2012 ECA Baseline Survey Report Barue Districe MZ - 25 10 12

0
BEIRA AGRICULTURAL GROWTH CORRIDOR

Baseline Survey for the Commercialisation of
Small Scale Agriculture (ECA) Programme in
Barue District, Mozambique.

BASELINE REPORT
August 2012

AEMA Development Consultants:-
B.T. Hanyani-Mlambo
Quisito Bastos Gimo
Charity Nyasha Dangwa

1
Acknowledgements

The baseline information, analysis, updates on achievements to date, and recommendations
contained in this report have been contributed by many stakeholders directly or indirectly
involved in the Commercialization of Small Scale Agriculture (ECA) Programme. The consultants
would like to thank the Beira Agricultural Growth Corridor (BAGC) for initiating and supporting
this baseline survey. Sincere gratitude also goes to the ECA programme staff, Agricultural
Development Company (AgDevco), the World Food Programme, financial institutions, input
suppliers, commodity buyers, government officials, and producers in Barue District for their
initiatives, contributions and feedback during both the data collection period and the presentation
of preliminary findings.

The views expressed in this report, however, are those of the consultants, and do not necessarily
represent the views of BAGC and/or ECA.

A list of all the consulted informants is provided at the end of this report as an annex.

2
Table of Contents

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................. 4
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................... 5
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 10
1.1 Background to the ECA Programme ...................................................................................................................... 10
1.2 Baseline Purpose and Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 10
2. Methodology and Baseline Strategy .............................................................................................................................. 12
2.1 Approach and Framework ......................................................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.3 Site Selection and Sampling ...................................................................................................................................... 14
2.4 Methodological Challenges ........................................................................................................................................ 15
3. ECA Project Participation .................................................................................................................................................. 16
3.1 Structure and Management of the ECA Project................................................................................................. 16
3.2 Participation of Small Scale Farmers .................................................................................................................... 16
3.3 Characterization of Growers on the ECA Programme.................................................................................... 17
4. Associations and Group Dynamics ................................................................................................................................ 20
4.1 Grower Membership to Production Groups ....................................................................................................... 20
4.2 Organization, Group Dynamics and Cohesion ................................................................................................... 20
4.3 Integration with Other Farmers Organizations ............................................................................................... 21
5. Traditional Crop Production and Marketing ............................................................................................................. 22
5.1 Preamble ........................................................................................................................................................................... 22
5.2 Historical Crop Production Trends ........................................................................................................................ 22
5.2.1 Type of Crops, Yields and Production Volumes ............................................................................................ 22
5.2.2 Traditional Crop Production Practices .......................................................................................................... 22
5.2.3 Sources and Costs of Inputs ................................................................................................................................ 22
5.3 Crop Marketing Systems from the Past ................................................................................................................ 23
5.3.1 Marketing Arrangements .................................................................................................................................... 23
5.3.2 Marketed Volumes and Proportions ................................................................................................................ 24
5.3.3 Producer Prices and Margins ............................................................................................................................. 24
6. Technical Assistance and Backstopping ...................................................................................................................... 26
6.1 Technical Assistance before the ECA Project ..................................................................................................... 26
6.2 Training and Extension Support under ECA ...................................................................................................... 26
7. Credit and Market Support ............................................................................................................................................... 29
7.1 Credit and Market Support Prior to the ECA Project ...................................................................................... 29
7.2 ECA Credit, Finance and Input Support ............................................................................................................... 29
7.3 ECA Marketing Support .............................................................................................................................................. 32
8. Programme Impact on Crop Production Trends ..................................................................................................... 33
8.1 Adopted Agricultural Practices ............................................................................................................................... 33
8.1.1 Adopted Agricultural Production Practices ................................................................................................. 33
8.1.2 Input Use Intensity ................................................................................................................................................. 34
8.2 Project Impact on Crop Production ....................................................................................................................... 34
8.2.1 Impact on Crop Diversity ..................................................................................................................................... 34
8.2.2 Impact on Area under Crop Production and Production Volumes ....................................................... 35
8.2.3 Impact on Crop Yields ........................................................................................................................................... 36
9. New Marketing Arrangements ........................................................................................................................................ 37
9.1 New Market Linkages .................................................................................................................................................. 37

3
9.2 Marketed Volumes and Proportions ..................................................................................................................... 37
9.3 Value Addition Activities ............................................................................................................................................ 38
10. Economics of Production ................................................................................................................................................ 39
10.1 Project Impact on Production Costs ................................................................................................................... 39
10.2 Project Impact on Producer Prices ...................................................................................................................... 40
10.3 Improvements on Financial & Economic Margins ........................................................................................ 40
11. Impact on Livelihoods ...................................................................................................................................................... 42
11.1 Impact on Household Food Security ................................................................................................................... 42
11.2 Changes in Household Asset Ownership Patterns ........................................................................................ 43
11.3 Impact on Poverty Reduction, Livelihoods & Household Incomes ........................................................ 44
12. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................. 47
12.1 Technical and Generic Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 47
12.1.1 CA Up-Scaling ........................................................................................................................................................ 47
12.1.2 Facilitating the Formation of more Sustainable Farmer Clubs .......................................................... 47
12.1.3 TFT and the Capacity Building of Value Chain Players ......................................................................... 47
12.1.4 Use of an Integrated Approach ....................................................................................................................... 47
12.2 Short, Medium and Long-Term Policy Recommendations ................................................................... 47
12.2.1 Market Expansion ................................................................................................................................................ 47
12.2.2 Adoption of an Effective M&E System .......................................................................................................... 48
12.2.3 Optimizing Margins through Diversification............................................................................................. 48
13. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................. 49

4
Abbreviations and Acronyms

AgDevco Agricultural Development Company
BAGC Beira Agricultural Growth Corridor
BOM Banco Opportunidade de Mozambique
CA Conservation Agriculture
CDM Cerveja de Mozambique
CPI Investment Promotion Centre
ECA Commercialization of Small Scale Agriculture Programme
(Empresa de Comercializao Agricola)
EPZ Export Processing Zone
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
GI Gross Income
GM Gross Margin
GMA Gross Margin Analysis
HA Hectarage
HH Household
IFAD International Fund For Development Agriculture
JAM Joint Aid Management
KIIs Key Informant Interviews
MBIAMs Market-Based Input Assistance Mechanisms
MLT Mozambique Leaf Tobacco
NGO Non Governmental Organization
NR Natural Region
P4P WFPs Purchase for Progress Programme
TORS Terms of Reference
TtF ECAs Touch the Farmer Project
TVC Total Variable Cost
USD United States Dollar
WFP World Food Programme

5
Executive Summary

Introduction
The Commercialisation of Small Scale Agriculture (ECA) Programme is a market-based
extension programme, which aims to ensure smallholder household food security and
improved incomes for up to 30,000 farmers in central Mozambique.
This baseline survey was designed to provide benchmark information for use in analysing and
tracking programme impact over time.
The baseline survey was also designed to capture, through recall, the situation of the
participating farmers prior to joining the programme as well as the achievements to date.

Methodology and Baseline Strategy
The Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) framework was used as the basis for assessing the
contribution that project activities made to sustaining livelihoods.
The baseline survey adopted the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods of social enquiry to
facilitate both technical and socio-economic analysis, and was carried out in different but integrated
phases.
A total of 178 households were interviewed for the household questionnaire survey, with 82.6% of
the households being beneficiaries, while the remaining 17.4% were non-beneficiaries.
The other specific baseline tools included a desk study, key informant interviews, focus group
discussions, case studies and direct observation.
Where possible data analysis was disaggregated by gender, while generic data analysis was guided
by already established five (5) farmer categories viz:- maize complete, maize medium, maize basic,
sesame and non-beneficiaries.

ECA Project Participation
At programme inception, ECA registered 700 growers, with this statistic having grown to 936
growers by the end of the first cropping season.
Out of the total 936 registered growers, a total of 72 growers (7.7%) were beneficiaries of the
complete maize input package, 110 growers (11.8%) benefitted from the maize medium input
package, 649 growers (69.3%) benefitted from the maize basic input package, whilst 105
growers (11.2%) registered for the sesame programme.
Current support produced 1,400mt from 563ha of maize and 86mt from 188ha of sesame.
Beneficiaries of more premium input support packages have on average smaller families,
judged by the household size, compared to beneficiaries of basic input support packages and
non-beneficiaries.
Female farmers constitute insignificant proportions (0 3.4%) of household heads in
categories of farmers either participating or not participation on the ECA programme, with the
most affected farmer categories being beneficiaries of basic maize input packages and sesame
growers.
The bulk of households benefitting from maize complete input packages (16.3%) and basic
maize input packages (29.3%) are married, while singles relatively dominant within the farmer
categories benefitting from medium maize input package and sesame growers.
The majority of ECA programme beneficiaries (65.8%) are relatively young adults, with the
bulk of the beneficiaries falling within the 30 40 age-group, followed by those in the 40 50
age groups.
With the exception of sesame growers, whose education status analysis remains inconclusive,
the categorization of programme beneficiaries for maize producers reflect their educational
status with beneficiaries having better education benefitting from higher pack order input
support packages.

6
Associations and Group Dynamics
A number of long-established farmer associations exist in the area, with a number of them
involved in marketing activities.
However, there are no linkages between the existing farmer associations, localized farmer
groups and other farmer groups outside of the ECA programme or vertical integration with
farmer organizations at district, provincial or national level.
Crop production under the ECA programme is organized on the basis of participants belonging
to established farmer clubs.
Each farmer club has a standard size of 11 15 members, with a total of 52 farmers clubs
serving 21 programme collection points under the programme.
The level of organization within the established farmers clubs was rated as largely medium
(33.3%) to high (55%) by programme beneficiaries.
On the other hand, the level of cohesiveness within the groups was rated as high by 85.7% of
the beneficiaries.

Traditional Crop Production and Marketing
Crops grown in the district before the ECA programme included maize, sorghum, groundnuts,
cowpeas, sesame, sugar beans, pigeon pea, sweet potatoes, a variety of vegetables, cotton, soya
beans and tobacco.
Maize yields ranged from 0.4 1.2mt/ha (with an average of 0.8mt/ha), although the baseline
survey (based on circumstances prior to the ECA programme and on 2010/11 production
figures) indicate an average maize yield of 1.8mt/ha and average maize crop output of 2.7mt
per household, which both appear to be rather inflated.
Past crop production systems were characterised by use of conventional agricultural
production methods and a rudimentary fertiliser economy.
The bulk of seed inputs for both maize and legumes were retained seed, with 80.3% of the
respondents for maize and 80.0% for legume confirming use of retained seed.
The bulk of seed used for cash crops (tobacco, cotton and soya bean), on the other hand, was
from private produce buyers (48.9%) and non-governmental organizations (34.9%).
Average input costs for the 2010/11 cropping season were USD10.10/10kg maize seed pack
and USD42.40/50kg pack of fertilizer.
Crop marketing was characterized by a multi-channel system which included crop produce
marketing through buying agents, local traders, transporters and local associations.
Marketed volumes and the proportion of marketed produce was limited for all crops.
Producer prices were seasonal, ranging from 3.6MT/kg (USD0.12/kg) to 5.0MT/kg
(USD0.17/kg).

Technical Assistance and Backstopping
Before the ECA programme farmers produced using whatever farming practices they chose.
Contact with extension staff was totally non-existent or at a bare minimum.
Assessments on technical support also produced mixed results.
In some areas technical assistance was characterised by close extension agent or technician-to-
farmer contact, while in other areas this relationship was non-existent.
ECA technical assistance was assessed as either effective or very effective by between 75.0
98.2% of the interviewed beneficiaries.
The major constraint has been ensuring timely coverage and the costs related to technical
assistance efforts.
This has also been a wholly new ball game for both the implementing team and target groups.

Credit and Market Support
Unlike the case with training and extension support, a number of initiatives on credit and
market support existed before the advent of the ECA programme.
Examples include input and market support from government, MLT and BOM.

7
All the contracted 936 growers under the ECA programme accessed credit finance, with the
only differences being the level of support.
The average input credit was 1999MT (USD69) per farmer, with a range of 55MT (USD2)
9862MT (USD340).
Group pressure and a stop order agreement with ECA assisted in ensuring a 100% credit
recovery, compared to a rate of 97.5% for non-ECA beneficiaries.
Overall assessments show that beneficiaries perceive input credit support as having been very
effective.
In addition to a production support role (through input credit and extension support), the ECA
programme is trying to establish a permanent working relationship with growers by providing
market support facilitated through buying platforms for growers contracted produce.

Programme Impact on Crop Production Trends
Local production has undergone transformation.
CA has been extensively adopted by both ECA beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries within the
same communities, with full and partial adoption of basic CA practices ranging from 50 95%.
The introduction of the ECA programme promoted a wider adoption and increased intensity in
the use of improved crop varieties and production practices by local farmers.
The average fertilizer application rate by basic maize input package beneficiaries increased
from 27kg/ha to 96kg/ha, while the average fertilizer application rate by complete maize input
package beneficiaries increased from 50.0kg/ha to 112.5kg/ha.
Rather than increasing crop diversity, the impact has been on greater intensification and focus
on a few contracted crops.
The area under maize production by beneficiaries of the maize basic input package increased
by 76.3% from an average of 1.86ha during the baseline period to 3.28ha during the 2011/12
cropping season.
Subsequently, maize production output by beneficiaries of the maize basic input package
increased by 46.2% from an average of 3.03mt during the baseline period to 4.43mt during the
2011/12 cropping season.
On the other hand, maize production output by beneficiaries of the maize complete input
package increased by 104% from an average of 2.41mt during the baseline period to 4.92mt
during the 2011/12 cropping season.
This compares to a maize production output increase by non-beneficiaries of only 16% from an
average of 2.31mt to 2.67mt.
Basic maize input package beneficiaries maintained their average yields at 1.8mt/ha during
both the baseline period and under CA during the 2011/12 cropping season.
On the other hand, complete maize input package beneficiaries improved their average yields
from 1.9mt/ha during the baseline period to 2.3mt/ha under CA during the 2011/12 cropping
season.
This compares to an average yield of 2.1mt/ha under CA for non-beneficiaries during the
2011/12 cropping season.
On the contrary sesame yields and outputs failed to increase under both conventional and CA
production conditions.

New Marketing Arrangements
The ECA programme has ushered in a new marketing channel for growers maize and sesame
produce.
Farmers benefit from opportunities for economies of scale because of bulk buying, group
marketing and the subsequent reduction in unit transaction costs.
Quality control is an integral part of the buying systems which ensures that the ECA
programme continues to attract premiums in secondary markets for the benefit of both the
private agribusiness firm and the participating small scale growers.

8
There has been a general increase in both the volumes and proportions of marketed crop
produce.
The ECA programme has an estimated market capacity of about 1,500mt for maize and 100mt
for sesame, while the production potential of the growers is as high as 4,600mt, and hence the
need for an expansion of the programmes absorption capacity.
Additional markets have been identified and are being further explored e.g. the Ceverja de
Mozambique (CDM) contract for grits processing in the manufacture of opaque beer.

Economics of Production
While input prices for fertilizers declined in overall, maize seed prices actually increased
between the baseline and 2011/12 review periods.
This unexpected phenomenon could be a result of the quality of seed used by farmers before
and after the launch of the ECA programme as growers switched from use of retained seed to
improved seed varieties.
The ECA programmes producer price at 7MT/kg (USD0.24/kg) produced ripple effects in
maize marketing by providing stiff competition thereby pushing local producer prices for
maize from traditional averages of 3.6 4MT/kg (USD0.12 0.14/kg) to between 5 6MT/kg
(USD0.17 0.21/kg) by ECA competitors.
Returns per invested dollar (GM/TVC) improved from -0.11 for conventional maize production
by beneficiaries prior to the ECA programme to 0.18 for maize basic input package
beneficiaries practising CA and 0.35 for maize complete package beneficiaries practising CA.
This compares to a return of 0.03 for non-beneficiaries still practising conventional tillage.
On the other hand, margins for sesame were estimated at 0.49.
Sugar beans, a crop the ECA programme is hoping to add to its crop-mix, is at the moment the
only crop enterprise achieving optimum margins after posting a GM/TVC index of 1.06.

Impact on Livelihoods
Evidence from the baseline survey shows that on average participation on the ECA programme
improved household food security, notably for beneficiary farmers receiving complete and
medium maize input packages.
As an example, the proportion of average household expenditure on food for maize medium
input package beneficiaries declined from 8.5% to 1.3%.
The baseline household survey established positive changes for both productive and non-
productive assets.
Notable changes have been recorded for hoes (where the average numbers increased from 4.1
to 5.3, while ownership proportions increased from 93.2% to 99.4%), cattle (where the
average numbers increased from 3.6 to 4.7, while ownership proportions increased from
18.5% to 19.7%) and improved housing (where ownership proportions increased from 19.7%
to 36.5%).
On average household incomes for beneficiaries of the maize basic package increased from
USD631 to USD738, representing a 16.7% increase over a one-year period.
This compares to an income increase of 34.9% for maize complete package beneficiaries and a
-5.9% for non-beneficiaries.

Recommendations
Continued effort should be put in promoting CA practices and ensure the full adoption of all CA
practices for more efficient and effective production.
There is need for capacity building of value chain players, notably for producers e.g.
comprehensive Training for Transformation (TFT) for all growers participating on the ECA
programme as a strategy for ensuring a change in the mindset; promote a business approach to
agriculture, and the transition from subsistence to commercialized agriculture. For value chain
players M&E training is critical.
There is need for the adoption of an integrated approach in programme implementation.

9
To ensure optimization of results there is need for expanding the existing marketing horizons,
adopting an effective M&E framework and diversifying options as a way of ensuring increased
turnover and optimum margins.

Conclusion
This baseline survey has provided key benchmark information which lays the foundation of an
effective M&E framework for the ECA Programme and similar projects.
Preliminary results from the assessment conducted as part of the baseline study show that the
ECA Programme has already registered notable progress.
This initiative has immense potential.

10
1. Introduction

1.1 Background to the ECA Programme

Capacity building initiatives within agricultural value chains, comprising effective research, input
assistance mechanisms, as well as extension and marketing support, form the pillars of sustainable
agricultural and economic development. The strengths and effectiveness of such agricultural
support mechanisms determines the extent to which the agricultural sector can grow and bring
about the necessary development especially in agro-based economies as is the case in most
developing countries.

The Commercialisation of Small Scale Agriculture (ECA) Programme is a market-based extension
programme, which aims to ensure smallholder household food security for up to 30,000 farmers in
central Mozambique, and boosting household incomes through the production of high value crops
such as soya, cow peas, sesame and sugar beans. This, the programme is pursuing through
innovative inorganic input cost and usage reduction schemes, advanced conservation farming
techniques, and the provision of a full service package. This package includes the provision of
agronomic extension services, facilitation of joint planning, the provision of high quality
agricultural inputs and affordable weather insurance, facilitation of access to appropriate
commercial finance for farmers, facilitation of market access in various forms including pre-
arranged market contracts, and collective logistics facilitation for both input distribution and
product collection requirements. This baseline survey was designed to provide benchmark
information for use in analysing and tracking programme impact over time. This report thus
presents preliminary qualitative and quantitative findings from the baseline survey, covering the
specific areas of intervention of the initiative and the agro-economic situation of the participating
farmers.

1.2 Baseline Purpose and Objectives

As already highlighted, the main purpose of this baseline survey was to provide benchmark
information that will be used for analysing and tracking programme impact over time. However,
given that this initiative has been under implementation for about a year, this baseline survey also
captured, through recall, the situation of the participating farmers prior to joining the programme
as well as the achievements to date.

The specific objectives of the baseline survey were as follows:-
(i) Determining the number of smallholder farmers currently involved in the project and its
organization, as well as documenting the demographic status, livelihoods status, and
asset ownership for the participating households.
(ii) Ascertaining membership to production groups, degree of organization and cohesion of
the groups, and the existence of vertical integration with structures of other farmer
organizations.
(iii) Assessing the production and marketing situation of participating farmers prior to
entering the programme in terms of volume of production, yield, types of commodities
produced, agricultural practices, use of and sources of inputs, cost of inputs, quantity of
product marketed and respective prices and margins.
(iv) Determining and evaluating the type of technical assistance that smallholders currently
receive as well as its source.
(v) Documenting the type of support provided to date by the programme, delivery
mechanisms and potential for effectiveness.

11
(vi) Assessing the current production situation of participating farmers in terms of types of
crops, volume of production, yields, agricultural practices, use of and sources of inputs,
and the cost of inputs.
(vii) Analysing current marketing arrangements, new market linkages, marketed volumes and
value addition activities, quantity of product marketed, and the respective prices and
margins.
(viii) Assessing the pre-project situation regarding to credit access for smallholder farmers
and conditions of access, as well as documenting experiences registered this past season
in terms of the number of farmers participating, value of credit disbursed, and the level of
credit recoveries.
(ix) Documenting the prices currently paid to farmers for their produce, the margins
registered after paying for inputs and loans, and a comparative analysis with farmers not
covered by the programme.

12
2. Methodology and Baseline Strategy

2.1 Approach and Framework

The Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) framework (DFID, 2004) was used to assess the
contribution that project activities made to sustaining livelihoods. In this assessment, livelihood
strategies are defined as those activities undertaken by households and the communities to
provide a means of living and ensure household food security.

Figure 1: The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) Model.

The SLA framework (Figure 1) places households at the centre of a web of inter-related influences
that affect how these households create a livelihood for themselves. Closest to the household at
the centre of the framework are the five livelihood assets that they have access to and use i.e.
human, financial, physical, social and natural assets. The baseline survey identified indicators for
each of these assets and compares these with the current indicators to assess for any significant
changes.
The extent of households access to these assets is strongly influenced by their vulnerability
context, which takes account of trends e.g. economic, political, and technological; shocks such as
droughts, floods, pests, epidemics, natural disasters, and civil strife; and seasonality in prices,
production, and employment opportunities. Access is also influenced by the prevailing social,
institutional and political environment, which affects the ways in which these households combine
and use their assets to achieve their livelihood strategies. The assessment determined the
contribution to livelihoods derived from the project interventions. Throughout all analysis gender
lenses were applied to see how the programme mainstreamed and responded to gender issues,
such as for example the participation of women in key decision making structures, whether
impacts of interventions were as intended or negatively affecting women/men and thereby
causing social disharmony.

13
2.2 Methodology

The baseline survey adopted the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods of social enquiry
to facilitate both technical and socio-economic analysis, and was carried out in different but
integrated phases.

Phase 1: Review of Background Material and Development of Baseline Survey Tools
This stage consisted of a desk study and involved the review of project documents including
background material used in project preparation, approved project documents, secondary
information from national statistics institutes, and other additional literature relevant to the ECA
programme. Information collected at this stage was used to develop field data collection tools.

Phase 2: Chimoio, Barue & Project Site Level Data Collection
The establishment of the programmes benchmarks was based on information collected from ECA,
BAGC, AgDevco and stakeholders in Chimoio, Barue and local farming areas. The following
baseline survey tools were utilized:
1. Key Informant Interviews
Key informant Interviews (KIIs) were guided by a pre-prepared checklist. Consulted key
informants included representatives of ECA, BAGC, AgDevco, Local Government,
Government Agricultural Departments, Farmers, Banco Opportunidade de Mozambique
(BOM), Mozambique Fertilizer Company, Phoenix Seeds, the World Food Programme
(WFP) and other donors/NGOs working on similar interventions.
2. Focus Group Discussions
Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted with farmer clubs involved in the ECA
programme. An FGD guide was used to facilitate discussions.
3. Household Interviews
A total of 178 households were interviewed through a formal semi-structured household
questionnaire. Data quality was assured through (i) detailed and elaborate enumerator
training, (ii) review of all completed questionnaires, and (iii) regular discussion of problem
areas and how to deal with the problems with the enumerators.
4. Case Studies
The Most Significant Change (MSC) approach was used to document exceptional cases of
impact based on interviews with a few selected key informants identified by communities.
5. Direct Observation
This tool enabled the baseline survey team to see interventions on the ground and act as
the basis of triangulation of data sources.
6. Photography
For illustration purposes, photographs of interventions and beneficiaries were taken to
augment data collected using other tools.

Picture 1: Enumerator training. Picture 2: Household interviews.

14

Phase 3: Data Analysis and Draft Report Writing
Data entry, cleaning and analysis of household survey questionnaires was conducted using the
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 16. Attempts were also made to synthesize
collected baseline survey data, analyse it and present it in user-friendly tables and illustrational
charts/graphs. Where baseline data was not available, proxy baseline information (from within
the district or other similar settings) were used as benchmark information. Where possible data
analysis was disaggregated by gender, while generic data analysis was guided by already
established farmer categories viz:-
(i) Farmers receiving a complete maize input package (seed, basal and top-dressing
fertilizer),
(ii) Farmers receiving a medium maize input package (seed and top-dressing fertilizer),
(iii) Farmers receiving a basic maize input package (seed only),
(iv) Farmers receiving inputs for sesame production (seed and crop chemicals), and
(v) Non-beneficiaries (farmers not participating on the programme).

This phase will also witness the compilation and submission of a draft baseline survey report.

Phase 4: Dissemination of Findings
This phase will be devoted to the presentation of preliminary findings and wider dissemination of
the baseline survey findings. Subsequently, a final report incorporating comments from the draft
report and the presentations will be submitted to ECA, BAGC and AgDevco.

2.3 Site Selection and Sampling

The baseline was conducted in Barue District where the ECA programme is being implemented.
Within the district, 4 out of a total of 21 sites (serving as buying points and centres for production
clubs) were selected for the baseline survey. An additional and different geographical
administrative area, outside the programme area but with similar geo-physical and socio-
economic conditions, was used as the source of non-programme participants who were
interviewed as the control group for the baseline survey for purposes of comparing between
programme beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Sampling for key informant interviews was based
on the snow ball technique where a few initially identified informants assist in identifying
additional key informants for the study. To ensure accomplishment of all the assignments
objectives, purposive sampling was utilized for the household survey.

A total of 178 households were interviewed through a formal semi-structured household
questionnaire. Of these 178 households, 147 households (82.6%) were participating and deemed
as beneficiaries of the ECA programme, while the remaining 31 (17.4%) were non-beneficiaries
who acted as the surveys control group. See Table 1.

Table 1: ECA baseline survey sample statistics.
Type of group SAMPLED FARMERS GENDER STATISTICS [%]
Numbers Percentage [%] Female Male

Maize Complete 34 19.1 3.4 15.7
Maize Medium 41 23.0 3.4 19.7
Maize Basic 59 33.1 0 33.1
Sesame 13 7.3 0.6 6.7
Non-Beneficiaries 31 17.4 1.1 16.3
TOTALS 178 100.0 8.4 91.6

Source: ECA Baseline Survey (2012).

15

2.4 Methodological Challenges

A few methodological challenges were encountered during the baseline survey. These included:-
(i) The late or poor attendance of baseline survey meetings by farmers in some areas,
(ii) The baseline survey coincided with the peak of the horticultural production season when
farmers prepare and plant an assortment of crops including sugar beans, thereby
affecting both attendance figures and punctuality,
(iii) The liaise faire culture and attitude among some of the field enumerators.

16
3. ECA Project Participation

3.1 Structure and Management of the ECA Project

The ECA programme operates as a private agribusiness firm, controlled by a board of directors
whose membership include shareholders and AgDevco, which acts as a fund manager for the Beira
Agricultural Growth Corridor (BAGC). The BAGC, through AgDevco, funds the programme through
equity loan funds. The premise was to provide affordable finance to agricultural developmental
programmes with potential tangible impact at the farmer level and beyond (wider impact), mentor
beneficiary private agribusiness firms throughout the intervention, provide increased benefits
from economies of scale, as well as ensuring viability and sustainability of the project initiative.

As already highlighted, the objective of the ECA programme is to improve household food security
and incomes and is currently providing support for the production of two crops viz: maize and
sesame, with plans for diversifying into more crops. Apart from providing input credit to
participating farmers by linking growers to commercial banks, the ECA programme is
implementing a market-based extension programme which capacity builds producers through
extension support and training, monitors and evaluates progress, and provides a guaranteed
market for the farmers produce and logistical support for participating growers. The programme,
which was launched in August 2011, comprises an administration team, an operations manager,
two field technicians and numerous support staff.

3.2 Participation of Small Scale Farmers

At programme inception, ECA registered 700 growers. This statistic had since grown to 936
growers by the end of the first cropping season
1
. Registration of new growers for the 2012/13
cropping season was under way during the time of the baseline survey. ECA project beneficiaries
are classed under five (5) basic categories viz:-
(i) Farmers receiving a complete maize input package i.e. seed, basal and top-dressing
fertilizer. A typical completa maize input package in support of 0,25ha comprised 6.5kg
OPV maize seed, 1 x 50kg basal fertilizer, and 1 X 50kg top dressing fertilizer.
(ii) Farmers receiving a medium maize input package i.e. seed and top-dressing fertilizer. A
typical medio maize input package in support of 0,25ha comprised 6.5kg OPV maize
seed and 1 X 50kg top dressing fertilizer.
(iii) Farmers receiving a basic maize input package i.e. seed only. Likewise, a typical basica
maize input package in support of 0,25ha comprised of only 6.5kg OPV maize seed.
(iv) Farmers receiving inputs for sesame production i.e. seed (3kg) and crop chemicals, and
(v) Non-beneficiaries i.e. farmers not participating on the programme.

Beneficiary targeting and selection is based on a number of criteria, inter alia, interest and
capacity, crop production history of the farmer, arable land size, effective labour resources
available, location (based on accessibility within 45km north and south of ECAs central
warehouse in trying to maintain transaction costs at a minimum), while at club level targeting
hinges on self-selection given that the club has to reamin a cohesive and sustainable unit.

Current statistics show that out of the total 936 growers registered with the ECA programme, a
total of 72 growers (7.7%) were beneficiaries of the complete maize input package, 110 growers

1
Given the fact that the programme currently has only two field technicians, this entails an extension-to-farmer ration of
1:468.

17
(11.8%) benefitted from the maize medium input package, 649 growers (69.3%) benefitted from
the maize basic input package, whilst 105 growers (11.2%) registered for the sesame programme.
Current support produced 1,400mt from 563ha of maize and 86mt from 188ha of sesame.

3.3 Characterization of Growers on the ECA Programme

In characterizing growers and non-beneficiaries of the ECA programme, the following variables
were considered:-
(i) Household size,
(ii) Gender,
(iii) Marital status,
(iv) Age of household head, and
(v) Highest education level attained.

Beneficiaries of more premium input support packages have on average smaller families, judged
by the household size, compared to beneficiaries of basic input support packages and non-
beneficiaries. See Table 2.

Table 2: Household sizes for different farmer categories.
Type of Farmer Group Household Size
Sample Size (n) Average
Maize complete 33 6.70
Maize medium 41 7.68
Maize basic 59 8.68
Sesame 13 7.68
Non-beneficiary 30 8.13

Female farmers constitute insignificant proportions of household heads in categories of farmers
either participating or not participation on the ECA programme. The most affected farmer
categories are beneficiaries of basic maize input packages and sesame growers. See Figure 2.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Maize complete Maize medium Maize basic Sesame Non-beneficiary
% of
farmers
Type of farmer group
Gendered anlysis of farmer group members
Male Female

Figure 2: Comparative gender analysis for different farmer groups.

18
The majority of households participating on the ECA programme are either married or single. The
bulk of households benefitting from maize complete input packages and basic maize input
packages are married, while singles relatively dominant within the farmer categories benefitting
from medium maize input package and sesame growers. On the other hand, widowed and
divorced households constitute insignificant proportions in all the farmer categories. See Figure 3.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Maize complete Maize medium Maize basic Sesame Non-bebeficiary
% of
farmers
Comparative marital status of farmer group members
Married Single Widowed Divorced

Figure 3: Marital status of different target groups.

The majority of ECA programme beneficiaries are relatively young adults, with the bulk of the
beneficiaries falling within the 30 40 age-group, followed by those in the 40 50 age groups, with
insignificant proportions being above 50 years of age. See Figure 4.

Figure 4: ECA project membership by age.

19

With the exception of sesame growers, whose education status analysis remains inconclusive, the
categorization of programme beneficiaries for maize producers reflect their educational status
with beneficiaries having better education benefitting from higher pack order input support
packages. See Figure 5.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Maize complete Maize medium Maize basic Sesame Non-bebeficiary
% of
farmers
Highest education levels attained by farmer group members
Primary Secondary None

Figure 5: Highest education levels attained by household heads.

20
4. Associations and Group Dynamics

4.1 Grower Membership to Production Groups

The baseline survey discovered the existence of long established farmer associations in Barue
District, with a number of them involved in marketing activities e.g. some farmer associations
have established warehouses in the district, are contracted to and selling agricultural produce to
the World Food Programme (WFP). Recently, there has also been an increase in the hive of
activity in association building in the area by a number of non-governmental organizations.
However, there are no linkages between these farmer associations and the ECA programme.

Crop production under the ECA programme is organized on the basis of participants belonging to
established farmer clubs. Each farmer club has a standard size of 11 15 members. Targeting
and selection was group based, with groups being self- selecting based on the capacity of
prospective individual members. To date there are 52 farmers clubs serving 21 programme
collection points, with an average of 2 or more farmers clubs serving a single collection point.
Conversely, the 21 collection point all feed into the central warehouse located in Catandica.

Apart form membership in production groups, ECA project beneficiaries also access input credit,
extension and market support through established five (5) farmer categories viz: (i) farmers
receiving a complete maize input package i.e. seed, basal and top-dressing fertilizer, (ii) farmers
receiving a medium maize input package i.e. seed and top-dressing fertilizer, (iii) farmers receiving
a basic maize input package i.e. seed only, (iv) farmers receiving inputs for sesame production i.e.
seed and crop chemicals, and (v) non-beneficiaries i.e. farmers not participating on the
programme. Their respective proportions are illustrated below. See Figure 6.

19%
23%
33%
7%
18%
Type of group farmer belongs to

Figure 6: Distribution of beneficiaries across production groups.

4.2 Organization, Group Dynamics and Cohesion

The bulk of the established farmers clubs were, however, formed for the sole purpose of
facilitating participation on the ECA programme, which might be a source of sustainability
challenges during the later phases of the project. However, current assessments remain positive,
with the level of organization within the established farmers clubs being rated as largely medium
(33.3%) to high (55%) by programme beneficiaries. On the other hand, the level of cohesiveness
within the groups was rated as high by 85.7% of the beneficiaries. See Figure 7 and 8.

21

0
5
10
15
20
25
Maize complete Maize medium Maize basic Sesame
% of
members
Type of group
Assessment of level of organisation within group
High Medium Poor
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
% of members
Type of
group
Level of cohesiveness within group
High Medium

Figure 7: Level of organisation within group. Figure 8: Level of cohesiveness within group.

4.3 Integration with Other Farmers Organizations

As already highlighted, there are no linkages between existing farmer associations, localized
production groups and other farmer groups outside of the ECA programme. The potential exists
for vertical integration of local farmer clubs with structures of other farmers organisations,
although presently such linkages do not exist and are yet to be established. In worst case
scenarios, ECA beneficiaries were not even aware of farmers organisations at district, provincial
and national level. However, key informant interviews with district public extension and
agricultural officers revealed the existence of the Union Destrital dos Associcoes dos Campories de
Barue (UDACB), whose operations are currently curtailed by organizational, logistical and financial
constraints. In addition to UDACB, CHESA, Agrifuture and World Vision have also established
associations in the district, again with little or no interaction with ECA farmers clubs.

22
5. Traditional Crop Production and Marketing

5.1 Preamble

This section presents historical production and marketing statistics as they occurred. On the other
hand, Section 8 (Programme Impact on Crop Production trends), Section 9 (New Marketing
Arrangements) and Section 10 (Economics of Production) will present comparative analysis of the
before and after scenarios.

5.2 Historical Crop Production Trends

5.2.1 Type of Crops, Yields and Production Volumes
Crops grown by farmers in Barue District before the advent of the ECA programme included food
crops such as maize as the main staple crop, sorghum, groundnuts, cowpeas, sesame, sugar beans,
pigeon pea, sweet potatoes and a variety of vegetables. In addition to these food crops local
farmers also produced cash crops such as cotton, soya beans and tobacco under contract growing
arrangements. According to key informant interviews and focus group discussions with farmers,
maize yields ranged from as low as 0.4mt/ha to as high 1.2mt/ha, with an average of 0.8mt/ha.
The baseline survey (based on circumstances prior to the ECA programme and on 2010/11
production figures), on the other hand, indicate an average maize yield of 1.9mt/ha and average
maize crop output of 2.7mt/ha, which both appear to be rather inflated.

5.2.2 Traditional Crop Production Practices
Past crop production systems were characterised by use of conventional agricultural production
methods and a rudimentary fertiliser economy. The bulk of the farmers also relied on retained
rather than bought-in improved hybrid seed as planting material. Crop chemicals were also rarely
used. In other words, while only a few farmers traditionally used hybrid seed, chemicals and
fertilisers, the majority did not use any bought-in seeds, fertilizers and/or kraal manure. This
practice was compounded by the perception that local soils are fertile, fertilizers are bad for the
soil, a general negative attitudes towards chemical fertilisers and the rampant reliance on shifting
cultivation systems. Key informant interviews assert that 20 50% of production in Barue District
is based on a shift cultivation system, while reports from other districts claim that about 80% of
crop production systems in other districts are still based on shifting cultivation systems.
Traditional or conventional production was also characterized by unplanned and unorganised
mixed cropping comprising 3 5 crops within the same plot.

5.2.3 Sources and Costs of Inputs
The bulk of seed inputs for both maize and legumes were retained seed, with 80.3% of the
respondents for maize and 80.0% for legume confirming use of retained seed. On the other hand,
the bulk of seed used for cash crops (tobacco, cotton and soya bean) was from private produce
buyers (48.9%) and non-governmental organizations (34.9%). See Table 3.

23
Table 3: Source of seed inputs for major crops.
Major Crops Source of Inputs Baseline
Number Percentage
[%]
Maize Manufacturer 5 9.2
Wholesaler 5 2.9
Local agro-dealer 6 3.5
Other farmers 4 2.3
Retained/seed multiplication 139 80.3
NGOs 6 3.5
Private produce buyer 1 0.6
Other 3 1.7
Legumes Manufacturer 1 0.6
Wholesaler 1 0.6
Local agro-dealer 6 3.4
Other farmers 4 2.2
Retained/seed multiplication 48 80.0
Cash crops Retained/seed multiplication 2 4.7
NGOs 15 34.9
Private produce buyer 21 48.9
Other 5 11.6

As already highlighted, chemical fertilizers were rarely used as part of the local production system.
Meanwhile, insights from the baseline household survey show average input costs for the 2010/11
cropping season as being USD10.10/10kg seed pack for maize and USD42.40/50kg pack of
fertilizer.

5.3 Crop Marketing Systems from the Past

5.3.1 Marketing Arrangements
The marketing and crop buying system prior to the ECA programme was characterized by a multi-
channel system. Marketing alternatives for growers included:-
(i) Formal companies sending buying agents to villages where they mount temporary buying
points.
(ii) Farmers selling to local traders and transporters who bulk up and sell to formal companies.
(iii) Farmers selling to local associations who also bulk up to sell to formal companies.
(iv) Farmers disposing produce through transporters along the road side.

However, in other areas crop marketing was characterized by informal marketing and reliance on
spot sales within localized contexts (e.g. local villages) and/or along major highways. Such markets
only existed during the buying season rendering them unreliable and not sustainable. There were no
standard buying procedures, no established buying system, with agricultural traders/commodity
brokers/fellow villagers coming in with circumstantial conditions e.g. a prize for the day, a system
that was also characterized by lack of information on prevailing prices and conditions before the sell.
No input or production support was provided.

24

Picture 3: Localized markets within villages. Picture 4: Spot markets along major
highways.

Various commodity brokers then sold off purchased produce to more established commodity
buying companies such as DECA for maize.

5.3.2 Marketed Volumes and Proportions
Marketed volumes and the proportion of marketed produce were limited for all crops. See Table 4.

Table 4: Marketed volumes, prices and incomes received before the ECA programme.
Crop Details Baseline
Sample Size (n) Mean
Maize (conventional) Qty Sold (mt) 171 1.57
Producer Price (USD/kg) 165 0.18

Sorghum Qty Sold (mt) 7 0.36
Producer Price (USD/kg) 7 0.16

Sugar beans Qty Sold (mt) 37 0.46
Producer price (USD/kg) 37 0.54

On average, maize producers marketed less than 2mt of maize grain prior to the initiation of the
ECA programme, based on marketed volumes during the 2010/11 production and marketing
season. Sales of other crops, such as sorghum and sugar beans, were also quite subdued. This
could be related to the extensive crop production systems used, the poor management systems
(e.g. use of retained seed and the rudimentary fertilizer economy), the subsequent low yields and
production volumes. Comparative analysis of average annual incomes farmers were realizing from
crop sales, gross incomes and net incomes are discussed in Sections 10.3 and 11.3.

5.3.3 Producer Prices and Margins
Producer prices were seasonal, entailing that prices varied depending on the specific time period
and season. During the start of the season producer prices started quite low at 3.6MT/kg

25
(USD0.12/kg). Towards the end of the season when marketed volumes start to decline, producer
prices responded by a hike to up to 5.0MT/kg (USD0.17/kg).

26
6. Technical Assistance and Backstopping

6.1 Technical Assistance before the ECA Project

Both key informant interviews and focus group discussions confirmed that before the ECA
programme farmers produced using whatever farming practices they chose. Contact with
extension staff was totally non-existent or at a bare minimum. Access to technical information was
a prerogative for only a few farmers, with a minority of farmers accessing sporadic and
intermittent training. Farmers produced on their own without extension support, despite the
existence of a public extension system. The majority of the interviewed farmers and key
informants had not interacted with public extension staff. See Figure 9.

Figure 9: Source of technical assistance.

6.2 Training and Extension Support under ECA

Assessments on technical support produced mixed results, given that in some areas technical
assistance was characterised by close extension agent or technician-to-farmer contact, while in
other areas this relationship was non-existent. Where technical backstopping has been strong,
elaborate training focused on:-
(i) Good agronomic practices,
(ii) Principles and practices of conservation agriculture,
(iii) Land preparation and land size measurements,
(iv) Row planting and spacing,
(v) Fertiliser application rates
(vi) The benefits of timely production,
(vii) Increased production practices,
(viii) Crop post-harvest management, and
(ix) Marketing.

27
Delivery mechanisms for the training and extension support included:-
(i) Demonstrations on purpose-built demonstration sites,
(ii) Farmer field schools (group training),
(iii) Field days,
(iv) Practice in-field, and
(v) Farmer visits for the individual follow-ups.

Such trainings were on a monthly basis, while monitoring and follow-ups were conducted at least
twice a week. See Figure 10. Assessments by beneficiaries are that trainings have been very
effective as evidenced by an improvement in farmers knowledge base, access to information, and
the widespread adoption of promoted technical recommendations. See Figure 11. However, and
as already highlighted, in some areas beneficiaries complained that ECA focus has largely been
restricted to logistical support with very little technical training, and where training was provided
it was only once and very area specific.

Figure 10: Frequency of technical support.

Figure 11: Effectiveness of technical training.

28

The major constraint has been ensuring timely coverage and the costs related to technical
assistance efforts. Compared to public extension systems, the ECA extension agent-to-farmer ratio
fairs much better. However, having 470 growers per technician makes it difficult for farmers to get
effective and efficient services. This has also been a wholly new ball game for both the
implementing team and target groups, e.g. trying to shift farmers from traditional production
practices, which is not easy.

29
7. Credit and Market Support

7.1 Credit and Market Support Prior to the ECA Project

Unlike the case with training and extension support, a number of initiatives on credit and market
support existed before the advent of the ECA programme. In Barue District, the government
provided inputs for sale to farmers through a local farmers association (Nzara Yapera) and
through local agro-dealers. Contract farming arrangements, which included input support
packages, were also implemented by seed maize companies that relied on small scale farmers for
seed multiplication and by the Mozambique Leaf Tobacco (MLT) in support of small scale tobacco
growers.

Commercial banks, including the Banco Opportunidade de Mozambique (BOM), assisted small scale
farmers with input finance. To access input support, e.g. production loans, small scale farmers had
to be organised in groups. Loans were provided in-kind, with beneficiaries receiving physical
inputs rather than cash payments. Interest rate was, and remains, at a flat rate of 3% per month
2
,
with the first repayment expected at the end of the season from the proceeds of ones harvest.
Farmers are also exempted from penalties e.g. for late payments (although this has traditionally
not communicated to the farmers). Focus group discussions with farmers, however, revealed that
there has been poor rapport between farmers and the bank (BOM) after BOM extended input
credit to farmers who secured their loans through title deeds to immovable property but later lost
their homes after defaulting on repayments.

As already highlighted, the only noble cash crop grown under contract farming arrangements
before the ECA programme was tobacco. However, MLT withdrew after some time of engaging
local farmers. For maize, it has always been difficult for farmers to have access to inputs and the
market. Market demand was very limited and unreliable e.g. one could come and only buy 1 x
50kg bag or 1 X 20kg bucket of maize grain. BOM also provided warehouse loans to associations,
which were extended as cash loans to associations to facilitate the purchase of agricultural
commodities from other farmers for bulking and eventual marketing to more established
commodity buyers.

7.2 ECA Credit, Finance and Input Support

ECA accessed loans from banks for on-lending to farmers. For the first cropping season finance was
organised through BOM. As with BOM concessionary loans for all small scale farmers, interest rates
were pegged at 3% per month over a minimum loan period of 7 months which covers the growing
period of 150days. The initial idea was to have finance to cover maize, sesame, cowpea and sugar
bean production but the ECA programme failed to get seed for cowpeas and sugar beans whose price
was also prohibitively high. The increase in cost of seed for sugar beans made the crop an unviable
enterprise hence the decision to drop the crop for the first season of cropping. All the contracted 936
growers
3
accessed credit finance, with the only differences being the level of support and hence the
classification completa, medio and bsica. As such the bulk of growers sited the ECA
programme as the source of input credit during the baseline survey. See Figure 12 and Figure 13.

2
For any other sector loans the interest rate is a compounded figure of 5.5% per month.
3
A different source quoted this figure as 850, citing a few farmers who fell on the wayside due to technicalities such as the
failure to submit loan applications on time and lack of identification documents.

30

Figure 12: Sources of input credit for growers.

Figure 13: Type of input support provided by the ECA programme.

As already highlighted, input credit was provided through groups organised as local farmer clubs.
For farmers to access input credit they had to be members of the farmer clubs or credit groups.
However, input credit was individualised entailing that each farmer received input to facilitate
crop production by his or her household. Credit repayments were also individualised, with
individual farmers responsible for their own credit repayments. However, group pressure and a
stop order agreement with ECA assisted in ensuring a 100% credit recovery
4
. There was also an

4
Comparative recovery rate on farmers not on the ECA project was 97.5%.

31
aspect of core-guaranteeing whereby other group members could pay for defaulting group
members.

As already highlighted, inputs were distributed in kind. A typical completa maize input package
in support of 0,25ha comprised 6.5kg OPV maize seed (ZM521), 1 x 50kg basal fertilizer
(Compound D), and 1 X 50kg top dressing fertilizer (Urea). While sesame growers benefited from
chemical distributions, maize growers were deliberately not given chemicals although chemicals
could have been required. This was a ploy to control the level of farmer debtedness given that this
was a first season and that there was a possibility that some farmers could struggle to repay and
hence increase the likelihood of defaults. The strategy then was to reduce the risk of both the
growers and the company. The average input credit was 1999MT (USD69) per farmer, with a
range of 55MT (USD2) 9862MT (USD340)
5
. However, the level of input support also mirrored
individual farmers farming experiences (reflected by their age groups). See Figure 14.

Figure 14: Average amount of ECA support received by age range.

Apart from provision of credit or finance the bank (BOM) also provided a number of other services
such as financial literacy, budgeting and mobile banking for producers. Overall assessments show
that beneficiaries perceive input credit support as having been very effective. Market support
initiatives were, however, rated not so positively. See Figure 15.

5
The baseline survey, however, failed to establish the value of credit disbursed and the recovery rate as financial institutions
perceived this to be commercially sensitive information.

32

Figure 15: Effectiveness of ECA input support.

No challenges were encountered in most groups. However, in other groups the challenge was the
case of individual defaulters, the failure to recover the ECA debt from other group members and
delayed repayments (although other members paid up to ensure a 100% recovery rate). For some
farmers, contract farming (which enshrines Farming As A Business principles and demands the
use of modern farming methods) was also a new concept to them. Thus cases of side-marketing
were also cited in some areas but because the ECA programme offered the best price for grain,
side-marketing only occurred with seed companies who offered higher prices. There has,
however, been no evidence of side-marketing on the ground. What this entails is that side-
marketing might remain a threat to the venture unless ECA maintains its premium on producer
prices for all crops it is involved in.

7.3 ECA Marketing Support

In addition to a production support role (through input credit and extension support), the ECA
programme is trying to establish a permanent working relationship with growers by providing
market support facilitated through buying platforms for growers contracted produce. The
programme organized marketing platforms by pre-arranging for maize buying at collection centres,
provided free transport since transport was not paid for when produce was collected from the
sheds/collection points, and provided packaging material, thereby substantially decreasing unit
marketing costs for individual growers. The ECA programme also arranged for cash payments for
delivered produce through mobile banking units stationed at the central buying point. Some
marketing challenges still remain. Most road networks are poor, the logistics and costs are very
high, as a result it makes it difficult for agricultural companies to make a profit. As an example,
maize buying companies in Mozambique have to complete with GMO maize imported duty free
from South Africa.

33
8. Programme Impact on Crop Production Trends

8.1 Adopted Agricultural Practices

8.1.1 Adopted Agricultural Production Practices
Local production has undergone transformation. Whereas, traditional or conventional production
systems have been characterised by unplanned and unorganised mixed cropping comprising 3-5
crops within the same plot, training and technical assistance has improved production practices
into either a monoculture of maize and or intercropping of 2 crops for example maize and
sunflower. The flagship technologies for the ECA programme have been the promotion of improved
crop varieties, soil fertility management practices and Conservation Agriculture (CA). As discussed
in Section 8.1.2 (Input Use Intensity) the use of both improved seed varieties and fertilizers have
improved significantly, notably on maize production plots. The use of improved seed achieved a
100% adoption rate. For CA, field marking and holing were prerequisites for input distributions
(receiving inputs) so adoption of these basic CA practices were very high (90-95%). Mulching and
weeding were also relatively high because the fields were constantly supervised and monitored
(50%). See Picture 5, Picture 6 and Figure 16.

Picture 5: Illustration of mulching practices. Picture 6: Illustration of mulching practices.

Figure 16: Level of adoption of CA practices and other recommendations.

34

CA has been extensively adopted by both ECA beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries within the same
communities. However adoption, in some cases has only been partial, for example, uptake of
basins, mulching and micro-dosing of fertilisers and or use of organic material. CA practices such as
mulching have also been adopted for other crops other than maize, for example for millet, small
grains and sorghum production.

8.1.2 Input Use Intensity
Again, as highlighted before, before the intervention of the ECA programme the bulk of producers
relied on retained seed as planting material while the fertilizer economy has been nothing but
rudimentary. The introduction of the ECA programme promoted a wider adoption and increased
intensity in the use of improved crop varieties and production practices by local farmers. As an
illustrational example, the average fertilizer application rate by basic maize input package
beneficiaries increased from 27kg/ha to 96kg/ha, while the average fertilizer application rate by
complete maize input package beneficiaries increased from 50.0kg/ha to 112.5kg/ha. See Figure
17 and 18.

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Seed Fertiliser Seed Fertiliser Seed Fertiliser Seed Seed
Maize complete Maize medium Maize basic Sesame Non
beneficiary
Mean qty
used (t/ha)
Type of group
Comparative average maize inputs used
Baseline 2012 Review

0
50
100
150
200
250
Seed Fertiliser Seed Seed Fertiliser Seed Seed
Maize complete Maize
medium
Maize basic Sesame Non
beneficiary
Mean qty
(kg/ha)
Type of group
Comparative average legume inputs use

Figure 17: Comparative avg. maize inputs use. Figure 18: Comparative average legume inputs use.

8.2 Project Impact on Crop Production
8.2.1 Impact on Crop Diversity
One of the generic assumptions is that donor-funded input support programmes promote the
diversification of crops, enterprises and sources of both income and livelihoods. However, this
being a donor assisted contract farming arrangement, the impact has been on greater
intensification rather than crop diversification, hence the decline on the number of crops farmers
are now producing as they put more focus on contracted crops. See Table 5.

Table 5: Number of crops grown.
Number of crops Baseline 2012 Review
Number Percentage [%] Number Percentage [%]
One 57 32.0 77 43.3
Two 74 41.6 80 44.9
Three 31 17.4 17 9.6
Four 13 7.3 4 2.2
Five 3 1.7 - -

35

8.2.2 Impact on Area under Crop Production and Production Volumes
According to key informant interviews and focus group discussions, improved access to inputs
under the ECA programme has resulted in a number of farmers expanding areas under maize and
sesame production by clearing forests and bringing new virgin land under production. The
baseline household survey figures also show an overall increase in the area under maize and
sesame production. The area under maize production by beneficiaries of the maize basic input
package increased by 76.3% from an average of 1.86ha during the baseline period to 3.28ha during
the 2011/12 cropping season. During the same period, the area under maize production by non-
beneficiaries increased by 129% from an average of 1.08ha to 2.37ha, largely as a result of cross-
pollination of ideas and adoption of CA practices. See Table 6 and Figure 19.

Table 6: Comparative cropped area and outputs
Farmer
Categories
Maize (CA) Maize (Conventional)
No. of
farmers
Mean
area
(ha)
Mean
output
(mt)
No. of
farmers
Mean
area
(ha)
Mean
output
(mt)
No. of
farmers
Mean
area
(ha)
Mean
output
(mt)

Maize complete 34 1.27 2.41 22 0.86 2.92 22 1.51 2.00
Maize medium 41 1.87 3.02 40 1.13 2.63 25 1.58 2.35
Maize basic 58 1.86 3.03 50 1.49 3.25 43 1.79 2.94
Sesame 13 1.63 2.49 11 1.45 2.28 5 1.30 1.94
Non beneficiary 31 1.08 2.31 4 1.13 2.13 26 1.34 2.67

0
1
2
3
4
Mean area (ha) Mean output
(mt)
(mt)
(mt)
Maize Maize (CA) Maize (Conv)
Mean area (ha)
&
Output (t)
Comparative maize area planted and output
Maize complete Maize medium Maize basic Sesame Non beneficiary

Figure 19: Comparative group analysis of maize planted area and output.

36
Subsequently, maize and sesame production volumes (crop output) also recorded positive growth.
The adoption of CA practices by ECA beneficiaries also entailed that even with a decline in area
under production wrt. the baseline period and area under CA, crop output was compensated and
buoyed by the increase in yields. See Section 8.2.2. Maize production output by beneficiaries of the
maize basic input package increased by 46.2% from an average of 3.03mt during the baseline
period to 4.43mt during the 2011/12 cropping season. On the other hand, maize production output
by beneficiaries of the maize complete input package increased by 104% from an average of 2.41mt
during the baseline period to 4.92mt during the 2011/12 cropping season. During the same period,
maize production output by non-beneficiaries increased by only 16% from an average of 2.31mt to
2.67mt.

8.2.3 Impact on Crop Yields
The ECA interventions greatest impact has been on improving crop yields. Buoyed by the
provision of improved seed varieties, technical assistance, the adoption of good agricultural
practices by farmers, ECA beneficiaries who received complete maize input packages yielded as
much as 4.2 4.5mt/ha, although the average has been lower
6
. Basic maize input package
beneficiaries maintained their average yields at 1.8mt/ha during both the baseline period and
under CA during the 2011/12 cropping season. On the other hand, complete maize input package
beneficiaries improved their average yields from 1.9mt/ha during the baseline period to 2.3mt/ha
under CA during the 2011/12 cropping season. This compares to an average yield of 2.1mt/ha
under CA for non-beneficiaries during the 2011/12 cropping season. See Figure 20.

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Maize
complete
Maize
medium
Maize basic Sesame Non-benf
Maize yields
(t/ha)
Comparative maize yields
Baseline Maize conv 2012 Review Maize conv 2012 Review Maize CA

Figure 20: Comparative maize yields.

On the contrary sesame yields and outputs failed to increase under both conventional and CA
production conditions. Sesame yields recorded a fall from 1.48mt/ha during the baseline period to
1.44mt/ha under CA and 1.46mt/ha within conventional plot holdings. This is an area that requires
further investigation.

6
The commercial yield potential of ZM521 (Chinaka) is recorded as 5.5 6.5mt/ha, while the scientific yield potential is
10mt/ha.

37
9. New Marketing Arrangements

9.1 New Market Linkages

The ECA programme has ushered in a new marketing channel for growers maize and sesame
produce. Using its network of warehouses and collection points, the programme offers growers a
transparent system, where farmers are involved in bulking, transporting, weighing and grading of
the produce, facts concurred through Focus Group Discussions. According to key informants,
where disputes arise, these are handled by an independent arbitration committee. Given that the
programme makes use of mobile banking units during the buying season, farmers are paid cash
after deducting costs for inputs. Farmers benefit from opportunities for economies of scale because
of bulk buying, group marketing and the subsequent reduction in unit transaction costs. Quality
control is an integral part of the buying systems (e.g. ensuring a moisture content limit of 12.5%,
and that there is no foreign matter and/or weevil damage) which ensures that the ECA programme
continues to attract premiums in secondary markets for the benefit of both the private agribusiness
firm and the participating small scale growers.

In comparison, informal maize grain traders buy grain from numerous open space buying points
dotted along the Chimoio Tete highway. Farmers are paid a flat prices for all their produce, with
producer prices ranging from 5.0 5.5MT/kg (USD0.17 0.19/kg). Bought grain is then sold and
off-loaded at more established grain buying companies such as DECA at 6MT/kg (USD0.21/kg).
This entails a price differential of 0.50MT/kg (USD0.02/kg) although the margins are lower given
transport and other transaction costs borne by the grain traders.

9.2 Marketed Volumes and Proportions

There has been a general increase in both the volumes and proportions of marketed crop produce.
See Figure 21.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Maize (CA) Maize (Conv) Sorghum Sugarbeans
Quantity
sold (t)
Crop
Comparative quantity of quantity of crops sold

Figure 21: Average quantities of crop produce sold.

A number of non-registered beneficiaries also sold their maize grain to the ECA programme owning
to the more competitive prices offered by the programme. Based on resources available during the

38
2011/12 cropping season, the ECA programme has an estimated market capacity of about 1,500mt
for maize and 100mt for sesame. On the other hand, the production potential of the growers is as
high as 4,600mt, and hence the need for an expansion of the programmes absorption capacity.

9.3 Value Addition Activities

What, however, stand out as the ECA project interventions greatest potential is the existence and
opportunities for vertical integration through agro-processing and packaging and the subsequent
marketing to niche and other high value end markets. Farmers, on their own, also sell maize as
grain only, with no value addition activities at the moment. Additional markets have been
identified and are still being explored further e.g. the Ceverja de Mozambique (CDM) contract for
grits processing in the manufacture of opaque beer
7
. Potential for small scale agro-processing (e.g.
by localized farmer cooperatives) is also immense.

7
The current arrangement of processing through the JAM facility in Beira has failed to meet the quality specs required for
the brewing process. This is due to the fact that the milling process is unable to remove sufficient germ from the final grit
product. This has caused a reduction in the total requirements from CDM pending the improvement in quality of the grits
produced. Additional ways to resolve the quality issues are currently being explored.

39
10. Economics of Production

10.1 Project Impact on Production Costs

Previously, local farmers only accessed crop inputs through agro-dealers which turned out to be
very expensive. According to key informant interviews, bulk purchases of inputs by the ECA
programme have facilitated access to benefits such as bulk discounts, economies of scale and a
marginal decline in unit transaction costs. Key informant interviews showed that nominal prices
for fertilizers averaged 1,500MT/50kg fertiliser (USD51.72/50kg). On the other hand, chemical
fertilizers sourced and distributed by the ECA programme averaged 1,159MT/50kg
(USD39.97/50kg). However, analysis of the baseline household survey data showed somewhat
different results. While input prices for fertilizers declined in overall, maize seed prices actually
increased between the baseline and 2011/12 review periods. See Table 7 and Figure 22.

Table 7: Comparative price of maize inputs used for crop production
Type of group Type of
inputs
Mean price of maize inputs
used (Meticals)
Mean price of maize inputs used
(Meticals)
Sample
Size (n)
Average Price (MT) Sample
Size (n)
Average Price (MT)
Maize complete Seed 7 26.25 33 37.22
Fertiliser 1 24.00 29 23.27
Maize medium Seed 12 34.92 38 37.39
Fertiliser 8 25.00 34 23.71
Maize basic Seed 10 29.10 56 37.24
Fertiliser 1 22.00 1 25.00
Chemicals 1 600.00
Sesame Seed 4 19.38 2 30.00

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Seed Fertiliser Seed Fertiliser Seed Fertiliser Seed
Mean inputs
price (Meticals)
Type of group
Average price of maize inputs

Figure 22: Comparative price of maize inputs used for production

40
This unexpected phenomenon could be a result of the quality of seed used by farmers before and
after the launch of the ECA programme. Probing of key informants revealed that its common
practice for seed companies to pass-on ordinary maize grain as improved seed hence low average
seed input prices during the baseline, and the increase that relates to the adoption of genuinely
improved seed varieties by ECA beneficiaries.

10.2 Project Impact on Producer Prices

Maize marketing has been a critical challenge for local maize producers. The ECA programmes
uniform producer price at 7MT/kg (USD0.24/kg) has produced ripple effects in maize marketing by
providing stiff competition thereby pushing local producer prices for maize from traditional
averages of 3.6 4MT/kg (USD0.12 0.14/kg) to between 5 6MT/kg (USD0.17 0.21/kg) by ECA
competitors. ECA programme prices have been so competitive so much that some commodity
traders and/or farmers bought maize from farmers not participating on the programme and
attempted to resell the grain to the ECA programme.

The ECA programme has not just provided farmers with a more reliable market, higher prices, a fair
buying system and better value for produce e.g. previously maize buying was based on a bucket
system and now sales are based on actual weight (kg).

10.3 Improvements on Financial & Economic Margins

Intervention by the ECA programme significantly improved not just yields but also producer prices
offered to growers, reduced unit production costs and increased margins for contracted crops.
Returns per invested dollar (GM/TVC) improved from -0.11 for conventional maize production by
beneficiaries prior to the ECA programme to 0.18 for maize basic input package beneficiaries
practising CA and 0.35 for maize complete package beneficiaries practising CA. This compares to a
return of 0.03 for non-beneficiaries still practising conventional tillage. On the other hand, margins
for sesame were estimated at 0.49. Sugar beans, a crop the ECA programme is hoping to add to its
crop-mix, is at the moment the only crop enterprise achieving optimum margins based on the equi-
marginal principle in economics which states that optimum profits are only achieved when each
invested dollar yields another additional dollar as profit. See Table 8 and Figure 23.

Table 8: Gross margin analysis of selected crop enterprises.
Returns Maize
Basic
Conventional
(Beneficiaries)
2010/11
Maize
Conventional
(Non-Benfs)
2011/12
Maize
Basic
CA
(Beneficiaries)
2011/12
Maize
Complete
CA
(Beneficiaries)
2011/12
Sesame Sugar
Beans

Average Gross Yield (kg) 1 795 2 078 1 785 2 325 299 2 153
Producer Price (MT) 5 5 7 7 26 26
Gross Income 8 975 10 390 12 495 16 275 7 774 56 004
Total Variable Cost (TVC) 10 125 10 125 10 941 12 082 5 215 27 150
Gross Margin (GM) - 1 150 265 1 554 4 193 2 559 28 854

GM/TVC - 0.11 0.03 0.18 0.35 0.49 1.06`

41

Table 23: Returns per invested dollar (GM/TVC).

Household incomes in some areas are also enhanced through phased intercropping. This occurs
where growers plant a new crop towards the end of another crops production cycle (but before it
is taken off from the fields). Common combinations include (i) maize sorghum pigeon pea, and
(ii) maize sunflower pigeon pea.

In some cases grower margins appeared to be slim. This is because, while there has been a
significant increase in producer prices, the area under crop production and production volumes
have not yet reached a point of enabling farmers to benefit from economies of scale. There is
however, great potential for increased margins given that the already established rapport between
the ECA programme and the growers will ensure an increase in input support levels, while the high
producer prices have set in motion a frenzy in the expansion of area under production and aroused
interest in farmers outside the scope of this programme.

42
11. Impact on Livelihoods

11.1 Impact on Household Food Security

Barue District is a high rainfall and high potential area, hence food security has never been an issue
except during drought seasons. Farmers managed to get good yields and to produce enough for
household consumption despite mid-season dry spells in the district during this 2011/12 season.
Evidence from the baseline survey shows that on average participation on the ECA programme has
improved household food security, notably for beneficiary farmers receiving complete and
medium maize input packages, whose food expenditure has declined significantly. As an example,
the proportion of average household expenditure on food for maize medium input package
beneficiaries declined from 8.5% to 1.3%. See Table 9 and Figure 24.

Table 9: Proportion of income spent on different key household needs.
Type of farmer
group
Percentage [%] Percentage [%]
Food Education Health Tillage
&
inputs
Non agric
productive
expenditure
Food Education Health Tillage
&
inputs
Non agric
productive
expenditure
Maize complete 3.4 2.8 1.1 10.8 1.1 0.6 0.6 1.3 15.9 2.5
Maize medium 8.5 9.1 2.3 1.7 0.6 1.3 12.1 5.7 3.8 1.9
Maize basic 2.8 8.5 4.5 9.7 8.0 2.5 10.2 3.8 19.1 1.9
Sesame 4.0 1.7 0.6 1.1 0 0 1.9 2.5 0 0
Non-beneficiary 4.5 4.0 1.7 4.0 3.4 3.8 1.9 5.1 0 1.3

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Food Education Health Tillage &
inputs
Non agric
productive
Food Education Health Tillage &
inputs
Non agric
productive
% of
farmers
Proportion of income spent on household needs

Figure 24: Comparative proportion of income spent on different key household needs

43
Tillage and inputs remain a major expenditure area for participating households. Focus group
discussions revealed that a number of farmers marketed their produce and bought cattle,
agricultural inputs and farming equipment (e.g. irrigation pipes for use in the vegetable gardens),
an investment which is further expected to boost household food security.

11.2 Changes in Household Asset Ownership Patterns

Changes in household asset ownership patterns are another indicator of positive or negative
programme impact. The baseline household survey established positive changes for both
productive and non-productive assets. See Figures 25 and 26.

0
20
40
60
80
100
Hoes Knapsack
sprayers
Wheelbarrows Ploughs Scotch-carts Cattle
% of
farmers
Productive asset ownership patterns

Figure 25: Changes in productive asset ownership patterns.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Cell phones Radios Televisions Solar
panels
Sewing
machines
Coal/gas
stoves
Bicycles Motor
vehicles
Traditional
housing
Improved
housing
% of
farmers
Non-productive assets
Non-productive asset ownership patterns

Figure 26: Non-productive asset ownership patterns.

44
Notable changes have been recorded for hoes (where the average numbers increased from 4.1 to
5.3, while ownership proportions increased from 93.2% to 99.4%), knapsack sprayers, cattle
(where the average numbers increased from 3.6 to 4.7, while ownership proportions increased
from 18.5% to 19.7%) and cattle-drawn ploughs for productive assets, and improved housing
(where ownership proportions increased from 19.7% to 36.5%), solar panels, radios and cell
phones for non-productive assets. See Case Study 1.

CASE STUDY 1: Tchozvo young couple turns maize proceeds into stock capital.
Josepha Charles and his wife have traditionally
been maize farmers. The family had no cattle so
planting was usually late, while reliance on
hand hoes meant that the cropped area was
very small. Intensive labour use ensured that
the family produced enough for household
consumption but with no application of
chemical fertilizers or organic manure their
yields were always poor, averaging 1.0mt/ha.

The couple joined the ECA programme in
2011. They were contracted to grow 2ha of
maize, receiving 40kg OPV maize seed, 50kg
Compound D, and 100kg AN. From these
inputs the family managed an average
2.4mt/ha and a total output of 4.85ha. After
deductions for input credit, the family
purchased two (2) heifers which the family
appropriately christened ECA and
Company in appreciation of the contract
farming scheme.

11.3 Impact on Poverty Reduction, Livelihoods & Household Incomes

As a result of participation on the ECA programme, farmers have managed to produce enough for
household consumption, for marketing, paying-up their debts and remaining with surplus income.
While average household incomes declined for sesame producers and non-beneficiaries,
beneficiaries of complete, medium and basic maize input packages recorded, on average, increases
in household income. See Figure 27.

45
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Avg income
earned
(Meticals)
Type of group
Comparative analysis of income earned

Figure 27: Average household income during the baseline and 2012 review periods.

On average household incomes for beneficiaries of the maize basic package increased from
USD631 to USD738, representing a 16.7% increase over a one-year period. This compares to an
income increase of 34.9% for maize complete package beneficiaries and -5.9% for non-
beneficiaries.

CASE STUDY 2: Optimizing the diversification of household income and livelihood options..
Two ECA beneficiaries (Luciano Guinifaulo and
Jose Imacio Sande) had farming as a sole
income-generating activity before they joined
the ECA programme. They both independently
produced a variety of crops whose produce they
sold to commodity brokers operating in the
district.

Taking advantage of ECAs input, technical
backstopping and market support one of the
farmers produced 12mt of maize, while the
other produced 6mt of maize and 120kg of
sesame. They, however, both sold 80 x 60kg
bags to the ECA Programme earning
USD1,159, with proceeds used to purchase
grinding mills. This enterprise is now
earning the two young farmers an average
of USD20 during the peak harvest season,
thus diversifying and improving incomes.

46

Assuming that geo-physical and socio-economic conditions remain favourable, the potential
impact from the continued implementation of the ECA programme is immense. With continued
financial backing, improved market support and the expected exponential growth in participating
growers, there is great likelihood of a total transformation of small scale agriculture in not just
Barue District but throughout Manica Province.

47
12. Recommendations

Field consultations (comprising key informant interviews, stakeholder consultations and focus
group discussions) and input from the team of consultants produced varied recommendations.
Some recommendations are contradictory to other earlier recommendations, but still incorporated
into this report to ensure an unbiased coverage of all the issues. These recommendations are
highlighted and elaborated below:-

12.1 Technical and Generic Recommendations

12.1.1 CA Up-Scaling
Continued effort should be put in promoting CA practices and ensure the full adoption of all CA
practices for more efficient and effective production.

12.1.2 Facilitating the Formation of more Sustainable Farmer Clubs
The bulk of the established farmers clubs were formed for the sole purpose of facilitating
participation on the ECA programme, which might be a source of sustainability challenges during
the later phases of the project. To avoid such challenges, group formation for the 2012/13
cropping season should be based on existing groups to ensure better cohesion, effectiveness and
sustainability.

12.1.3 TFT and the Capacity Building of Value Chain Players
There is need for capacity building of value chain players, notably for producers. The consultants
recommend a comprehensive Training for Transformation (TFT) for all growers participating on
the ECA programme as a strategy for ensuring a change in the mindset; promote a business
approach to agriculture, and the transition from subsistence to commercialized agriculture. For
value chain players M&E training is critical.

12.1.4 Use of an Integrated Approach
There is need for the adoption of an integrated approach in programme implementation. The
concortion of strategies could include increased input support levels to ensure optimization of
yields and an increase in farmer margins, increased capacity to purchase maize from growers
(based on forward contracts), increased trade volumes, reduction in unit transaction costs and
ultimately increasing farmers share of the retail price (producer price).

12.2 Short, Medium and Long-Term Policy Recommendations

12.2.1 Market Expansion
While in any market, entrepreneurs harvest early benefits by taking advantage of the lower hanging
fruits, the massive interest and potential already generated by the programme demands that the
programme move up by increasing marketed volumes and ensure that they optimize both turnover
and margins by taking advantage of more lucrative marketing opportunities. Two immediate
example include:-
(a) Given that this project is indeed a farmer focused and small-scale farmer driven initiative,
the programme can market to the IFAD-funded and WFP/FAO implemented Purchase for
Progress (P4P) Programme, where prices have ranged from 6.5 20MT/kg (USD0.22
0.69/kg).
(b) There is also potential of increasing marketed volumes from the current 1,500mt to
3,500mt provided the ECA Programme acquires a grit making machine and sell the grit to
Cerveja de Mozambique (CDM).

48
(c) Existing preliminary sale agreements with other potential niche markets should also be
pushed until materialization into full contracts to ensure continuation of the momentum.

12.2.2 Adoption of an Effective M&E System
An appropriate Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system is critical for providing key benchmark
information, noting project achievements, documenting lessons learnt, identifying areas requiring
attention, determining appropriate design changes and identifying areas whose improvements are
prerequisites for ensuring an effective and efficient intervention with tangible benefits and impact
for the target beneficiaries and wider communities. While this baseline survey do provide the
benchmarks, follow-up annual reviews, a 2012 Review assessment and an end-of-project
evaluation are all essential for effective M&E. Such annual reviews are critical for assessing
progress achieved against the set targets, keeping track of issues such as improvements in gross
margins and side-marketing, and establishing the techno-socio-economic factors behind such
phenomena.

12.2.3 Optimizing Margins through Diversification
To maximize turnover and optimize margins a number of strategies need to be implemented within
the medium-to-long term timeframe. Such strategies could include:-
(a) Currently ECA is supporting only a single crop (maize) for a number of farmers, while a
few farmers benefited from support for both maize and sesame. The ECA Programme
should diversify the crops contracted to include sugar beans and other high value crops.
Concentration on maize alone has the potential of eventually depressing maize producer
prices in the district and the province. This will not only enhance the diversity of crops
grown by the farmers, but also reduce the firm and farmers risk, thereby increasing
margins.
(b) Agro-processing presents alternative opportunities for increased turnover and margins.
Agro-processing and other value-addition activities offer great opportunities for value-
addition through processing, the marketing of a value-added product and significant
increases in margins. For illustrational purposes only, a 10kg roller meal costs between
180 200MT/10kg which translates to between 18 20MT/kg (USD0.62 0.69/kg)
compared to grain prices of 5-7mt/kg (USD0.17 0.24/kg).
(c) With large-scale commercial agriculture largely underdeveloped, small scale producers
offer opportunities for seed multiplication within environments compatible with the
ecological conditions for the target markets. Working with small-medium seed companies
such as Phoenix Seeds, the ECA Programme can provide a seed multiplication vehicle for
such enterprises. Although seed multiplication demands more vigorous management and
the production costs are higher, market prices (ranging from 10 15MT/kg or USD0.34
0.52/kg) are higher, thereby entailing more optimal margins.

49
13. Conclusion

This baseline survey has provided key benchmark information which lays the foundation of an
effective M&E framework for the ECA Programme and similar projects. Despite a short
implementation timeframe, preliminary results from the assessment conducted as part of the
baseline study show that the ECA Programme has already registered notable progress. To date,
the programme has proven to be appropriate and relevant given real felt needs in Barue District,
effective against the set objectives, efficient with respect to resource use and meeting the expected
timeframes, and recorded tangible impact on the ground. This initiative has immense potential,
not just in ensuring positive impact and an improvement in the livelihoods of participating
households but beyond the district and provincial boundaries through ripple effects in both the
micro- and macro-economies. To ensure optimization of results there is need for expanding the
existing marketing horizons, adopting an effective M&E framework and diversifying options as a
way of ensuring increased turnover and optimum margins.

2012 ECA Baseline Survey Report Barue Districe MZ - 25 10 12

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2012 ECA Baseline Survey Report Barue Districe MZ - 25 10 12

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

0

BEIRA AGRICULTURAL GROWTH CORRIDOR

You might also like