receive product knowledge before or on delivery of ordered

products. Agents work on commission basis ranging from 10% mainly for crops to 20% for mainly

livestock products.

Farmers incentives are through:-

• Inputs are delivered to farmers by agent thereby cutting on farmers transport, time

and effort to securing the same

• Product knowledge is provided to farmers unlike when they purchase products off

shelf in shops-normally will purchase without obtaining proper information

• Agents sell products throughout the seasons unlike where retailers only sell

products during peak season

• Farmers allowed to make payments on agro inputs in two instalments first as

advance payment during the first 6months and the other after another 6 months at

an agreed upon period.

Input suppliers have technical staff on the teams who provide the technical information to agents.

Some agents are also into sprayer services so far 17 such agents have received training and are

certified sprayers. This group is expected to increase in June during the planned training sessions

being organized by Profit. Agents working on livestock products are expected to graduate into

Community Livestock Workers (minimum qualification required grade 9). Presently, there are 90

community based agents in Mumbwa. These offer service in delineated catchment areas.

Sometimes due to distances, agents have sub contracted other sub-agents to assist in the

promotion activities.

The common modes of Information Flow include technical staff interacting with MACO staff at

ground level during the promotion of products to farmers especially during field days,

Coordinators meetings being held on monthly basis, belonging to Veterinary Association

established where doctors meet and share ideas, through Agro associations, field days for Agro-

inputs and provision of training resource manuals and leaflets including holding Community

promotion events, event that affords input suppliers get feedback on promoted products,

collaboration through other fora such as through the established laboratory located in the show

ground in Lusaka and during

strategic planning meetings that on individual basis, are held every 6 months with Profit.

Individual service providers also conduct on regular meetings, produce monthly work plans and

may seek the services of a consultant

Through the Fertilizer Support Program (FSP) most input suppliers have been linked up with

MACO and this has motivated input suppliers. Agri-Veterinary staff goes through government

veterinary on cattle population and submits monthly report of activity to be undertaken while

103

government veterinary explains which diseases are handled by government such as foot and

mouth. MACO also trains Agric Veterinary’s Community Livestock Agents,

The main feedback loop in all this is through the community promotion events, consumer surveys

carried on maize variety called bullet-being promoted by Croppack and carrying out contact

reviews after 12 months.

d) Information markets

A number of respondents indicated not knowing of any known established Information markets

but are aware of the direct links being forged between agro dealers and farmers. The Farmers

National Farmers Union (ZNFU) was identified as one such an institution on the ground trying to

establish some kind of a market information system. Through their facilities one could access and

purchase agricultural products via a mobile phone service.

104

Annex F: Specialist Sub-Report on Cross-Cutting Themes

SPECIALIST SUB-REPORT ON CROSS CUTTING ISSUES:

ENVIRONMENT, LIVELIHOODS, POVERTY, HIV/AIDS, GENDER

JULY 2008

SUBMITTED TO

DR DAVID COWNIE, PhD

TEAM LEADER – LIVELIHOODS/POVERTY SPECIALISTS

RESEARCH INTO USE PROGRAMME

BY

MONICA MUNACHONGA, MPhil

GENDER SPECIALIST & MANAGING CONSULTANT

JULE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL (JUDAI)

P O BOX 51097 LUSAKA ZAMBIA

CELL: 260 977 773309; e-mail: judai@coppernet.zm

105

1.0 INTRODUCTION

According to the Terms of Reference, the purpose of the assignment under Research Into Use

(RIU) Programme is to assess the development context in Zambia and opportunities that exist for RIU

engagement and, based on the assessment, to propose a strategy that will contribute, among other things, to

promotion of environmentally sound management practices and production of improved livelihoods for a

range of stakeholders including those of the vulnerable poor. This is based on recognition that there is a

close relationship between environmentally sound management and sustainable livelihoods

Chidumayo (2002), defines environment as “the totality of the surroundings within which humans live

and exploit resources for their welfare and development....poverty can contribute to environmental

degradation…and environmental degradation can contribute to poverty”.

This Sub-Report focuses on cross cutting issues (gender, environment, livelihoods, poverty) within

the country context of Zambia. It critically analyses the cross cutting issues in an inter-related

manner with gender being an over-riding cross cutting issue that acts as an intervening social

variable in terms of the other cross cutting issues of concern to RIU. The report is placed in both

broad and agriculture-specific context around the following aspects that are considered key to

understanding factors for trends of change in livelihood patterns and experiences. These include

the following:

•••• Demographic characteristics,

•••• Socio-cultural and legal factors,

•••• Macroeconomic factors;

•••• Poverty levels

•••• Human development indicators

•••• Other public services provision

•••• Gender roles in agriculture and related activities

•••• Government policies and measures to address poverty and gender inequalities,

•••• Conclusions: trends of change and impact on cross cutting issues.

•••• Suggestions on what RIU can consider for action

2.0 COUNTRY CONTEXT

2.1 Demographic characteristics

a) Population size, composition and distribution

Zambia’s population has grown from 3.1 million in 1969, to 5.7 million in 1980, 7.8 million in 1990,

and 9.9 million in 2000. In terms of sex composition, in 2000, women constituted 51 percent of total

population. Another feature of Zambia’s population is that it is youthful. In 2000, for example, 45

percent of the total population was below 15 years, indicating a very high dependency ratio, which

negatively impacts national economic development. The high dependency ratio has been

worsened by the increasing number of orphans and vulnerable children due to HIV/AIDS and

high poverty levels. In terms of geographical distribution, 65% of total population lives in rural

areas. The rural population has increased from 60 percent in 1980 to 65 percent in 2000 implying

an urban-rural migration trend (CSO, 2000 Census).

106

b). Headship of households and gender implications

Headship of a household is a very important role as it entails responsibilities such as finding

housing/shelter for family members and food or cash provisioning to support the family. In urban

areas, ownership of a house can also provide a means of income-generation, to run a business from

or rent. The head also has the role of being the link between the domestic or care economy, on the

one hand, and, on the other hand, the market economy. In the case of Zambia, three categories of

female-headed households (FHHs) have been identified – i.e. those headed by divorced and

widowed women and single mothers (de jure FHHs), those headed by women whose husbands

have temporarily migrated for wage employment (de facto FHHs), and those headed by women in

polygynous marriages (autonomous polygynous FHHs) (JUDAI 2002). This suggests the need for

different strategies to address women in different situations. Available statistics indicate that the

proportion of female-headed households has been fluctuating – it was17% in 1985; 20% in 1991;

18% in 1993; 24% in 1996; and 19% in 2000, and that the incidence of female-headed households

(FHHs) is higher in rural than urban areas (CSO, 2003). Table 1 presents details on heads of

households by sex, residence and marital status.

Table 1: Household headship by sex, marital status, and residence, Zambia 2000

Residence/marital

status

No. of

Households

heads

Total % of

Household

heads

Male Female

Residence:

Zambia

Rural

Urban

1,884,741

1,241,534

643,207

100.0

100.0

100.0

81.1

80.5

82.4

18.9

19.5

17.6

Marital status:

Married

Separated

Divorced

Widowed

Never married

Living together -

(cohabiting)

1,412,764

57,484

102,489

200,339

107,839

3,826

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

95.7

35.2

28.2

19.2

81.1

46.4

4.3

64.8

71.8

80.8

18.9

53.6

Source: Compiled from CSO (2003), 2000 Census of Population, Table 3.8, page 36

c). Fertility rates

Many factors combine to negatively affect women’s fertility and reproductive health status in

Zambia, including predominant pro-natal values, the tendency to perceive children as having

multiple functions (source of labour and social security, etc). Consequently, the ZDHS 2001-2002

Report revealed that Total Fertility Rate was higher in rural areas (6.9 births) than in urban areas

(4.3 births). For women with little or no formal education, childlessness is associated with stigma

and may a ground for divorce or a man taking additional wives. The incidence of adolescent

childbearing was also reported to be higher in rural areas than in urban areas, which is largely

explained in terms of predominance of traditional values and low levels of education. Teenage

pregnancies have negative consequences, not only in terms of pregnancy and delivery

107

complications as well as high morbidity and mortality for teenage mother and their children, but

also in terms of teenage mothers’ inability to pursue educational and employment opportunities.

This makes it difficult for women to move out of the cycle of poverty.

d). Rural-Urban migration

Internal migration (within the country) usually arises primarily for economic reasons, though

other factors may play a part. Available data on population movements (2000 Census Report;

Zambia Demographic Health Survey 2002-2003 Report) indicate that 35% of total population live

in urban areas, compared to the majority (65%) who still lives in rural areas and are engaged in

small-scale farming as the main economic activity for their livelihoods.

Rural-urban migration has a gender differentiated impact. Men have a long history of migration

to urban centres for wage employment under the colonial migrant labour policy. By contrast,

women have migrated to towns for economic and, mainly, social reasons – e.g. to join husbands

already working in towns, to join relatives, or to escape from abusive marriage relationships

(Schlyter 1988). Since Independence in 1964, female migration has also been facilitated by the

introduction of gender-responsive policy and legislation in favour of free movement of people,

and increase in educational attainments by females. However, although there are no longer legal

restrictions regarding migration from villages to towns or across borders for income earning

activities, women’s mobility and movement continue to be constrained by the cultural division of

labour between females and males. Consequently, there are gender differentials against females in

terms of participation in livelihood activities that involve travelling away from home.

3.0 SOCIO-CULTURAL AND LEGAL FACTORS

The importance of the existence of relevant legal and institutional frameworks for promoting social

and gender equality in development cannot be over-emphasized. This section looks at legal and

socio-cultural factors considered relevant to achievement of poverty reduction.

a) The Constitution

The constitution of any country is of critical importance, both as a reflection of national values

(including gender values and ideology), norms, as well as the fact that all other laws derive their

legitimacy from it. From a gender perspective, the Zambian Constitution contains contradictions

in that, while Article 11 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, among other grounds, Article

23(4) negates this guarantee by allowing application of customary law in matters of personal law

(marriage, divorce, inheritance, devolution of property). This means that the Constitution lays the

foundation for discrimination against women in terms of access to and control over productive

resources. Customary law (which is unwritten and varies according to the 73 ethnic groups)

governs areas of economic and social life and operates to the detriment of women who are treated

as minors irrespective of their age or marital status. The dual legal system undermines women’s

financial and property rights. Therefore, in matters of personal law, the Zambian Constitution has

defined a power relationship between men and women that disadvantages women in the private

sphere, which is translated into gender-based inequalities in the public sphere (education, skills

training, employment, business enterprise development, access to and ownership of agricultural

land, participation in decision making, access to agricultural information and knowledge).

108

b) Gender and law

Zambia has a dual legal system comprising civil and customary law, inherited from the British

colonial government. Examples of options individuals make between either civil or customary law

systems exist in specific areas e.g. marriage, inheritance, property rights, and access to and

ownership of land. However, although the existing legal framework is based on the assumption

that men and women have a choice of law, in actual practice, customary laws still influence men’s

and women’s behaviour.

In the context of this report, land is one of the key natural resources for earning a livelihood. Land

is important for its central function in production relations, and also has special significance in

other aspects of life (socio-cultural, political). For instance, land is not only valued where it is

scarce (e.g. urban/industrial areas), but also where it is in plentiful supply (e.g. rural areas). In

traditional subsistence economies, the abundance of land and its multiple functions (in support of

human and other life) made land a priceless commodity. The dual land tenure system provides

for traditional land (no title) and statutory land (titled). In terms of gender and access to/control

over land, although the Land Act of 1995 does not discriminate on the basis of sex and gender, in

practice, women are disadvantaged by many factors (including predominant patriarchal attitudes

against married women and young women of marriageable age, high costs involved in acquisition

of title to land, and conditions for developing such land) (Himonga and Munachonga, 1991).

Other aspects of life where the dual systems has a gender differentiated impact include:

a). The Intestate Succession Act Cap 59 of 1989, which, although it provides for women’s share

of a deceased spouse’s estate, still disadvantages women more than men as confirmed by

the distribution pattern: 50% to children; 20% to the widow (or all the widows in case of a

polygamous marriage; 20% to parents; and 10% to dependants (World Bank Report,

2004:3). The incidence of polygamy tends to increase with men’s progression into

commercial farming due to increased demand for family labour.

b). The Zambian Government recognizes the legality of marriages under both the customary

law and statute, both of which operate to the detriment of women in terms of ambivalence

in their legal status and access to and control over resources. The dual marriage system

has contributed to ambivalence in the legal status and rights of married women.

4.0 MACRO-ECONOMIC SITUATION.

a) Trends of change

Literature available indicates that since Independence in 1964, Zambia has moved from being one

of the middle income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), with US $1200 per capita at

Independence in 1964, to being one of the poorest, its human development ranked at 165 out of 174

countries in 2004. The downward trend has been due to both internal and external factors – e.g.

decline in terms of trade for copper, economic mismanagement, acceleration of the implementation

of structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) measures since 1991. The SAP measures introduced

entailed, among other things, implementation of a rapid privatization programme, resulting in

many closures of former parastatal companies and loss of jobs, which has contributed to increased

poverty levels. Consequently, Zambia came to be classified as a Highly Indebted Poor Country

109

(HIPC). Even under this status, however, the country still had to make substantial foreign debt

repayments, so that repayments relief through HIPC has not really altered the adverse economic

conditions affecting the majority of the people.

SAP measures have had a gender-differentiated impact. For example, gender inequalities have

been reflected in terms of access to formal employment where male participation increased from

80% in 1996 to 88% in 2000, compared to female participation which declined from 20% in 1996 to

only 12% in 2000 (CSO, 2000 Census).

b) Poverty levels

In terms of income poverty, the Fifth National Development Plan 2006-2010 indicates that 68% of

the country’s population fell below national poverty line in spite of the implementation of the

Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. The literature indicates that the sections of the population who

were below the national poverty line included: (i) small-scale farming households (84%) of whom

72.1% were below extreme poverty line; and (ii) female-headed households (60.4%) compared to

those headed by males (51.5%). High poverty levels continue to be associated with more remote

provinces – i.e. Western Province (83%), Luapula (79%), and North Western Province (76%).

Extreme poverty was at 64% in Luapula Province. In general, poverty levels tend to be more

severe in rural than urban areas. The country profile of poverty levels is presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Incidence of Poverty by Residence, Province and Poverty Status, Zambia, 2002-2003

Poverty Status Residence Extremely

poor

Moderately

poor

Total poor Non Poor Total Total

population

All Zambia 46 21 67 33 100 10,757,192

Rural/Urban

• Rural

• Urban

52

32

22

20

74

52

26

48

100

100

7,002,932

3,754,260

Provinces

Central 50 19 69 31 100 1,097,632

Copperbelt 38 20 58 42 100 1,707,843

Eastern 49 22 71 29 100 1,440,604

Luapula 47 23 70 30 100 852,351

Lusaka 36 21 57 43 100 1,496,428

Northern 63 18 81 19 100 1,371,234

North Western 51 21 72 28 100 637,112

Southern 40 23 63 37 100 1,335,538

Western 38 27 65 35 100 818,450

Source: Compiled from CSO (2004) Living Conditions Monitoring Survey, 2002-2003, page 115

c) Gender-differentiated impact of poverty

Available literature emphasizes that poverty has a gender differentiated impact. For example,

food poverty tends to be more prevalent among female-headed households (61%) compared to

male-headed households (52%). Factors identified in the PRSP (2001) as contributing to higher

poverty levels among females as include:

110

• Low levels of education among women – e.g. in 1996, 29% of females had no education

compared to only 8.5% of males; 15.6% of males had completed Grade 10 or higher

compared to only 8.5% of females

• The very small and declining share of formal sector employment held by women (12% in

2000 compared to 88% by men);

• The higher risk women face in contracting HIV and other opportunistic infections due to

biological factors, lack of access to resources, gender roles that leave them more

vulnerable, and cultural norms and practices relating to sexuality.

Literature also show that household coping strategies tended to vary according to sex of head of

the household.

Table 4: Percentage distribution of Households by Main Type of Coping Strategy Used in times

of need, rural/urban and sex of head, Zambia 2002/2003

Coping strategies All Zambia Rural Urban Male heads Female heads

Number of households 2,005,677 1,329,702 675,975 1,541,437 464,240

Piecework on farms 37 49 13 36 42

Other piecework 37 43 26 38 35

Food for work/assets

programs

13 17 5 13 14

Relief food 26 37 3 24 30

Eating wild fruits only 20 27 7 19 25

Substituting ordinary meals 64 69 56 63 71

Reducing number pf meals 75 78 67 74 77

Reducing other h/hold items 73 75 68 72 74

Informal borrowing (e.g.

Kaloba)

34 29 42 35 30

Formal borrowing 7 5 13 8 5

Church charity 6 6 5 5 7

NGOs charity 7 9 3 7 9

Pulling children out of

school

7 7 8 7 9

Sale of assets 19 20 16 19 16

Petty vending 14 12 17 13 14

Asking from

friends/relatives/ neighbours

69 71 65 68 73

Begging from streets 1 1 1 1 1

Other 1 1 1 1 1

Source: Compiled from CSO/LCMS, 2002/2003, page 125

d) Environmental and natural resources management and livelihoods

In rural Zambia, agriculture is the main source of people’s livelihoods; the majority of rural

households are involved in crop production in which women predominate. Forestry is treated as

part of agriculture in official statistics, thus emphasizing the complementarities of agricultural

production and forestry. In terms of performance, available literature indicates that agricultural

production has declined due to liberalization, which has negatively impacted livelihoods of rural

population, particularly female-headed households. Reduced agricultural production in the

context of rising poverty levels means that for many rural households. as indicated above, coping

strategies among the poor include engaging in hunting for meat and gathering wild from the

111

forests for survival. Therefore, loss of forests can undermine further rural livelihoods and food

security for the vulnerable poor, women and children. Private ownership of land, which is

associated with commercial agriculture, contributes to permanent deforestation because land

clearing involves uprooting of trees and deep ploughing with machinery. By contrast, traditional

shifting cultivation systems and charcoal production are associated with temporary deforestation

and are, therefore, destructive of the forests because stumps, roots, seeds, etc are not completely

destroyed by the activities.

It should be pointed out that forests have other important uses to rural people – e.g. as sources of

medicinal plants (which has increasingly become common due to deterioration in health services

provision), as well as fuel wood. The majority of urban households use charcoal (produced from

indigenous woodlands in rural areas, for cooking and heating (Chidumayo, 2002). Other forest

products that are often traded include carvings, carpentry, basketry, weaving, fishing, etc) with

people from urban areas in order to generate incomes. Therefore, the importance of the

environment and natural resources to rural livelihoods cannot be over-emphasized. It is mainly

for this reason that the Government has identified five priority environmental problems in Zambia

– namely, water pollution and inadequate sanitation; soil degradation; air pollution in the

Copperbelt towns; wildlife (fish and game) depletion; and deforestation. To address the problem

of imbalances between environment and development, the Government adopted a National

Conservation Strategy (1984) and a National Environment action Plan (1994), as well as enacted

wildlife and forestry laws. However, despite these policy and legal initiatives, not much has been

achieved in terms of reducing poverty.

To conclude, the challenge facing Government is that of reconciling between the interests and

human rights of the rural poor, on the one hand, and those of the commercial enterprises stressing

profit-making from agricultural production.

5.0 GENDER ROLES IN AGRICULTURE IN RURAL ZAMBIA

a) Introduction

Women play an important role in agricultural production, providing over 80% of labour in

subsistence production and over 70% in cash crop production. Available official statistics indicate

that the proportion of women involved in agricultural activities as their main economic activity

has remained higher than that of men, and increased from 71.8% in 1990 to 91.5% in 2000,

compared to that of men which increased from 70.1% in 1990 to 87.6% in 2000 (CSO, 2000 Census).

This section of the paper critically analyzes issues relating to socio-economic roles of men and

women and female/male access to productive resources in agriculture, as well as the situation

relating to human development indicators (education, health care, decision-making power,

HIV/AIDS) and other public services provision .

b) Gender roles at rural household level

Available literature indicates that both men and women participate in all types of roles/work (i.e.

productive, reproductive, and community-linked work within the context of a disproportionate

sexual/gender division of labour against women and girls). Women and girls tend to predominate

in performance of household chores, in particular care-giving and other activities related to the

112

maintenance of the household and its members. In the rural socio-economic system, household

chores include the following:

•••• Grain processing (foe example of maize, sorghum, millet, groundnuts), which is extremely

time-consuming, is predominantly a female activity, even where labour-saving

technologies such as hammer mills have been introduced;

•••• Transportation of harvested crops to homesteads and storing the grain involves both

sexes. However, shelling for marketing purposes is also predominantly a female activity,

while transportation to markets tends to be mainly a male activity arising from the fact that

grain marketing is generally done through male heads of households;

•••• Collection of water (for different uses: cooking, bathing, laundry, drinking) and firewood

are activities whose transportation is mainly through head-loading, and are predominantly

performed by women and girls. With increasing deforestation, women and girls have to

walk long distances to collect these items. The tendency is for men to get involved when

improved technology such as ox-carts is applied.

•••• Cooking meals and sharing food among family members, governed by cultural norms and

taboos on food consumption, which tend to operate in favour of males, is done by women

and girls;

•••• Cleaning the house and surroundings (ensuring environmental hygiene) is a female

responsibility;

•••• Care-giving, which covers a number of aspects including: childcare (minding, growth

monitoring at under-five clinics), education (moral education, providing survival skills),

caring for sick family members (within the home, bedside nursing, preparing patients’ food

and feeding them) is predominantly a female responsibility,

Most of the above tasks are time-consuming, thereby contributing to women’s time poverty.

c) Agricultural crop production

Maize production

Maize is the staple food crop in Zambia. The proportion of households that were engaged in

agricultural production during the period 2002-2003 varied by province – it was highest in Eastern

Province (94%), followed by Luapula and Western Provinces (93%), Northern and North Western

Provinces (92%). Lusaka Province had the lowest proportion (21%). A variety of food crops are

grown, but maize predominates and is grown widely in all the nine provinces. However, Eastern

Province had the highest proportion of households (97%) that grew maize during 2002-2003,

followed by Southern Province (93%), while Luapula recorded the lowest proportion (33%)

(CSO/LCMS, 2002-2003).

Production of other food crops

Other staple food crops grown in different parts of Zambia are:

•••• Cassava grown in many parts of the country but mostly grown in Luapula, Northern and

North western Provinces

•••• Sorghum with production highest in Northern and North Western Provinces, followed in

second place by Western Province

•••• Millet mostly grown in Northern, western and Central Provinces with Northern Province

having had the highest production

113

•••• Rice, with highest number of households that grew rice reported in Western Province

•••• Groundnuts are widely grown in Zambia

•••• Sweet potatoes grown mostly in Northern Province, central and Copperbelt provinces

•••• Mixed beans, with highest production in Northern Province (50.7%).

Labour inputs in crop production by men and women

Various food and cash crops are grown around the country, with maize being the predominant

crop as both cash and food crop. Research findings on gender roles in agriculture from various

parts of the country including Central, Northern and Southern Provinces emphasize gender

differentials in terms of participation rates by men in household chores and farming activities.

Women tend to work longer hours than men once agricultural and non-agricultural tasks are

added up. Data from Northern Province illustrates variations in labour inputs by men and women

in agricultural production (Table 6).

Table 6: Division of Labour by Crop and Activity (Values in Hours per Lima) Activity Maize F/millet Cassava Beans G/nuts Total

M F M F M F M F M F

Soil prep. 32 2 102 12 70 10 23 3 63 23 340

Ridging 39 20 - - 30 11 14 14 - - 128

Planting &

sowing

4 5 4 5 9 9 - 16 4 20 76

Basal

dressing

3 2 - - - - - - - - 5

Top

dressing

2 1 - - - - - - - - 3

Weeding 9 17 4 12 6 20 2 11 6 33 120

Harvesting 10 10 - 121 - - 5 9 61 82 298

Total

labour

99 57 110 150 115 50 44 53 134 158

% labour 63 36 42 58 70 30 45 55 46 54

Source: Keller_herzog and Munachonga (1995), Gender and the Micro-Meso-Macro Linkages of structural Adjustment:

Zambia Case Study, page 40. Adapted from Adaptive Research Planning Team (ARPT), Table 10, page 18.

Table 6 above indicates that women experience more labour constraint (time poverty) than men

especially during the growing season. Within the disproportionate sexual/gender division of

labour, against females, men and women allocate their labour time to both subsistence and

market-directed production.

d) Non-farm enterprises and type of activities

According to the CSO/LCMS Report 2002-2003, 30% of all households in Zambia operated a non-

farm enterprise of one sort or another. The proportion of non-farm businesses was higher in urban

households (37%) than in rural households (26%). In general, the most common non-farm

enterprise was trading, which occurs between rural and urban areas (54%), followed in second

place by manufacturing, forestry and fishing activities (28% together). In terms of comparison, the

proportion of businesses in forestry and fishing was higher in rural areas (21%) than in urban areas

(4%).

114

A comparison by province shows that Luapula Province had the highest percentage of households

with non-farm enterprises (57%), while North Western Province had the lowest (5%) (CSO/LCMS

2002-2003, Table 9.1, page 75). The major constraints identified in running non-farm enterprises

varied between rural and urban households; it was lack of technical know-how for rural

households and lack of capital for urban households. The common major constraints identified for

both rural and urban households related to ‘Government regulation in establishing a business’,

and lack of access to credit facilities which means that the majority of entrepreneurs rely on their

own savings (ILO/GIDD, 2003). In terms of main sources of capital used to set up a non-farm

enterprise, statistics indicate that in both rural and urban areas, household savings constituted the

main sources though to varying extents. For example, in rural areas the sources were reported, in

priority order, as household savings (32%), proceeds from family farm (27%) and relatives (19%),

while for urban households it was household savings (42%), relatives (32%) and other sources

(11%).

e) Livestock-raising

During the 2002-2003 Living Conditions Monitoring Survey, 30% of households in Zambia were

engaged in raising livestock of various types and to varying extents: 55% owned goats; 52% owned

cattle; 25% owned pigs, and 4% owned sheep. A comparison by province indicated that the

proportion of households that owned livestock was highest in Southern Province (48%), followed

in second place by Eastern Province (39%), in third place by Western and Lusaka (32% each),

Central Province (31%), and Copperbelt Province (7%). Both cattle and goat populations were

highest in Southern Province (32.4% cattle, 32.1% goats). Sheep population was highest in Central

Province, while pig population was highest in Eastern Province. In terms of owning poultry,

Northern Province had the highest proportion of households that owned poultry (21.5%) while

North Western Province had the least (5.5%).

Management and ownership of livestock by men and women

Available literature indicates that both women and men can own livestock (cattle, small livestock).

Findings of a study on “Women and Livestock Management in Mazabuka and Namwala, Southern

Province” revealed that women as a social category tended to own fewer cattle than men, while

they compared favourably with men in terms of small livestock (goats, pigs, chickens, ducks,

guinea fowls) (Kyewalabye and Munachonga (1993). The findings indicated that the most

common mode of acquisition of cattle for men was ‘purchase’, while for women it was through

gifts or inheritance or share of own marriage payments. The predominant herding arrangements

for cattle whereby women tend to entrust their cattle with male relatives (as a security measure

against property grabbing by in-laws in the event of death of husband) undermines women’s

situation – e.g. decision-making power about sale of their animals, use of their cattle for

production purposes, access to veterinary knowledge, and other benefits derived from ownership

(nutritional, manure).

6.0 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS

Human development encompasses many indicators that are key to poverty reduction and

economic growth. The term ‘human development’ refers to the process of enlarging people’s

choices (United Nations Human Development Report, 1995). Although in principle, these choices

can be infinite and can change over time, the three essential ones are for people to lead a long

and healthy life, to acquire knowledge and to have access to the resources needed for a decent

115

standard of living. This section focuses on four critical human development indicators – i.e.

education, health care, decision-making, and HIV/AIDS, and from a gender perspective.

a) Education

Education (which is the starting point of human development and acts as the springboard of all

professional and technical training) is recognized as the key human development indicators with

strong connections to other human development indicators (e.g. enhanced health status, poverty

reduction, low fertility rates, participation in decision-making, poverty reduction). The level of

education attained is an important indicator of well being and is key to ensuring access to other

human development indicators referred to above. However, available data, not only indicate that

the majority of Zambians including those in formal employment have only primary or no formal

education, but also indicate that there are gender inequalities in favour of males at all levels of

education (primary, secondary, tertiary/university) and, particularly in the fields of science,

mathematics and technology (World Bank, Zambia Strategic Country Gender Assessment Report 2004).

Although Government policy since independence has emphasized education for personal and

national development with affirmative action in favour of females, in actual practice, female

enrolments at primary and secondary levels have continued to be below 50% and about 20% as

university level (Kelly 1994 and 1999). This indicates that Government still faces practical

problems of mainstreaming gender for achievement of gender equality. For example, in 2000,

male literacy was much higher at 76.6% compared to 58.3% for females (CSO, 2000 Census).

Disparities against females in education are explained in terms of both generic and gender-specific

factors – i.e. generic factors (poverty, insufficient school places, inadequate government funding)

and gender-specific factors (cultural sexual/gender division of labour at household level against

girls, teenage pregnancies, early marriages, negative expectations of girls’ performance among

teachers). Low levels of education and literacy among females is one of the contributing factors

that make it difficult for women to move out of the cycle of poverty.

Reduced Government funding to education and introduction of user fees has further reduced

access to education particularly for the poor, mostly living in rural areas. This has given rise to

mushrooming of Community Schools, providing basic education and skills training programmes

targeted at vulnerable groups (orphans, girl children, persons with disabilities, poorest people,

and children with special needs) (ILO Report Work-Family Conflict, 2004). However, previous

study findings indicate that Community Schools have tended to be concentrated in urban areas. In

general, Community Schools play an important role of filling in the gap created through

macroeconomic policies in favour of cuts in social sector spending. Their establishment, though

likely to reinforce class and gender disparities, they can be seen as a response of NGOs and

churches to reduced Government funding to education.

b) Health care

Zambia’s Health Policy (1992) stresses equity of access and quality of services as close to the family

as possible. However, provision of health services has been negatively affected by macroeconomic

measures such as cuts in social sector spending and introduction of medical fees (which have

contributed to the shift in health costs from public institutions to the family, and particularly to

women and girls). Home-based care in the context of HIV/AIDS has negatively affected women

and girls, who are the traditional care givers. Illness in the family is a common reason for

women’s absence from economic activities and for school girls not attending school or dropping

out of school. Not only do chronic illnesses increase women’s and girls’ domestic responsibilities,

116

but they also place them in a vulnerable position in terms of contracting the diseases (JUDAI 2002).

Deterioration in provision of health care services and the health care provision has also negatively

impacted on women more than men, arising from their biologically determined gender needs

(ante-natal, maternity, postnatal, and under-five clinics which are utilized by women). In rural

areas, people have to walk long distances to health care facilities, drugs are not often available, and

health personnel are not well trained. All this contributes to rural people resorting to use of wild

medicinal plants for health care.

c) HIV and AIDS Prevalence

HIV/AIDS is acknowledged as the most serious public health, social and economic challenge faced

in Zambia today – it viewed as the biggest tragedy taking toll on all sectors of economy and

society. HIV and AIDS national prevalence rate stood at 16% in 2000, with the prevalence being

higher among women (18%) than among men (13%) (CSO, 2000 Census). Table below shows

differentials by sex. The recently completed Zambia Demographic Health Survey (2007) has

revealed a slight drop in the national HIV/AIDS prevalence at 14.3% down from 16% for 2002. The

pandemic has a gender-differentiated impact and is essentially a gender issue in terms of

prevalence rates (see Table 7), burden of care for sick family members, (which exacerbates poverty

levels among women and girls.

Table 7: HIV prevalence by age and sex, 2001-2002

Age Group Females Males

15-19 6.6 1.9

20-24 16.3 4.4

45-49 13.6 20.2 Source: Central Statistical Office (2002); ZDHS 2001-2002

d) Participation in decision making

Participation in decision-making at national level

Politics and government are critical institutions because of the central role they play in decision-

making about allocation of development resources and benefits derived from development process

among various sections of the population. Available literature for Zambia emphasizes that

development policies and plans have generally been unfavourable to women’s participation and

benefit (Munachonga 1989; JUDAI 2002). Under both the one-party and multi-party governments,

the State and political party structures have continued to be male-dominated, which suggests a

negative relationship between women and the State. Under-representation of women in national

decision-making structures is one of the issues for advocacy by the Women’s Movement in the

country. Statistics indicate that Parliament, which is expected to be the mirror of society, does not

in actual practice represent reality in terms of population composition (NB: women outnumber

men). This means that the interests of women are not adequately represented at that level. Table 8

below illustrates participation rates in national politics by men and women from 1964 to 2006.

117

Table 8: Elected Members of Parliament by sex, 1964-2001

Year Members of Parliament Total Elective

Seats

Females

F M % of Total % Incr./Decr.

1964-1968 5 70 75 6.7 -

1968-1972 2 103 105 1.9 - 4.8

1973-1978 7 118 125 5.6 3.7

1978-1983 6 119 125 4.8 - 0.8

1983-1988 4 121 125 3.2 - 1.6

1988-1991 6 119 125 4.8 1.6

1991-1996 10 140 150 6.7 1.9

1996-1999 16 134 150 10.7 4.0

2001 19 131 150 12.7 2.0

2006 22 128 150 14.6 2.0

Source: M. Munachonga & E. Mbozi (2003), Evaluation of Zambia National Women’s Lobby;

Elections Commission of Zambia (2006)

In terms of women’s participation at local government level, in 2002, men predominated as

Councillors (93%) and Mayors (94%). The trend applies to decision making positions in the whole

Public Service (line ministries, commissions, etc).

Participation in decision-making at community and household levels

Participation in decision making structures such as parliament and cabinet is a wider national role

that men and women can play. It is important to note that the issue of participation in decision-

making is not confined to the national level, but it is also relevant at the household and community

levels. Gender roles are of three broad types – i.e. (i) productive roles/work involving the

production of goods and services for consumption and for the market; (ii) reproductive roles/work

involving the care and maintenance of the household and its members; and (iii) community-linked

roles/work which involves the management of resources for collective use/interest e.g. water,

forests, as well as participation at events aimed at holding the community together (politics and

decision making).

Research findings indicate that women’s participation in decision-making at community and

household levels, where women patriarchal norms and values are much stronger than in urban

areas, women are expected to defer to men (husbands or male relatives) in terms of decision

making on various types of issues, including decision on what to crop to plant, when to plant,

where to plant, and whether or not to sell surplus crop. With regard to community based activities

including those relating to community based natural resources management programmes, women

tend to be more easily mobilized to provide voluntary labour or to work on community

programmes for food (payment in kind), while men tend to participate as supervisors who are

paid cash.

118

7.0 OTHER SOCIAL SERVICES PROVISION

a) Water and sanitation

Although the Government stresses the importance of providing safe drinking water and sanitation

through local authorities and private sector enterprises, implementation of the policy is

problematic (Changa Management Services Ltd, 2005). Statistics show that in 2000, the proportion

of households with access to safe drinking water was 49.1% and that access to safe water was more

pronounced in urban areas (86.1%) than in rural areas (29.5%) (CSO, 2003). In the absence of

protected water sources near homes, women especially in rural areas have to travel long distances

to collect water for various household uses. Lack of safe drinking water, which mostly affects

people living in rural and peri-urban areas often results in break up of water borne diseases (such

as cholera and dysentery), which in turn increases women’s burden of care for sick family

members.

b) Energy sources supply factors

Provision of electricity is an important labour saving technology (which is more critical for women

arising from their multiple roles). However, statistics available show that only 17% of total

households in Zambia had access to electricity in 2000, and that access was even much lower in

rural areas (2.2%) (CSO, 2003). This means that the overwhelming majority of households,

particularly in rural areas, depends on fuel wood (for which responsibility for collection rests with

women) or charcoal whose production threatens forests. Deforestation due to factors such as

increased human settlements, charcoal burning and commercial farming has, not only negatively

affected economic development, but also impacted on rural women more than men arising from

their traditional role of collecting fire wood for cooking and heating. .

c) Infrastructure (roads, transport and marketing facilities)

In most parts of rural Zambia, roads are in very bad condition and are impassable during the rainy

season due to lack of Government funds for road rehabilitation. The majority of local authorities

are unable to fulfil their role of maintaining feeder roads, due to lack of funding. Poor road

networks in rural areas contribute to agricultural marketing problems e.g. high costs for

transportation of produce by small-scale farmers, the majority of whom are women.

Government’s withdrawal subsidized agricultural services, which was not accompanied with an

orientation programme for village farmers, also resulted in neglect and, consequently, dilapidation

of Farmers Training Centres and Institutes (which previously served as important channels of

imparting farming technologies) countrywide. Although the present Government has recognized

the importance of agricultural cooperatives for mobilizing and increasing productivity among

small-scale farmers, the implementation of the policy with regard to agricultural input supply and

crop marketing is still problematic. From a gender perspective, women’s participation in the

agricultural cooperative movement and travel for purposes of marketing agricultural produce

have historically been low.

119

8.0 GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND MEASURES TO ADDRESS POVERTY

Various policies and measures have been introduced reflecting national response to poverty and

related issues. With regard to sectoral policies that derive from the PRSP, TNDP and FNDP, there

are a number of approved policies relevant to the Sub-Report – e.g. on gender, youth, agriculture,

education, population, health, land, environment, forest, etc. these are highlighted below.

Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2002-2004), which will roll over every three years, is

coordinated by the Ministry of Finance and National Planning. Prepared after broad based

consultations, the PRSP stands as the overarching national development policy on which all sector

policies will be pivoted for sustainable development. The PRSP is premised on broad coordination

and harmonization of various economic growth and other development interventions. The basic

strategy of poverty reduction is economic growth and employment creation, which will entail

improvements in national resources management, sectoral performance in identified key sectors

including agriculture and social services, infrastructure, governance and public service delivery

capacity. The PRSP aims at assisting the poor and vulnerable people in order to prevent, mitigate

against, and cope with poverty vulnerability risks. This is being done by supporting community

based and managed initiatives (social services infrastructure improvements) as prioritized by the

communities themselves.

The special focus of the PRSP is on economic management ministries and social sector ministries –

to enable them become more effective in reducing poverty. Both the Transitional National

Development Plan (TNDP) 2002-2005 and the Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP) 2006-2010

built on the PRSP and have provided the most comprehensive national framework for sectoral

policies and priorities in implementing activities. Both the TNDP and FNDP have focused on

improved natural resources management and have the guiding theme of sustainable growth,

employment creation and poverty reduction, with agricultural development viewed as the engine

of income expansion and economic growth.

Although gender is recognized as an important cross cutting issue that has to be mainstreamed to

achieve poverty reduction, the PRSP is weakened in this regard in that it does not adequately

address and analyze the gender dynamics of the many complex barriers to poverty reduction (i.e.

huge foreign debt, misdirection of public resources, non-prioritization of human development,

general economic decline, HIV/AIDS). Secondly, gender mainstreaming into the PRSP, TNDP and

FNDP have not been systematic and, therefore, not being effectively implemented.

The National Population Policy introduced in 1989 was revised in 2000 to bring it in line with the

foals of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) of 1995. The policy

is Ministry of Finance and National Planning This provided for the institutionalization of

reproductive health rights, safe motherhood, adolescent sexual and reproductive health, and

family planning. However, available literature indicates that although Zambia has performed well

with regard to adult literacy, the country is still below the threshold in the other indicators

including maternal mortality rates and infant mortality rates (UNFPA Fifth Country Programme

Evaluation Report, 2007:26). The impact of the policy has also been constrained by, among others,

socio-cultural factors in favour of high fertility rates that limit opportunities for formal

employment and business enterprise development, particularly for women (JUDAI 2002).

National Agricultural Policy (2004), executed by Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, has

specific objectives of improving household and national food security, promoting better use of

120

natural resources, generating income and employment, and increasing export earnings, and

contributing to balance of payments. Strategies include liberalization of agricultural markets,

support to private sector, diversification of crop production, service delivery to small-scale

farmers, and improving the economic status of women. In order to promote mainstreaming of

cross cutting issues, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives has Focal Points for gender and

HIV/AIDS as well as specific strategies. However, liberalization which has meant reduced

government funding has contributed to failure to control animal diseases such as corridor, which

in many cases has wiped out whole herds of cattle especially in Central and Southern Provinces.

This has also contributed to decline in a traditional source of wealth and social status and,

consequently, to increasing poverty levels among small-scale farmers (Munachonga and

Whitehead 2001).

Natural Policy on Environment (2006), executed by the Ministry of Tourism Environment and

Natural Resources, seeks to integrate environmental concerns into the social and economic

national development planning process. The Government treats environment as one of the cross

cutting issues, along with gender, HIV/AIDS, as it cuts across various sectors – e.g. agriculture,

forestry, land, energy, water, wildlife, population, etc. This has important gender implications,

given the fact that men and women interact and manage the environment and natural resources

differently arising from differences in the traditional roles they play in society. However, the

National Policy on Environment (2006) does not incorporate gender (JUDAI 2007)

Land Administration and Management Policy (2006), executed by the Ministry of Lands,

incorporates a quota system – i.e. 30% of all available land for allocation specifically to women, in

addition to their participation in the remaining 70%. However, there are a number of constraints

to implementing the policy. One of the constraints, particularly for women (who are more

financially and economically disadvantaged) is related to the short period of eighteen (18) months

required by the Government for developing the land. Secondly, Zambia has a dual land tenure

system providing for traditional land (no title) and statutory land (titled), which operates to the

detriment of women because they are treated as minors under customary law and, therefore, lack

equal access with men to land. Further, predominant patriarchal attitudes against married women

and young women of marriageable age contribute to rural women’s lack of access to agricultural

land (Himonga and Munachonga, 1995).

National Forest Policy (1996), executed by the Ministry of Tourism Environment and Natural

Resources, has the objective of conserving indigenous forests, protection of water catchment areas,

and promotion of viable forestry through training, research, extension, regeneration and wood

processing programmes. However, in practice, certain livelihood activities such as charcoal

burning, which occurs in rural areas, for sale in urban areas, are having a negative impact on

conservation of forests.

National Gender Policy (2000), executed by Cabinet Office, reflects the national vision stated as

“attainment of gender equality and equity”. The policy advocates increased active participation of

women in the market economy as well as the promotion of shared roles and responsibilities

through influencing change in patterns of socialization and the sexual/gender division of labour.

However, it is has not yet been widely circulated and publicized, or understood even within line

ministries, and many ministries do not have sectoral policies with gender incorporated. Most of

the sectoral institutions that have incorporated gender in their policy frameworks have not done it

in a systematic manner due largely to lack of adequate knowledge and skills in gender analysis

and mainstreaming.

121

National Youth Policy (1996), executed by Ministry of Sport Youth and Child Development, seeks

to promote self-employment among youth through entrepreneurship development, provide basic

skills training facilities (infrastructure, finance, business advisory services), to reduce youth

unemployment. However, implementation of the policy has been constrained by lack of

Government funding and ineffective management of programmes (JUDAI 2002:29). Further, most

facilities need rehabilitation.

National Education Policy: Educating Our Future (1996), executed by Ministry of Education,

addresses the entire educational system, from pre-school to tertiary and adult education, and pays

attention to current global acceptable tenets such as capacity and partnership building, curriculum

relevance, and efficient management of resources. The policy’s cornerstone has four guiding

principles: access, equity, democracy, and quality. The policy also identifies areas of special

concern including gender issues in education, special needs education, and education for poor and

vulnerable. Strong emphasis on gender and social equity is reflected through implementation of

programmes and measures such as Basic Education Sector Support Investment Programme

(BESSIP) which has a gender component, Programme for Advancement of Girls Education

(PAGE), bursary scheme which incorporates 25% allocation specifically to females entering

University, etc. However, in spite of these initiatives, gender inequalities at all levels of education

have persisted against females, with negative implications for women’s welfare.

National Health Policy (1992), executed by the Ministry of Health, stresses access and quality of

services ‘as close to the family as possible’. However, macro-economic policy and measures (i.e. cuts

in social sector spending) have negatively affected implementation of the health reforms. The

policy stresses mainstreaming of gender with guidelines developed for the purpose. However,

implementation of the policy has been negatively affected by, among other factors, SAP measures

which have led to introduction of medical fees and de-institutionalization of health care provision

towards home-based care for chronic illnesses such as TB and HIV/AIDS. This policy change has

negatively affected the family, and, within the family, women and girls – the traditional care

givers. Illness in the family is a common reason for women’s absence from both formal and

informal employment and for girls not attending or dropping out of school to look after sick

members or siblings in the event of death of both parents.

National HIV/AIDS Policy and Strategic Intervention Plan

National HIV/AIDS Policy (2005) and Strategic Intervention Plan (2002-2005, executed by the National

AIDS Council, define the country’s response to HIV/AIDS epidemic – a continuum of prevention,

mitigation, care and treatment of people living with HIV). The policy stress the need for a legal

framework; appropriate national coordination and advocacy framework; treating HIV/AIDS as a

public health, social and economic problem; Information, Education and Communication for

behavioural change, protection of human rights of the infected and affected. Both the Policy and

the Strategy stress, among other things, “gender mainstreaming as a central element in the fight against

the epidemic”. However, it is worthy noting that the policy and the strategic frameworks are

operating in a difficult environment that undermines their effective implementation– e.g. lack of

legislation, cultural norms and practices, economic hardships, stigmatization and discrimination

which contribute to people’s reluctance to go for voluntary counselling and testing (VCY). .

SUMMARY OF KEY GENDER ISSUES

122

9.0 SUMMARY OF KEY GENDER ISSUES IN ZAMBIA & THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

a) Government policy and measures

Available literature emphasizes the following factors as contributing to gender inequalities:

•••• The gender equality principle is not adequately incorporated in the Republican

Constitution, which is to the detriment of women in all economic and social spheres of life.

•••• The Intestate Inheritance Act (1989) is still inadequate in terms of addressing women’s

property rights arising from the polygamous nature of marriage. Because customary law

does not provide for joint ownership of property between husband and wife, women are

often victims of property grabbing by deceased husbands’ relatives.

•••• Women’s small and declining share of formal sector employment and concentration in

subsistence production (regulated by traditional norms), while men dominate the market

economy (highly monetized with segmented labour , productive resources systematically

concentrated in it, and regulated by statutory law).

•••• Negative attitudes against women doing business or producing for the market, which

reduces their access to development services. For example, Government policy has not

effectively supported women farmers despite the fact that they grow a wider variety of

crops than men – e.g. local maize, sorghum, millet, beans, groundnuts, cow peas, which do

not depend on chemical fertilizer;

•••• The dominant ideology (patriarchy) is very powerful in agricultural production (food and

cash crops) that shapes the roles and work patterns of men and women.

•••• Agricultural marketing policy has not effectively supported women farmers in terms of

marketing their crops arising from emphasis on maize production and marketing.

•••• When interventions focus on traditionally ‘female crops’ for purposes of commercializing

them, men appropriate such crops and get involved in growing them e.g. groundnuts, to

the disadvantage of women farmers – e.g. in Eastern Province and Copperbelt Province

(Mpongwe Districts.

•••• The persistence of the official and general perception that views men as ‘farmers’ and

women as ‘wives of farmers’ reinforces the tendency to marginalize women and to restrict

them to care-giving related production, which has not received attention in terms of

technological innovation.

•••• Technological innovations have not been directed at activities that are traditionally defined

as ‘women’s activities or tasks’, resulting in women’s reliance on traditional technologies

that are time-consuming (no access to labour saving technologies).

•••• Disproportionate burden of HIV infection and care for the sick in the context of HIV/AIDS,

against women and girls (the traditional care-givers) with negative implications for

women’s economic activity and girls’ school attendance.

•••• Women’s lack of equal access to/control over productive resources (e.g. land, credit,

information and knowledge, etc). Results of a gender analysis of arming households may

be used here to illustrate the extent of this gender issue (see Annex 1, for illustration).

123

10.0 CONCLUSIONS: TRENDS OF CHANGE & IMPACT ON LIVELIHOODS

The foregoing analysis, with specific reference to the agricultural situation indicates that between

1991 and 2002, Government planning shifted from long-term planning that was characteristic of

Socialist orientation of the First and Second Republics to short-term and medium planning

characteristic of the Free Market system adopted after change of government in 1991. However,

since 2002, Government reverted to the long-term planning strategy through the transitional

National Development Plan (TNDP) 2002-2005 and the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (which

will roll over every three years). Sectoral policies discussed above, including the National

Agricultural Policy, National Policy on Environment and National Gender Policy, are derived

from the PRSP and the National Development Plans (TNDP and FNDP).

The discussion above has also highlighted that, in line with the Socialist approach to development,

the post-independence agricultural policy emphasized provision of subsidies to small-scale

farmers in terms of input supply and crop marketing. This was reinforced by a strong agricultural

Cooperative Movement, agricultural training and extension services provision system targeted at

village farmers through Farmers Training Centres that were established throughout the country.

The policy before 1991 was, therefore, supply-driven which means that small-scale farmers were

responsive to government interventions aimed at improving standards of living of the people.

This promoted a dependency syndrome among small-scale farmers, which is one of the factors

that have contributed to increasingly rising poverty levels in rural areas.

Agricultural policy change since 1991 in favour of the liberalization of the agricultural sector

meant that Government was no longer to channel public resources to large-scale fertilizer

subsidies, provision of transport for inputs for small-scale farmers, as well as the cost of organizing

a market and distribution network. This has had a negative impact on agricultural production

particularly by small-scale farmers who were now expected to meet costs of services. With

change in policy, “agriculture has moved from a system of State supply and subsidy of inputs, subsidized

credit and stat marketing to a liberalized system where inputs are expensive, credit largely unavailable and

markets unreliable” (Whitehead and Munachonga, 2001). Liberalization has also resulted in lack of

government funding and failure to control animal diseases such as corridor, which in many cases

has wiped out whole herds of cattle especially in Central and Southern Provinces.

Despite evidence that nearly one third of households in the country are headed by women,

Government policy has continued to be based on the assumption that the predominant type of

household in Zambia is that which headed by a male, and the perception that men are ‘farmers’

and women ‘wives of farmers’. This has contributed to marginalization of rural women and to

higher poverty levels among women than men, which are particularly pronounced in rural than

urban areas. In the agricultural sector, women provide over 80% of labour to food and cash crop

production. The initiatives to incorporate gender issues (through affirmative action) into the

agricultural policy and strategies have not been effective.

The key gender issues emerging from the analysis of the whole country context and specifically of

the agricultural sector, around which recommended interventions may be based are highlighted

below.

a) Gender is an economic issue in Zambia, given the different roles men and women play

in both household and market economies, as well as in the managing the environment

and natural resources. Women tend to predominate in agriculture and micro-

124

enterprises, as well as in household tasks, while men dominate the industrial sector and

medium-enterprises. However, there are inequalities in favour of men in terms of

access, ownership and control of productive resources, time and family labour.

Gender based disparities have economic costs to households, communities, and the

country as a whole.

b) Women experience time poverty or constraint as a result of the combination of

reproductive and productive tasks for which they are responsible – e.g. rural women

work longer hours(12-13 hours per day) than men (6-7 hours per day), they carry a

disproportionate burden of care for the sick and orphans due to HIV/AIDS. Despite

this, tasks and activities undertaken by women within the household economy have not

been targeted for technological innovations. Labour saving technologies can free

women’s time for more productive work and their own recreation.

c) Zambia’s legal framework is discriminatory against women - the National Constitution

contains contradictions that undermine women’s rights because the issue of gender

equality adequately addressed due to accommodation of customary law.

d) Poverty reduction is essentially about addressing the issues of power (of men and the

rich) and powerlessness (of women and the poor), which are the focus of the Gender

and Development Framework. Unequal social and gender relations of power are the

main causes of development problems including low participation of women in

decision-making structures, vulnerability to poverty and HIV/AIDS. While poverty

levels continue to be high in the country, and higher among women than men, the

gender dimensions of poverty are not adequately understood mainly because they are

not adequately captured in socio-economic analysis that have tended to be based on

disaggregation by sex of heads of households alone.

e) Gender disparities in human development indicators persist especially in the aspect of

education which has strong connections to the other critical human development

indicators (health, fertility rates, maternal mortality rates, participation in decision-

making, HIV/AIDS).

f) HIV/AIDS had gender differentiated risks and vulnerabilities, with more young women

than men in their age-group get infected and more older men than women in their age-

group get infected. Gender differences also apply in terms of the burden of care for the

sick, although both men and women suffer the social and economic effects of

HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS is strongly connected to poverty because it tends to affect the

able-bodied, productive and educated sections of the population.

125

11.0 SUGGESTIONS FOR WHAT RIU CAN CONSIDER

This Specialist Sub-Report, therefore, makes suggestions that are perceived as fundamental to

making mainstreaming of cross cutting issues (especially gender which unique because it a over-

riding cross cutting social variable) and effective tool for poverty reduction and development tool

among small-scale farmers. The suggested interventions would assist in improving understanding

of gender relations of power in the context of the other cross cutting issues (i.e. poverty,

HIV/AIDS, environment and natural resources management, livelihoods) and the linkages

between the cross cutting issues. This suggests the need for engendering of agricultural research

methodologies and analytical tools for the benefit of vulnerable groups (the poor, women and

children).

The suggested interventions focus on:

a). Building and strengthening skills in research, analysis and mainstreaming of cross cutting

issues, particularly gender because it is an over-riding cross cutting issue, into

programmes. This can facilitate the engendering of key agricultural and environmental

research instruments or tools and analysis of research data, to institutionalize generation

of relevant data disaggregated by age, sex, gender, etc., to feed into project/program

design and planning. To achieve this, there is need for capacity building for institutions

and organizations involve in implementing the RIU Programme in Zambia.

b). Strengthening mainstreaming of cross cutting issues into in the implementation of the

PRSP and the FNDP as well as the review processes.

c). Promotion of investments in technologies targeted at household tasks and activities

performed by women, to reduce women’s workload.

d). Integration of gender dynamics into livelihood, HIV/AIDS and environment programmes,

building on on-going initiatives within the agricultural and related sectors

126

ANNEX 1: MEN AND WOMEN’S ACCESS TO AND CONTROL OVER RESOURCES IN

RURAL HOUSEHOLDS

RESOURCES ACCESS

W M

CONTROL

W M

Land L H L H

Labour L H L H

Machinery (tractors, etc) L H L H

Animal draft power (oxen) M H L H

Tools (e.g. hoes, shovels) M H M H

Time L H L H

Inputs (hybrid seed, fertilizer) M H L H

Education & information L H L H

Technical skills M H L H

Management skills L H L H

Credit/loans L H L H

Finances L H N H

TOTALS: H

M

L

N

0 11

0 1

8 0

0 0

0 12

1 0

10 0

1 0

H = high (68-99%); M = medium (34-67%); L = low (1-33%); N = none ()%)

NOTE:

The agricultural extension staff involved in the assessment of male and female access to and

control of resources came up with three categories/values which were divided into 100% to arrive

at the average percentage for each category. Also note that women’s access to/control over labour

is low since men, especially husbands, control women’s time and labour.

Source: World Bank, Zambia Strategic Country Gender Assessment, 2004:20.

127

Annex G: Terms of Reference

RESEARCH INTO USE PROGRAMME

Draft Terms of Reference for

Zambia Country Assessment and Strategy Development

Background to the RIU Programme

The purpose of the Research into Use (RIU) Programme is to maximize the poverty reducing

impact of the DFID funded natural resources research produced under the Renewable Natural

Resources Research Strategy (RNRRS) in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. In so doing the

programme also aims to increase understanding of how widespread use of research can be

promoted. The Programme will also invest in getting into use knowledge from research

undertaken by others if this is demanded by users and is complementary/ synergistic to use of

outputs from research knowledge previously supported by DFID.

The hypothesis of the RIU is that

an innovation systems approach will prove more effective than linear approaches at getting

research outputs into use for the benefit of the poor.

For ease of reference the key elements of the innovation systems approach are outlined in Text Box

1.

Text Box 1: Key Elements of the Innovation Systems Approach

• Involving the suppliers and users of knowledge in some form of partnership on a common platform

• Genuine and continuous involvement of suppliers of knowledge, intermediaries, policy makers,

“enablers”, all "end-users" (producer, consumer or processor) to assist in the determination of the

innovation bottlenecks.

• Putting as much emphasis on promoting technologies as promoting approaches and processes that

have been proven to be effective in getting research into use

• Investing in strengthening capacities where they are needed in the "innovation system" (not just

R&D organizations but also in intermediary functions that enable communications between

knowledge suppliers and users)

• Developing financially sustainable delivery systems/ viable business models (this often involves

manufacturers, service providers, credit suppliers, and providers of technical assistance to users)

• Investing in an iterative process that enables the organisations within the system to learn from

experience and improve their performance

• Introducing new technologies and/or new ways of doing things in a financially, socially and

environmentally sustained basis

• Evolving new institutional arrangements by which the various organisations in the system operate

128

The RIU has identified eight values that will underpin its work and these are: strategic focus;

openness; transparency; fairness; innovation; accessibility; inclusiveness; and empowerment. As

part of its focus on ‘fairness’, it will aim to promote access to knowledge, participation, equal

opportunities, and inclusive partnerships for all social groups with a particular focus on the

disadvantaged. It will also work to value cultural diversity and to reduce exclusion and the

disadvantages that stakeholders face.

The RIU will adopt a positive and pragmatic approach to the ‘environment’. It will promote

environmentally sound management practices and the production of improved, stable livelihoods

for a range of stakeholders including those of the vulnerable poor. This approach recognizes that

environmentally sound management and sustainable livelihoods have a close relationship, in that

one strengthens and reinforces the other.

In order to achieve its purpose, RIU will deliver three major outputs:

1. Output 1: Significant use of RNRRS and other natural resources research outputs for the

benefit (direct/indirect) of poor men and women in diverse contexts;

2. Output 2: Research-into-use evidence generated with evaluation partners; and,

3. Output 3: Policy processes enabled by research-into-use principles, lessons and discourse.

Through these three inter-linked outputs RIU will attempt to apply innovation systems thinking in

an experimental way to use research-based knowledge to achieve a poverty-reducing impact at the

country level (this is output 1), It will learn the lessons from these and other experiments (this is

output 2); and it will communicated these lessons to others (output 3).

More specifically in relation to output 1, the RIU programme will apply the innovation systems

approach and its values to attain significant use of RNRRS and other natural resources research

outputs for the benefit3 (direct/ indirect) of poor people in diverse contexts through mechanisms

that:

• Improve access to RNRRS and other research outputs ( Component 1.1)

• Enhance demand for RNRRS and other research outputs (Component 1.2)

• Lead to development of enterprises using RNRRS and other research outputs (Component

1.3)

3 “Benefit” means poverty reduction as assessed using the sustainable livelihood framework

129

The general indicators of performance against which the three components will be assessed are:

• Substantially increased numbers of Renewable Natural Resource (RNR) dependent poor

people4 –directly using RIU research outputs in all categories of PSA countries by 2011

• Substantially increased numbers of RNR dependent poor people indirectly benefiting from

RIU research outputs in all categories of PSA countries by 2011

• More than 65% by value of ongoing RIU initiatives related to outputs 1 and 2 (Use of research

and learning outputs) assessed as “likely to be largely or completely achieved” by 2008

• By 2008 more than 50% of likely beneficiaries of RIU supported initiatives independently

assessed as likely to be poor women

The general indicators have been further elaborated in the RIU Performance and Learning

Framework (PLF) at the level of the three programme outputs.

The overall implications of the above are that the strategies and programmes for all the

components of the RIU Outputs must not only show how they are contributing to the output

indicators but they must also be explicit on how they are applying the innovation systems

approach to whatever interventions are being undertaken.

Component 1.2: ENHANCING DEMAND FOR RNRRS AND OTHER RESEARCH

OUTPUTS

The two generic approaches through which Output 1.2 will be achieved are (i) the National

Coalition Approach and (ii) the Partnership approach.

In the National Coalition approach the RIU shall facilitate the emergence/ consolidation of a

coalition bringing together national actors that are already implementing RIU-like activities. The

national coalition shall become the RIU partner through which national actors would pool their

resources with those of RIU to demand and ultimately get research outputs into use. In essence the

RIU Programme shall be owned and operated by these coalitions.

In the partnership approach the RIU shall work through national partners. A national partner shall

be an organization such as an international NGOs, a public institution, a donor-funded

programme etc that are already implementing innovation programmes to which the RIU could

add value by introducing RNRRS or other research outputs including new ways of doing

‘business’. Such a partner organisation would have been assessed as having the vision and mission

that embrace the principles and objectives of the RIU and as possessing strong links with local

level innovation platforms capable of demanding and using research outputs

The implementation of research into use activities shall be undertaken by “innovation platforms”

using RIU resources channelled through these coalitions or partners. The RIU defines an

innovation platform as “a network of partners working on a common theme and using research

4 as disaggregated by gender and social group in RIU plans

130

knowledge in ways it has not been used before to generate goods/ services for the benefit of the

poor”.

General purpose of the assignment

The purpose of the assignment is to assess the development context in Zambia and the

opportunities that exist for RIU engagement and, having done this, propose a strategy which the

RIU can use to develop a strategy which the RIU should implement to make the greatest

contribution to achieving RIU Purposes 1 & 2. The strategic plan will need to comply with the

principles of the RIU outlined above. In particular, it should complement and strengthen existing

initiatives in the country and be implemented through country-based organisations.

Terms of Reference

These ToR cover the work of the team that shall undertake the country assessment and develop

the country strategy.

1. Country Assessment

i. Identify the existing national policies and country strategy frameworks relevant to getting

research into use and pinpoint the key elements with which RIU will need to align

ii. Provide an overview of the national agricultural and natural resources innovation system/

context and identify the systemic blockages that hinder pro-poor innovation

iii. Identify the areas of focus (geographical/categories of people/commodity value chains/

drivers of change, etc) where innovation using RNRRS or other research outputs are likely

to make greatest impact on disaggregated groups of poor people

iv. Identify and prioritise specific opportunities in the areas of focus. The opportunities should

result in impacts on the livelihoods of significant numbers of disaggregated categories in

poor people and/or on specific learning opportunities5

v. Make a detailed analysis of the innovation sub-systems relevant to particular opportunities

including:

• analysis of the principal multi-sectoral constraints (e.g. policies, institutions,

infrastructure, communications, capacity, corruption, gender and social exclusion,

HIV/AIDS, etc) to the identified opportunities in these resource-poor communities and

assessment of their impact on natural resource innovation

• the effectiveness of the demand environment for innovation, particularly with regard

to the involvement and influence of the poor

vi. Make a preliminary identification of existing and potential innovation platforms6 that

provide avenues for linking knowledge suppliers and innovation demanders in the

5 There is a provisional split in ‘effort’ between Purpose 1 & 2 of 70:30 – however ideally choices will maximise both poverty impact

and learning impact.

131

innovation sub-systems and an outline analysis of how RIU participation can add value to

these platforms

vii. Identify potential national and regional partners and propose ways of working with them

which address needs of the poor and which fit the RIU purpose and principles

viii. Identify other country specific contextual issues that the RIU should take into consideration

ix. Offer recommendations that will enhance the learning environment in Zambia

2. Country Strategy

ii. Outline the approach used in developing the strategy

iii. Articulate the strategic implications for RIU of the findings of the country assessment

iv. State the strategic principles on which the strategy is based

v. Propose the key elements of innovation system (or sub-systems/context) within which the

programme will operate

vi. Outline how the innovation systems approach shall be mainstreamed into the Zambia RIU

Programme

vii. Show how the RIU shall be positioned within the context of the Zambia national policy &

strategy processes and wider pan African CAADP process, identifying potential points and

approaches for engagement

viii. Consider ‘early win’ opportunities for RIU engagement in Zambia

ix. Propose the strategic options and underlying rationale for enhancing demand for research

outputs. The options should be aligned with the results spelt out for RIU component 1.2 in

the Performance and Learning Framework (PLF). The PLF results require Component 1.2 to

specifically focus on:

• How national coalitions/partnerships shall be developed and effectively ‘plugged into’

the national change dynamic

• How innovation platforms shall emerge/be identified and be supported

• How information markets (serving platform level indicators) shall be supported and

developed

• How the RIU communication strategy shall be implemented

• How capability change (individual and collective) will be enhanced in all platform

activities and more broadly

• How lessons will be learnt and documented in all the above

6 Definition of Innovation platform:‘ a network of partners, working on a common theme, and using research knowledge in ways it

has not used it before, to generate goods and services for the benefit of the poor’

132

x. Clearly spell out the expected outputs from the strategic options, their potential impact on

the poor and the expected contribution to the more general lessons to be learned by RIU

from the activities RIU finances in Zambia. This should be supported by a strategy logical

framework

xi. Show how cross-cutting issues - especially gender, social exclusion, and environment- will

be addressed

xii. Outline the principles by which RIU monitoring, impact and learning processes and

objectives (MIL) will be integrated into the country programme

xiii. Outline how MIL will contribute to the IRU Programme in Zambia

xiv. Propose how the interests of RIU Component 3 will be integrated within the Zambia

country Programme

xv. Propose the governance and management of the RIU in Zambia

xvi. Propose the principles for establishing the sustainability of the research into use

programme activities and the use of the innovation systems approach can be sustained

beyond the life of the RIU

xvii. State the risks and assumptions

xviii. Propose the process and timetable (including further investigations/visits required) to

develop a detailed implementation and to ensure national and local ownership

xix. Elaborate an exit strategy

Team Composition

The team shall consist of the following:

Managers

1. David Cownie - Livelihoods and Poverty, Team Leader

2. Ben Sekamatte, Zambia RIU Task Manager

Specialists

3. Ebbie Dengu – Innovations

4. Sarah Carriger - Communications

5. Steen Joffe – Information Markets

6. Diana Banda, Zambian Resource Person on Natural Resources and Policy/Institutional

Analysis

7. Monica Munachonga, Zambian Resource Person on Cross-Cutting Themes

Technical Support

8. Jurgen Hagmann, Facilitation

9. Vera Mugittu, Monitoring, Impact and Learning (MIL)

133

Time Inputs

At this juncture, it is anticipated that the input of the Team Leader would be 48 person days, and

the input of the specialists would be 30 person days.

Timeframe

Details to be agreed but to be in the period between mid-April and mid-July (Assessment), and

mid-May - early October (strategy). It is anticipated that operationalisation activities that will lead

to implementation planning (which does not form part of these TOR) can begin during strategy

development. Overall, the intention is to accelerate assessment and strategy development without

compromising design or implementation. The timeframe is therefore indicative, and it may be that

activities take longer.

Support for the Team

The Team shall be supported by:

1. The Zambia RIU Task Manager, Dr. Ben Sekamatte in the following areas:

• Handling all organisational and logistical matters associated with team activities.

• Making formal approaches to the relevant authority within the National Government and

the DFID Country Office regarding the RIU programme proceeding in the country.

• Sensitization of stakeholders to the aims of RIU.

• Formal introduction of RIU to the wider donor community in Zambia through a one page

briefing document covering the overall objectives, and envisaged spread of RIU

engagement in the country.

• Obtaining relevant documentation from RIU for the team.

• Organising RIU materials for distribution to stakeholders in Zambia.

• Expediting the contracting process.

• Securing operational funding.

• Establishing necessary links with RIU components.

• Overseeing the work of the Process Facilitator.

• Co-ordinating all aspects of the RIU Programme design in Zambia.

• Organising funds for RIU Programme design in Zambia in a timely manner.

2. A member of the MIL team, Ms. Vera Mugittu, shall ensure that the team has a good grasp of

the MIL requirements, and shall herself identify how MIL can benefit the Zambian RIU

Programme. Terms of Reference for the MIL person were considered by the team, and

discussed as follows:

a. Provide all team members with the information needs from MIL, to the extent that

these are relevant for assessment, strategy development, and implementation planning.

134

To the extent relevant, the MIL Consultant will be responsible for direct information

collection, and co-ordinating information collection, with various team members.

b. Assist with the identification of possible targets and mechanisms for pro-poor

innovations, and explore these as a member of the RIU assessment team. This will be

through materials review, key informant interviews, and participation in stakeholder

engagement processes.

c. Assess the way in which learning takes place in the policy environment in Zambia, and

consider avenues to support learning of relevance to RIU. Consider innovative ways in

which learning can be supported by RIU, and ways in which efficiency can be

improved.

d. Provide insights, in the assessment annex on MIL, lessons learned from other MIL

activities in the pilot countries, and draw lessons for Zambia. From there, through the

strategy process, elaborate recommendations on the way forward for MIL in Zambia.

e. Ensure that the Zambian logframe is consistent with the requirements of the RIU

logframe, and Performance and Learning Framework provided by MIL (December

2007).

f. Engage in the assessment and country strategy processes in such a way that support

ownership among those engaged in the RIU Programme in Zambia. In addition,

through involvement in this process, the consultant will support the overall objectives

of MIL.

g. Review of the requirements of the assessment and strategy development documents

noted above, and support those aspects of the process relevant to MIL.

h. Provide a brief specialist sub-report for the Assessment Report.

i. Contribute comments into the Assessment Report itself from the perspective of MIL.

j. Work with other team members, including the Zambian consultants, to ensure the

integration of MIL concepts into team activities.

Overall, the intended result of this engagement with MIL is to support the effective design

of MIL activities in Zambia, and help meet MIL information needs as possible during

assessment and country strategy development.

3. The International Process Facilitator, Dr. Jurgen Hagmann, shall guide the participatory

interactions between the team and national stakeholders in ways that initiate the development

of stakeholder ownership. As relevant, he will prepare written inputs in support of the

assessment and strategy development documents, and arrange documentation of participatory

interactions. The TOR for the International Process Facilitator are, in part, dependent on how

the process itself emerges over the duration of design. It is nevertheless anticipated that these

will include the following:

a. Support the activities of the Zambian Project Facilitator.

b. Oversee organisation of all conferences and workshops. This shall include both

logistical as well as substantive matters, in the latter respect referring to attaining the

objectives of RIU around stakeholder engagement.

135

c. The stakeholder consultative process must focus on meeting the objectives of RIU,

ensuring that the process yields a sound basis for making decisions about coalitions

and platforms. Care must be taken not to accelerate the stakeholder engagement

process such that it undermines the effectiveness of RIU in Zambia. The stakeholder

consultation process must therefore be driven by the needs of the programme, and be

timed to meet the needs of the programme in this respect.

d. Organise all note-taking and report submission associated with all conferences and

workshops.

e. Assist the team with various strategic planning activities.

Process during and after the country assessment and strategy development

General

• Initial review of the proposed way forward by NR International (12 May).

• Initial review of the key elements of the country assessment, aspects of the strategy, and the

proposed way forward by the Innovations Resources Group (IRG) (13 May).

• Discussion of lessons learned from other countries on the way forward with Zambia with

the IRG (13 May).

Assessment Report

• Review of the Assessment Report by key RIU Programme officers.

• Review of the Assessment Report by the IRG.

• Review of the Assessment Report by the SMT.

• Refinement of the Assessment Report following receipt of comments from RIU Programme

officers and the IRG.

Country Strategy

• Review of the Country Strategy by key RIU Programme officers.

• Review of the Country Strategy by the IRG.

• Refinement of the Country Strategy following receipt of comments from RIU Programme

officers and the IRG.

• Presentation of the Country Strategy to the SMT.

• Submission of the Country Strategy to the SMT for review.

• Review of the Country Strategy by the SMT.

• Feedback on the Country Strategy from the SMT.

• Finalisation of the Country Strategy to address SMT feedback.

• Submission of the Final Country Strategy.

Reporting

The team shall report to the Component 1.2 Task Manager.

136

Initially, a series of drafts of the Assessment Report will be prepared and submitted for

consideration, with initial drafts considered by the Country Assessment and Strategy

Development Team, and thereafter by RIU management through the Component 1.2 Task

Manager. The Assessment Report shall be reviewed by the Senior Management Team (SMT) and

the Innovation Resource Group (IRG). Following receipt of comments from the SMT and the IRG,

the Assessment Report will be finalised. The Assessment Report does not need to be accepted in

final version prior to work beginning on the Country Strategy.

A separate Country Strategy Report will be prepared and submitted for consideration, with initial

drafts considered by the Country Assessment and Strategy Development Team, and thereafter by

RIU management through the Component 1.2 Task Manager. The Country Strategy Report shall

be reviewed by the Senior Management Team (SMT) and the Innovation Resource Group (IRG).

Following receipt of comments from the SMT and the IRG, the Country Strategy Report will be

finalised.

Following acceptance of the two reports, the two will be merged into a single document. This

single document shall be no longer than 40 pages, comprising approximately 25 pages for the

assessment component, and 15 pages for the strategy. It is possible that this will mean shortening

each of the two separate reports for merger, at which time new annexes would be created to

include this information.

137

General Terms of Reference for the Team

1. Each team member will make contributions towards relevant sections of the Assessment

Report. This will be provided, as possible, directly into electronic copies of the report. Draft

inputs are due by mid-June, and final inputs by the end of June, following the key informant

workshop.

2. Each team member will prepare a specialist sub-report as an annex to the Assessment Report.

Draft inputs are due by late June, with final inputs by mid-July.

3. Each team member will make contributions towards relevant sections of the Country Strategy.

This will be provided, as possible, directly into electronic copies of the report. Draft inputs are

due by mid-July, with final inputs by the end of August. This will include assisting with some

aspects of operationalisation of the strategy, associated with advice and inputs on:

a. The establishment and operations of the Secretariat.

b. Advice on the establishment of a National Innovations Coalition (NIC).

c. The establishment and operations of the NIC (if one is established).

d. The identification of activities for the Process Facilitator for implementation (with

particular inputs from MIL).

e. The elaboration of platforms as possible prior to development of the

implementation plan.

4. Each team member will prepare a bibliography of documents consulted, using the format

provided by the Team Leader in May.

5. Each team member will prepare a list of interviews conducted.

6. Each team member will prepare brief notes from interviewed conducted.

7. Each team member will support the work of the two Zambian consultants by advising on

information needs, strategies to collect data, identification of gaps, and offering direct support

to the consultants as possible.

Terms of Reference for the Zambia Assessment and Strategy Development Team Leader and

Poverty and Livelihoods Specialist (David Cownie)

1. In consultation with the C1.2 Task Manager and the RIU Zambia Task Manager (1) identify

consultants for the design team and (ii) develop the Terms of Reference for the Team members

2. Develop the approach for the assessment and strategy development process

3. Lead the team in:

i. Planning the assessment and strategy development process

ii. Undertaking the assessment

iii. Conceptualising the strategy

iv. Developing the strategy

v. Drafting the reports at the different stages

vi. Presenting the draft reports to the in-country stakeholders, the IRG and the SMT

138

As the Social Scientist on the team, ensure that:

vii. socio-economic aspects (especially gender and poverty) are mainstreamed in the

assessment

viii. formulate the strategy on how socio-economic considerations should be addressed

in the Zambia Programme

Terms of Reference for the Innovation Systems Specialist (Ebbie Dengu)

The innovation systems approach is central to the RIU Programme. The primary roll of the

Innovation advisory is to strengthen all aspects of “innovation thinking” within the Zambia

assessment and strategy. The advisor will:

1. With the backstopping of the C1.2 Task Manager and the RIU Southern Africa Task Manager

ensure that the whole team translates innovation system thinking in all aspects of the

assessment and strategy. This shall involve identifying and providing access to relevant

literature on innovation for the use of the team and the stakeholders

2. Undertake a general mapping of the national innovation context for pro-poor natural

resources-based development in Zambia

3. Assess at the general level the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for enhancing

the use of natural resources for pro-poor innovation

4. Outline a possible future trajectory of the innovation systems in Zambia

5. Participate in the process of identifying the opportunities for intervening in the innovation

system in ways that can, within the RIU timeframe, generate the maximum benefits for the

poor and especially strengthen the demand side for research knowledge

6. Participate in prioritisation of the opportunities identified and in particular provide the

innovation systems perspective in the process

7. For the priority opportunities identified lead in deepening the innovation sub-system

pertinent to them and identifying areas for development of innovation platforms

8. Participate in the conceptualisation and developing an overarching strategy for the

approaches that should be used to bring about the emergence of institutional arrangements

that can be effective in nurturing an innovation systems approach to enhancing demand for

RNRRS and other research outputs in the Zambian context

9. In the stakeholder interactions that the team may hold, ensure that participants develop an

adequate and shared understanding of the innovation systems approach

10. Work closely with the Zambian resource person on natural resources and policy/institutional

analysis and produce a joint assessment report on the policy, institutional arrangements and

innovation systems for pro-poor natural resources-based development in Zambia

139

Terms of Reference for the Communications and the Information and knowledge services

markets Consultants (Sarah Carriger and Steen Joffe, respectively)

The RIU has a specific definition for Information and Knowledge Service Markets (IM) which is:

Information and Knowledge Service Markets are financially (and otherwise)

sustainable arrangements to enable many-to-many exchanges of information and

knowledge for innovation based on public/private market making collaborations and

dynamic private sector business and ICT service models.

The programme aims to show how information markets can be strengthened, by exploring the

following hypothesis:

Information and knowledge services that will support programme-poor innovation

can be stimulated through market-making arrangements and improved financial (and

other) incentives.

The RIU also has a communication strategy that has been agreed with the Client (DFID). This

major cross-cutting strategy aims to demonstrate how supporting improved access to (research)

information and use of appropriate communication channels by infomediaries, combined with

addressing the incentives for demanding information by users can stimulate wide-scale uptake of

research outputs. This approach includes elements of improved marketing of appropriately

packaged research products for discreet audiences including practitioners, decision makers and

the general public and the use of innovative channels for reaching large numbers of resource-poor

communities and associated networks.

The scoping work on communication and IM should be seen as components of the wider Zambia

agricultural innovation systems. The assessment of the wider system maps relevant actors and

initiatives from the perspective of potential coalitions /partnerships and innovation platforms. The

communication and Information markets analyses have a similar starting point but focus explicitly

on all factors that influence the flows of information and knowledge between these actors. The

analysis embraces both ‘enabling’ institutional factors (and lack of them) including the transaction

costs of information exchanges and structural aspects of the agricultural knowledge economy; and

the institutional arrangements by which information and knowledge flows within the AIS. Within

this framework, the IM and Communications Consultants on the team shall have the following

TORs:

Shared TORs

1. Mapping the main actors, national potential and existing capacity for multi-actor

communication and IM relating to agricultural innovation relevant to the poor. In addition

to the traditional channels, he should make special effort to look for channels and

140

partnerships that may not be obvious or currently operating in the market, but could have

potential to do so i.e. look for innovators.

2. Through consultations with a range of stakeholders including but not limited to key public

and private agencies involved in or supporting research & technology generation,

extension and other rural services, (rural) telecommunications and ICTs, as well as

potential intermediaries, and demand-side farmer/community based organizations:

i. Identify the means by which different elements of the agricultural innovation

system ‘talk to each other’ and exchange information and knowledge, and identify

the constraints and opportunities in doing this.

ii. Identify the linkages that exist between the various actors and the rural

communities and public and private rural development initiatives

iii. Identify and characterise the communications sector, the current trends and factors

influencing its development.

iv. Identify the ‘Knowledge generators’: public and private research and higher

education bodies, and the regional/international frameworks/networks within

which they operate.

v. Identify the public and private intermediary ‘information and knowledge service

providers’ (infomediaries) and the constraints and opportunities for them to engage

in information markets

vi. Collect information on other relevant aspects to IM that should be taken into

consideration in developing a communication and an IM strategy for Zambia

3. Produce a background report on the communications and information market context in

Zambia based on the information collected in the activities under points 1 and 2 above.

Specific TORs for the Information Markets Consultant

1. Contribute the information markets perspective during stakeholder interactions that may be

organized as part of the assessment and strategy design process and in general lead the

interactions with stakeholders that are aimed at identifying the predominant blockages/gaps

and opportunities for information markets.

2. Analyse the issues identified within the background assessment (Shared ToR, above) and distil

specific (potential) opportunities for RIU and Zambian stakeholders to be further validated and

worked up during the Strategy development phase. Based on this analysis, contribute towards

relevant sections of the Country Assessment Report and also prepare a specialist sub-report as

an Annex to the Assessment.

3. Recommend a strategy that the RIU should adopt for IM in Zambia. The strategy should be

consistent with the RIU definition of IM and also contribute to validating/ nullifying the RIU

hypothesis on IM. It should also be aligned with the policies of the Government of Zambia. The

strategy should be integrated and consistent with the broader innovation systems approach

and contributions of other specialists. It should aim to be no more than 2 pages in length, but

may be associated with detailed annexes.

141

4. Provide technical inputs and supervision as may be needed in the area of information markets

relating to contributions of Zambian resource persons.

5. Take part in ongoing team and stakeholder interactions as may be needed (consistent with

availability) in order to see the Assessment and Strategy through in to a viable agreed

Programme ready to proceed to detailed implementation planning.

Specific TOR for the Communications Consultant

1. Contribute the communication perspective during stakeholder interactions that may be

organized as part of the assessment and strategy design process and in general lead the

interactions with stakeholders that are aimed at identifying the predominant blockages/ gaps

and opportunities for communication

2. Produce a communication assessment report that analyses the communications issues

identified within the background report (Shared ToR, above) and identifies specific (potential)

opportunities to:

a. Add value to existing activities by increasing the capacity of infomediaries to source

and package information, documenting and publicising successful demand-driven

models, and encouraging improved communication between innovation system actors.

b. Identify partners for communicating RNRSS outputs to potential users – quick wins

which can fuel interest in the programme.

c. Raise awareness of RIU activities and the innovation system and information markets

approach.

3. Recommend a strategy that the RIU should adopt for communication in Zambia. The strategy

should be integrated with the larger RIU Zambia Strategy, particularly the information

markets component, and should be consistent with the global RIU communication strategy and

with the policies of the Government of Zambia. The strategy should not be more than 2 pages

in the main text but may be associated with the detailed annex in 2 above.

4. Take part in ongoing team and stakeholder interactions as needed (consistent with availability)

in order to see the Assessment and Strategy through in to a viable agreed Programme ready to

proceed to detailed implementation planning.

5. Provide inputs into the main Assessment Report and the main Country Strategy.

Terms of Reference Zambian Resource Person on Natural Resources and Policies/Institutions

Be a resource for all the team on:

1. The current status of national agricultural and natural resources system in Zambia including

relevant policies, strategies, programmes and institutional landscape for agricultural and

natural resources research and development

2. Identification of key actors in the agricultural and natural resources innovation system that

services the poor

142

3. Identifying, collecting and participating in the review of key documents relevant to agriculture

and natural resources development

4. Initial validation of the assessment and strategy from a natural resources perspective

5. Interacting with key stakeholders in the agricultural natural resources sectors

6. Political and socio-economic assessment of the Zambian innovation system

7. Identification of key policies, trends and strategies for socio-economic development in the

context of supporting pro-poor innovation

8. Identifying, collecting and participating in the review of key documents relevant to Zambian

national development policies, strategies and programmes

9. Linking with policy makers and the development community

10. Initial validation of the assessment and strategy from a policy and socio-economic perspective

Interactions with key stakeholders

11. Help organise and conduct 10-15 key informant interviews

12. Assist with one district-level field visit

13. Any other duties as may be assigned by the Team Leader

In addition, the Consultant will also prepare additional inputs associated with the following:

14. Provide an overview of the development context in the country

15. To the extent that data are available, indicate the extent to which rural producers are receiving

services, are linked to markets, and provide information on similar variables

16. Outline any challenges that may face RIU in terms of issues such as dependency, the lack of

space for local initiative, and challenges facing working directly with rural households

17. Outline any opportunities that RIU may support in terms of local initiatives

18. Give an overview of the socio-economic and environmental aspects of the assessment

19. Review the Assessment Report and the Country Strategy with an eye to environmental issues

20. Help organise and conduct 10-15 key informant interviews. The focus should be on NGOs

with an eye towards how RIU can link with NGOs as possible partners to ensure that the poor

and disenfranchised are engaged in platforms as partners with influence

National Resource Person on Cross-Cutting Issues (Gender, Poverty and Livelihoods)

1. Assemble relevant materials and provide electronic and hard copies to the Team Leader

(checked against the documents already held by the team)

2. Provide an overview of rural livelihoods, and the diversity of livelihoods across the country. It

is especially important to ensure that the report includes a discussion of changes over time,

and what the current situation is

3. Outline gender roles in terms of rural livelihoods, and indicate diversity in this respect across

the country

143

4. Describe linkages between agriculture and other aspects of rural livelihoods (e.g., forestry,

community-based natural resource management, eco-tourism, environment, small enterprises,

trading, rural-urban linkages and the formal economy, etc.)

5. Identify key trends, polices and strategies relating to gender, poverty and the environment

6. Identify and collect key documents relevant to gender, poverty, environment and rural

livelihoods

7. Prepare a specialist sub-report on cross-cutting issues

8. Review the Assessment Report and the Country Strategy with an eye to gender, poverty, and

rural livelihoods issues

9. Any other duties as may be assigned by the Team Leader