Profile of Zambia’s Smallholders: Where and Who are...

Profile of Zambia’s Smallholders: Where and Who are the

Potential Beneficiaries of Agricultural Commercialization? Africa Region Working Paper Series No. 113

June 2008

Abstract

Understanding the heterogeneity of Zambia’s rural households and their different potential as agricultural producers is critical to designing strategies for commercially viable smallholders. The objective of this paper is to help contribute to efforts to identify who and where are the Zambian smallholders that have the highest potential to benefit from agricultural commercialization, and to identify other groups of rural households that require alternative strategies for poverty reduction. This paper draws on the existing literature (both quantitative and qualitative analyses) to try and classify higher and lower potential households. It seems that many rural households can not be expected to directly benefit from agricultural commercialization and will require safety nets. Other smallholders might be able to achieve food security and more diversified incomes over time. Even smallholders with potential to be more market-oriented will require significant assistance to make the transformation into commercial farmers. This paper should be viewed as the beginning of a process to better identify the potential of different households to help policymakers design differentiated policies and investment strategies that can be targeted based on these differences

Authors’ Affiliation and Sponsorship

Paul B. Siegel, Consultant, The World Bank.

[email protected].

[email protected]

The Africa Region Working Paper Series expedites dissemination of applied research and policy studies with potential for improving economic performance and social conditions in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Series publishes papers at preliminary stages to stimulate timely discussion within the Region and among client countries, donors, and the policy research community. The editorial board for the Series consists of representatives from professional families appointed by the Region’s Sector Directors. For additional information, please contact Paula White, managing editor of the series, (81131), Email: [email protected] or visit the Web site: http://www.worldbank.org/afr/wps/index.htm.

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author(s), they do not necessarily represent the views of the World Bank Group, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent and

should not be attributed to them.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.worldbank.org/afr/wps/index.htm

wb350881

Typewritten Text

51702

Profile of Zambia’s Smallholders: Where and Who are the Potential Beneficiaries of

Agricultural Commercialization?

Paul B. Siegel *

June 2008

(*) This paper was originally prepared as a background document for the Zambia Smallholder Agricultural Commercialization Strategy (SACS) for Environment, Rural, and Social Development Unit, AFTS1, Africa Region, The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TThis paper was originally prepared as a background document for the Zambia Smallholder

Agricultural Commercialization Strategy (SACS). See: World Bank (2007) ―Zambia Smallholder

Agricultural Commercialization Strategy.‖ Report No. 36573-ZM. Washington, D.C. January 9,

2007. Guidance for the paper was provided by Alex Mwanakasale (AFTS1), Agricultural Officer

based in Lusaka, Zambia and. Paavo Eliste (AFTS1) served as Task Team Leader (TTL) for the

Zambia SACS and provided valuable suggestions and support for publication of this paper. Any

errors are solely the responsibility of the author, as are any opinions. More information on the

Zambia SACS can be received from Paavo Eliste, who can be contacted at

[email protected]


ABBREVIATIONS

ACP Agriculture Commercialization Programme

ASIP Agricultural Sector Investment Program

CAS Country Assistance Strategy

CEM Country Economic Memorandum

CF Conservation Farming

CLUSA Cooperative League of United States of America

CSO Central Statistics Organization

FHH Female-Headed Household

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

FSP Food Security Programme

GRZ Government of the Republic of Zambia

Ha Hectare

HH Household

HYV High Yielding Variety

Kg Kilogram

Km Kilometer

LCMS Living Conditions Monitoring Survey

MACO Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives

MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Fisheries.

MHH Male-Headed Household

MSU Michigan State University

Mt Metric Tons

NGO Non-governmental Organization

PAM ` Programme Against Malnutrition

P&VA Poverty and Vulnerability Assessment

PHS Population and Health Study

PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

PSIA Poverty and Social Impact Assessment

SACS Smallholder Agricultural Commercialization Strategy VAC Vulnerability Assessment Committee

ZK Zambian Kwacha

4

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 2

ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 6

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 7

I. SPATIAL OVERVIEW .................................................................................................... 9

I.A. Characteristics of Zambia’s Agro-Ecological Zones ..................................................... 9 I.B. Road/Rail Infrastructure and Population Centers ........................................................ 12 I.C. Distribution of Smallholder Households ...................................................................... 13 I.D. National Livelihood Zone Map .................................................................................... 13 I.E. Stylized Classification of High/Low Potential Areas and Rural Households .............. 16

II. PROFILE OF RURAL POVERTY ............................................................................... 18

II.A. Quantitative Poverty Profile – based on World Bank (2007) ...................................... 18 II.B. Qualtitative Poverty Profile – based on Parker and Mwape (2005) ............................. 25 II.C. Participatory Assessment: Kefa Village – based on Skonsburg (2003) ....................... 31 II.D. Smallholder Model – based on Siegel and Alwang (2005) ......................................... 32 II.E. Classification of Rural Households – based on Pinder and Wood (2003) ................... 34 II.F. Hard to Measure Factors: Culture and Attitudes.......................................................... 35 II.G. Summary of Key Points on Profile of Rural Poverty ................................................... 36 II.H. Where and Who are the Potential Beneficiaries of Agricultural Commercialization? 37

III. POTENTIAL FOR SMALLHOLDERS MOVING INTO HIGHER VALUE.......... 39

III.A. Higher Value Agricultural Activities ........................................................................... 39 III.B Conservation Farming .................................................................................................. 41 III.C. General Observations ................................................................................................... 41

IV. IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL BENEFICIARIES FROM AGRICULTURAL

COMMERCIALIZATION IN ZAMBIA ...................................................................... 43

V. CONCLUDING COMMENTS ...................................................................................... 46

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 47

ANNEX .......................................................................................................................................... 49

Map 1 Agro-Ecological Zones of Zambia ................................................................................... 10 Map 2 See http://www.fews.net/livelihoods/files/zm/profiling.pdf (page 5) Or see

http://www.fews.net/livelihood/zm/Baseline.pdf ............................................................. 10

List of Tables

Table I. 1 Major Agro-Ecological Zones of Zambia and Agricultural Potential ..................... 11

Table I.2 Zambia’s Major Cities and Urban Areas ................................................................. 12

Table I.3 Distribution of Smallholder Households by Province and Agro-ecological Zone ............................. 13

5

Table I. 4 Population by Livelihood Zone ............................................................................... 15

Table I. 5 Typology of Agricultural Producers in Zambia ....................................................... 16

Table I. 6 Typology of Agricultural Producers in Zambia: From the PRSP ............................ 16

Table I. 7 Stylized Classification of High/Low Potential Areas and Households ................... 17

Table II. 1 Headcount Poverty Estimates, 2002-2003 LCMS ................................................... 19

Table II. 2 Headcount Poverty Estimates Rural/Urban, and Province, ..................................... 20 Table II. 3 Self-Assessed Poverty Status of Zambians, 2002-2003 LCMS............................... 20 Table II. 4 Demographic Characteristics of Rural Households, by Consumption Quintile ...... 21 Table II. 5 Principal Economic Activity of Rural Household Heads, ....................................... 23 Table II. 6 Mean Shares of Income by Source for Rural Households, ...................................... 23 Table II. 7 Mean Area of Crop Land Used for Food and Non-Food Crops, by Household ...... 24 Table II. 8 Crop Production Patterns and Livestock Ownership of Rural Households, ............ 24 Table II. 9 Livestock Ownership: Rural Households, by Province: .......................................... 25 Table II.10 Key Characteristics of 3 Wealth Categories by Agro-Ecological Zone .................. 27 Table II. 11 Stylized Classification of High/Low Potential Areas and Households ................... 38 Table II. 12 Smallholder Households Classified by Agro-Ecological/Livelihood Zone ............. 38 Table IV. 1 Potential Winners and Losers from GRZ’s Agricultural Commercial. Policies ...... 43

6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

here is optimism that a dynamic agricultural sector in Zambia can lead to diversified

production and exports, increased employment and income, and improved food security. The

overwhelming majority of Zambia’s agricultural producers are asset-poor smallholders who use

simple technologies and cultivation practices. However, it is important to recognize that Zambian

smallholders are not a homogeneous and monolithic group, and that being a rural resident is not

synonymous with being a smallholder. Thus, not all rural households who produce some crops

and livestock should be considered ―smallholder farmers‖ when examining potential of the

agricultural sector. There are distinct differences in smallholder households that need to be taken

into account. In fact, it seems that a significant proportion of Zambian smallholders can not be

expected to transform into market-oriented production units (in the short or even longer term),

while other smallholders are better positioned to be market oriented. Understanding the

heterogeneity of Zambia’s rural households and their different potential as agricultural producers

is critical to designing strategies for commercially viable smallholders.

The objective of this paper is to help contribute to efforts to identify who and where are the

Zambian smallholders that have the highest potential to benefit from agricultural

commercialization and to identify other groups of rural households that require alternative

strategies for poverty reduction. This paper draws on the existing literature (both quantitative and

qualitative analyses) to try and classify higher and lower potential households based on different

key factors. As such, this paper should be viewed as the beginning of a process to better identify

the potential of different households to help policymakers design differentiated policies and

investment strategies that can be targeted based on these differences.

Based on the classifications presented in this paper, some rural households can be considered to

be located in ―higher economic potential‖ or ―lower economic potential ― areas, and some

households can be considered to have higher or lower potential based on their asset portfolios.

The widespread poverty and challenges facing Zambia’s rural residents have masked, to some

extent, the differences among households grouped together as ―smallholders‖. As shown in this

paper, many rural households can not be expected to directly benefit from agricultural

commercialization and will require safety nets. These ―ultra poor‖ households should benefit

from the increased availability (and possibly lower cost and increased quality) of agricultural

products produced by other rural households. Other smallholders might be able to achieve food

security and more diversified incomes over time. Importantly, even smallholders with potential to

be more market-oriented will require significant assistance to make the transformation into

commercial farmers.

T

7

INTRODUCTION

Zambia’s recent Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), Country Assistance Strategy (CAS),

and Country Economic Memorandum (CEM) view the agricultural sector as a potential engine

for broad based rural growth and poverty reduction. There is optimism that a dynamic

agricultural sector can lead to diversified production and exports, increased employment and

income, and improved food security. This optimism vis-a-vis Zambia’s agricultural sector is

based on the country’s abundant agricultural potential, to the extent that Zambia’s agricultural

sector has been referred to as a ―sleeping agricultural giant‖ (see McPherson, 2004, p.328-329).

Although Zambia’s agricultural sector has significant untapped potential, it is characterized by

structural problems and risks that thwart realization of this potential - especially for smallholders.

The overwhelming majority of Zambia’s agricultural producers are asset-poor smallholders who

use simple technologies (hand hoes and oxen) and cultivation practices (minimal purchased

inputs such as hybrid seed or fertilizer). They mainly produce rain-fed maize, groundnuts, roots

and tubers, mostly for own consumption on five or less hectares (most smallholders cultivate less

than 2 hectares) and productivity tends to be low. Most smallholders lack access to functioning

input and output markets and support services, and it is estimated that less than 50% sell crops in

any given year. At the other extreme are large scale commercial farms using modern inputs and

with access to domestic and global input and output marketing chains, and sometimes vertically

integrated with agro-processing. Larger-scale commercial farmers use hired labor and contribute

to national agricultural production and exports, but their relative small numbers and reliance on

labor-saving technologies limit their poverty reducing potential through labor linkages. However,

there has been a recent trend of outgrower schemes (different forms of contract farming) that

directly link smallholders with larger commercial farmers (or national/international agri-business

firms) through the supply of inputs, credit and technical assistance and the marketing of outputs.

The proliferation of outgrower schemes is largely a response to the collapse of state-supported

agricultural systems (e.g., input supply, guaranteed output markets, credit, technical assistance)

and the lack of private market networks to fill the void.

The dualistic structure within the Zambian agricultural sector is increasingly being recognized

and increasingly being considered when formulating rural development strategies and designing

projects (see Siegel and Alwang, 2005). Furthermore, Siegel (2005) notes that: ―It is also

important to recognize that Zambian smallholders are not a homogeneous and monolithic group,

and that being a rural resident is not synonymous with being a smallholder. That is, not all rural

households who produce some crops and livestock should be considered ―smallholder farmers‖

when examining the potential of the agricultural sector. There are distinct differences in

smallholder households’ asset portfolios (broadly defined to include productive, social and

locational assets), income generating potential, livelihood strategies and well-being outcomes that

need to be taken into account. Thus, there seems to be a phenomena of ―dualism within dualism‖,

whereby a significant proportion of Zambian smallholders can not be expected to transform into

market-oriented production units (in the short or even longer term), while other smallholders are,

in fact, better positioned to be market oriented.‖ Understanding the heterogeneity of Zambia’s

rural households and their different potential as agricultural producers is critical to designing

strategies for commercially viable smallholders.

Some rural households can be considered to be located in ―higher economic potential‖ or ―lower

economic potential ― areas, and some households can be considered to have higher or lower

8

potential based on their asset portfolios. The widespread poverty and challenges facing all of

Zambia’s rural residents have masked, to some extent, the differences among households grouped

together as ―smallholders‖. As will be shown, many rural households can not be expected to

directly benefit from agricultural commercialization and will require safety nets. These ―ultra

poor‖ households should benefit from the increased availability (and possibly lower cost and

increased quality) of agricultural products produced by other rural households. Other

smallholders might be able to achieve food security and more diversified incomes over time.

Importantly, even smallholders with potential to be more market-oriented will require significant

assistance to make the transformation into commercial farmers.

When considering the potential for agricultural commercialization in Zambia, it is also critical to

consider attitudes towards agriculture. Some note that the greatest constraint facing Zambian

smallholders is the lack of a more business oriented approach to farming, since most of them

view agriculture as a way of life and not as a business (e.g., Chiwele and Sikananu, 2004). In

Zambia some smallholders have experience with commercial agriculture, but that does not mean

that they are commercial smallholders. There is a history of dependency by smallholders on

others to carry out the commercial activities associated with agricultural production and

marketing while they focus on the productive activities. The services that smallholders receive

through outgrower schemes are very similar to services they received in the past from

government-programs that provided inputs, markets for outputs, credit and technical assistance.

In both cases there has been a focus on getting smallholders engaged in commercial activities and

less attention to providing commercially-oriented smallholders with a essential entrepreneurial

skills.

The objective of this paper is to contribute to efforts to help identify who and where are the



strategies for poverty reduction. This paper draws on the existing literature (both quantitative

and qualitative analyses) to try and classify higher and lower potential households based on

different factors. As such, this paper should be viewed as the beginning of a process to better

identify the different potential of different households to help policymakers design differentiated

policies and investment strategies that can be targeted based in these differences.

Section I presents a Spatial Overview, followed by Section II and a Profile of Rural Poverty from

a household perspective. Section III focuses attention on the Potential for Smallholders Moving

into Higher Value Crop Activities and Conservation Farming, and Section IV brings together

information in previous sections for Identifying Potential Beneficiaries from Agricultural

Commercialization in Zambia. A short conclusion is presented in Section V.

9

I. SPATIAL OVERVIEW

Crop and livestock patterns are influenced by locational factors such as agro-ecological zones and

the existence (or absence) of accessible road/rail infrastructure and markets, and proximity of

population centers. Below is a brief spatial overview of Zambia that focuses on the major agro-

ecological zones, road/rail infrastructure and population centers. A rough estimate of the share of

smallholder households living in each agro-ecological zone is also presented. Livelihood zones

are then presented, whereby these locational factors are combined with household-specific assets

of residents. We then explore some stylized household typologies based on locational and

household-specific assets, and income generating and consumption activities. An estimate of the

percent of population living in the livelihood zones associated with commercial agriculture is

presented. The spatial overview points to the profound differences in rural areas with respect to

economic potential and helps understand the spatial distribution of rural poverty and strategies to

reduce rural poverty. This section ends with a presentation of some stylized classifications of

households based on differences in locational factors and household assets.

I.A. Characteristics of Zambia’s Agro-Ecological Zones

There is often reference to 3 major agro-ecological zones in Zambia (see table 1.1 and map 1.1).

Zone I is a low-rainfall area in the southern portion of the Southern and Western Provinces. It

primarily borders Zimbabwe and is one of Zambia’s hottest, driest and poorest regions. It

includes the valleys of the Zambezi and Luangwa rivers, where soils are sandy and fertility is

poor. Zone 1 also includes a major game management area (Luangwa Valley), where farming

households attempt to coexist with wildlife. Maize, sorghum, groundnuts, sunflowers and

cowpeas are cultivated, and the fishing industry (though now in decline) has drawn many to the

area. Mats and baskets are made from reeds and sold to traders who visit the area for this

purpose. This zone constitutes about 12% of Zambia’s land area.

Zone II is a medium-rainfall belt running east-west through the center of the country on the

plateau of the Central, Lusaka, Southern and Eastern Provinces. It is an area with relatively good

soils and receives more rainfall than Zone I. It has the most favorable agro-ecological conditions

in terms of rainfall, soil quality, and absence of tse-tse fly. There is also ample irrigation

potential. This allows for a diverse mix of crop and livestock enterprises. Because of its proximity

to Lusaka and other urban centers, Zone II has received more assistance from government, NGOs

and donor organizations, and is the geographic focus of outgrower schemes and conservation

farming. Maize is the staple crop, but a wide variety of other crops are grown; including beans,

groundnuts, sorghum, cassava, millet, sweet potato, sunflower, cotton, rice, tobacco, paprika

along with vegetables (e.g., tomatoes and onions) and fruits (e.g., bananas, citrus fruits and

guavas). This zone constitutes about 42% of Zambia’s land area.

It is important to note that within Zone II there is a low-rainfall area in the western part of the

country that corresponds mostly to central/northern parts of Western Province (which Chiwele

and Sikanu (2004) refer to as Zone IIB). Note the different shades of blue in Zone II in map 1.1. This area is often considered a part of Zone II, but is differentiated by lower rainfall and sadier

soils, poorer road and market infrastructure, high risk of droughts, mainly sorghum and millet as

staple crops along with cassava, with some maize also being grown. This drought-prone area is

also suited to extensive livestock production, cashew nuts, and timber.

10

Zone III is a high-rainfall area in the north of the country in Copperbelt, Luapula, Northern and

NorthWestern Provinces. It includes the mines of the Copperbelt area, which is relatively

urbanized and was once a source of prosperity for the nation. The decline of the copper industry

has caused an unemployment problem in this area. Zone II contains major river systems, such as

the Luapula and Mansa rivers, as well as numerous lakes. The major crops produced are cassava,

maize, groundnuts, millet, sorghum, beans and sweet potatoes; and small-scale fishing and fish-

trading is also a source of income. Because of the abundance of water in this area, there is

potential for irrigation and for fishing. This zone constitutes about 46% of Zambia’s land area.

Map 1 Agro-Ecological Zones of Zambia

Zambezi

Kaoma

Mongu

Kalomo

Choma

Monze

Mazabuka

Kafue

Mumbwa

Kabwe

Rufunsa

Kapiri Mposhi

Serenje

Mkushi

Ndola

Luanshya

Kitwe

Solwezi

Mwinilunga

Petauke

Chipata

Mpika

Lundazi

Isoka

Nakonde

Mbola

Kasama

Luwingu

Mansa

LUSAKA

Kafue R.

LAKE KARIBA

ZAMBE

E

ZI R

IVR

Lu

.a

pu

ta R

LakeMweru

LakeTanganyka

Lake Bangwelu

Kabompo

Sesheke

Livingstone

Chingola

TCI401-42/ZAMBIA-AGROECO

Kaboomp R.

Cham

besh

i R

.

Luang

wa R

.

Lun

ga R

.

ZAMBEZI V RI ER

Kafue R.

I

III bII a

II a

III

III

0 80 160 240 Km

International boundaryMain roadsRivers

Agroecological Regions

Luangwa-Zambia Rift Valley

Central, Southern and Eastern Plateaux

Western Semi-arid Plains

Northern High Rainfall Zone

I.

II a.

II b.

III.

Source: FAO (2005)

Map 2 See http://www.fews.net/livelihoods/files/zm/profiling.pdf (page 5) Or see

http://www.fews.net/livelihood/zm/Baseline.pdf

http://www.fews.net/livelihoods/files/zm/profiling.pdf


11

Table I. 1 Major Agro-Ecological Zones of Zambia and Agricultural Potential

Provinces

Covered

Rainfall Soil Quality,

Agricultural

Potential

Growing

Season

Major

Agricultural

Activities

Agricultural Potential

Crop

Potential

Livestock

Potential

Zone I Most of

Southern

Province

and parts

of Western

and Eastern

Provinces

600-

800mm

Soils:

Shallow

Sands

80-120

days

Maize limited

by rainfall.

Sorghum, millet,

sunflower,

cassava, cotton,

tobacco.

Livestock

limited by tse-

tse fly.

Poor Limited by

existence of

tse-tse fly

and

trypanosomi

asis

Zone II Most parts

of Central,

Eastern,

Lusaka,

Southern

Provinces,

parts of

Western

Province

800-

1000mm

Soils:

Moderately

leached sandy

loams

100-140

days

Maize,

groundnuts, and

wide range of

crops and

livestock.

Good Absence of

tse-tse fly

and

trypanosomi

asis

Zone III Northern,

Luapala,

Copperbelt,

Northweste

rn

Provinces

1100-

1700mm

Leached and

acidic sands

120-150

days

Maize, bananas,

coffee, tea.

Limited by high

acid soils.

Moderate Limited by

existence of

tse-tse fly

and

trypanosomi

asis

Source: Siegel (2005).

Climatic Risks

Over 90% of smallholder crop production is rainfed, so rainfall is a critical factor for selecting

crops, their planting time, the timing and intensity of input and labor use, and subsequent yields.

Yield fluctuations from unpredictable rainfall are a major risk to smallholders. Since 1990, about

three out of every 5 years have essentially been drought years in Zambia (Bwalya, 1999).

Droughts occurred in 1991/2, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 (World Bank,

2004). The occurrence and impact of droughts is not equally distributed over the country.

Southern and Western Provinces have been most severely impacted, but there are even

differences within these provinces and also areas in other provinces that have suffered from

droughts in recent years.

Area Comparative Advantage for Zone II

Average yields vary substantially among provinces. In general, yields are higher in Zone II for

most crops and conditions for livestock production are also more favorable. Higher yields are

due to more favorable agro-ecological conditions and the fact that much of this zone is located

along the ―line-of-rail‖ which allows for greater access to input and output markets. Smallholder

households in this area tend to have better access to infrastructure, higher use of inputs, and a

higher share of medium- and large-sized commercial farms using improved technologies. The

existence of medium- and larger-commercial farms in the area is beneficial to smallholders

through labor linkages and the existence of outgrower schemes, and also through demonstration

effects. This is important with respect to Zones I and III, which are characterized by a virtual

absence of medium- and larger-commercial farms.

12

I.B. Road/Rail Infrastructure and Population Centers

Besides agro-ecological factors, other important spatial factors influencing rural economic

potential include proximity to the road/rail infrastructure and proximity to major urban centers

and markets1.

Major Road/Rail Infrastructure

The major ―line-of-rail‖ runs from copper mine areas in the Copperbelt through Lusaka and on to

Livingstone in Southern Province. The road infrastructure along the ―line-of-rail‖ route is in

fairly good condition. Most large commercial farms are located close to the ―line-of-rail‖. There

is also a railroad line (and road network) that connects Lusaka to Tanzania and runs through

Mpika and Kasama in Northern Province. In addition there is a fairly good road network

connecting Lusaka to Chipata in Eastern Province. There are also road networks to Mongu in

Western Province and Solwezi and Mwinilunga in Northwestern Province and Manza in Luapula

Province. In general, the primary road/rail network does not cover large areas of the country,

especially outside the ―line-of-rail‖. Also, there is a lack of coverage of secondary and tertiary

rural roads.

Population Centers

Zambia is one of the most urbanized countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. There are 8 urban centers

in Zambia with more than 100,000 inhabitants – all located on the ―line-of-rail‖. See table I.2.

The major urban centers are Lusaka, the capital which is an administrative and commercial

center, and the group of cities in the Copperbelt that historically served the mines in that area.

The urban areas of Lusaka and the Copperbelt both have about 1.7 million residents. Only 2

cities with 100,000 inhabitants are located outside of Lusaka and the Copperbelt – and they are

also on the ―line-of-rail‖. Kabwe is between Lusaka and the Copperbelt and Livingstone at the

southernmost point of the ―line-of-rail‖ bordering Zimbabwe. Together these 8 urban centers

account for almost 40% of Zambia’s total population.

Table I.2 Zambia’s Major Cities and Urban Areas

City City Population Urban Area Population “Copperbelt”

Urban Population

Lusaka 1,218,200 1,720,800

Ndola 347,900 590,000 590,000

Kitwe 305,000 786,100 786,100

Kabwe 213,800 213,800

Chingola 150,500 150,500 150,500

Mufilira 131,000 131,000 131,000

Luanshya 124,800 124,800 124,800

Livingstone 108,100 108,100

Total 2,599,300 3,824,300 1,782,400

Source: Zambia 2005 Population Update http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/Zambia.htm

1 See map: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/zambia

http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/Zambia.htm

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/zambia

13

I.C. Distribution of Smallholder Households

There are several estimates of the actual number of smallholder households in Zambia. The

following table presents an estimation of the distribution of smallholder households among the

provinces based on a survey conducted by the Programme Against Malnutrition (PAM) in 2001,

and shares of food insecurity. The respective shares of households by agro-ecological zone were

estimated by the author.

Table I.3 Distribution of Smallholder Households by Province and Agro-ecological Zone

Province Share of

Smallholder

HHs in

Province

Share of

Smallholder

HHs in

Province that

are Food

Insecure

Estimated

Share of

Smallholder

HHs in

Zone I

Estimated

Share of

Smallholder

HHs in

Zone II

Estimated

Share of

Smallholder

HHs in

Zone III

Hectares

(ha) per

Household

Central 8.7% 69% 8.7% 3.23

Copperbelt 4.9% 56% 4.9% 3.18

Eastern 24.2% 75% 10.0% 14.2% 2.20

Luapula 13.2% 70% 13.2% 2.61

Lusaka 2.1% 57% 2.1% 1.98

Northern 17.4% 71% 17.4% 6.54

Northwestern 6.1% 79% 6.1% 1.70

Southern 13.1% 69% 5.0% 8.1% 2.40

Western 10.3% 79% 7.0% 3.3% 1.75

Total 100% 69% 22.0% 36.4% 41.6% 3.05

Source: Chiwele and Sikananu (2004) shares of smallholders by province and food insecure.

Source: Hectares per household, Siegel (2005).

Note: Estimated share of smallholder households by zone were “guesstimated” by the author.

There is widespread food insecurity through all provinces and agro-ecological zones. The lowest

levels of food insecurity are in the 2 most urbanized provinces – Lusaka and Copperbelt. Almost

¼ of all smallholder households reside in Eastern Province. As can be observed in the next

chapter, the highest share of rural poor lives in Eastern Province – which is partly in Zone II and

partly in Zone I. It is important to note that it is estimated that less than 40% of smallholders

reside in the more favored agro-ecological zone II, and that more than 40% of smallholders reside

in the high rainfall Zone III, which we will see is mostly characterized by lower population

densities and lack of access to infrastructure and markets. Also, it should be noted that about

22% of smallholder households reside in drought-prone Zone I which accounts for about 12% of

Zambia’s land area. On average, rural households in Zambia have access to approximately three

hectares of land. This amount of land should allow households, in most areas, to produce enough

food staples and other foods to cover consumption needs. Access to land and the quality of land,

however, varies by province (and also within provinces).

I.D. National Livelihood Zone Map

The Zambia Vulnerability Assessment Committee (VAC) produced a National Livelihood Zone

Map (see Zambia, 2004 and http://www.fews.net/livelihoods/files/zm/profiling.pdf page 5)2 that

divides the country into zones based on common factors influencing rural livelihoods, such as: a)

agronomic potential, b) vulnerability to climatic risks such as droughts and floods, c) access to

roads and markets, d) major agricultural production systems and flows of agricultural inputs and

2 Or, see http://www.fews.net/livelihood/zm/Baseline.pdf


14

outputs, and e) household assets. The livelihood zone map delineates geographical areas within

which households share similar production and marketing patterns and similar distribution of

household assets.3 We refer to the livelihoods zones map as Map 2

4.

Table I.3 presents the estimated total population (rural and urban) of each livelihood zone. A brief

description of each livelihood zone is presented in the Annex. The basic information on

livelihoods was drawn from the VAC Final Report (Zambia 2004), but has been ―repackaged‖ for

this paper. An important observation that can be made from the national livelihood zone map is

the heterogeneity of conditions facing Zambian smallholders, as reflected in many different

livelihood zones. The livelihood zone map also provides some insights into the location of higher

and lower potential areas for commercial agriculture and higher and lower potential beneficiaries

from efforts to promote smallholder commercialization.

There are 27 livelihood zones that have been identified. Some of the zones have similar codes

because of similarities in some conditions. But differences in agronomic potential, droughts or

floods, access to roads and markets, or orientation of market flows might differ within areas

thereby indicating the need to consider different livelihood strategies.

The livelihood zones most associated with a higher prevalence of commercial smallholder

agricultural activities (and large-scale commercial farmers) are livelihood zones 4A (Central

Maize-Cotton, 5A Line of Rail Commercial Farming, 5B Eastern Province Cash Crop, 7B

Chongwe-Nyimba Plateau, and 13 Mkushi Commercial Block. In general, these livelihood zones

coincide to: a) Agro-Ecological Zone II, and b) the ―line-of-rail‖ road and market infrastructure,

Together these zones account for about 3,604,000 out of an estimated 9,900,000 Zambians (about

36% of all rural and urban residents). The combination of small and large commercial farmers,

relatively good agro-ecological and infrastructure conditions, and the proximity to major urban

markets make this the most ―dynamic‖ agricultural area in Zambia at the present time.

Other livelihood zones that have some commercial smallholder areas include 3A Mufumbwe

Kasempa, 3B Muchinga Escarpment, 4B Chama-Lundazi, 7A Kazungula-Mwandi Plain, 7C

Luano Valley, and 11A Gwembe Valley, 12B Mabwe-Petauke Valley. It is interesting to note

that several livelihood zones are characterized by high rainfall, low population density, casasava

and other food staples and cross-border trade with Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, and

Tanzania that do not pass through the ―line-of-rail‖ (such as Zones 1B, 2B, 15B, 16B).

Furthermore, there is tourism potential that can provide livelihoods to rural households and also

provide markets for expanding agricultural production (e.g., Zones 4B, 11B, 15C).

Wealth Breakdowns

In addition to the livelihood zones, the VAC carried out a wealth breakdown analysis among

households in several rural communities in 4 different livelihood zones. The following range of

wealth breakdowns was found in the selected communities (they vary somewhat among the

respective zones, hence the ranges):

3 Livelihood zone boundaries do not follow administrative boundaries. Instead, a river or mountain or watershed may

be the boundary for a livelihood zone. Thus, an administrative zone might contain different livelihood zones and a

livelihood zone can cover several administrative zones. 4 See http://www.fews.net/livelihoods/files/zm/profiling.pdf page 5, or


http://www.fews.net/livelihoods/files/zm/profiling.pdf%20page%205


15

Poor and Very Poor Households: 40-60%

Middle Households: 20-30%

Better-off Households: 10-20%

It can be observed, about 1/2 of rural households are considered poor or very poor in the

respective livelihood zones. In general all of the poor and very poor households cultivated less

than 1 ha of food staple crops and possibly had some chickens. The middle and better-off

households tended to cultivate more than 2 ha and land and engage in both food and cash crops

and grow enough staple foods for own-consumption, and also have (small and large) livestock.

Table I. 4 Population by Livelihood Zone

Zone

Code Zone Name Population

4A Central Maize-Cotton 255,000

5A Line of Rail Commercial Farming 2,403,000

5B Eastern Province Cash Crop 807,000

7B Chongwe-Nyimba Plateau 90,000

13 Mkushi Commercial Block 69,000

Subtotal of Population 3,604,000

1A Northwest High Rainfall 201,000

1B Tuta-Luapula Corridor 596,000

2A Copperbelt Mining 1,665,000

2B Northern Province Plateau 979,000

3A Mufumbwe Kasempa 295,000

3B Muchinga Escarpment 63,000

4B Chama-Lundazi Rice 317,000

6 Sioma Plain 374,000

7A Kazungula-Mwandi Plains 197,000

7C Luano Valley 187,000

9 Mulobezi Woodlands 18,000

10A Zambezi West Bank 262,000

10B Zambezi East 99,000

11A Gwembe Valley 278,000

11B Lake Kariba Fishing 13,000

12A Chiawa-Zambezi Lowlands 106,000

12B Mambwe-Petauke Valley 118,000

14 Zambezi Floodplain 70,000

15B Luapula Valley 247,000

15C Luangwa-Mfuwe Valley 90,000

16A Luapula Northern Wetlands 163,000

16B Kaputa Rice 30,000

Total Population 9,990,000

Source: Zambia (2004)

16

I.E. Stylized Classification of High/Low Potential Areas and Rural Households

The traditional classification of Zambia’s agricultural producers is presented in Table I.5.

Table I. 5 Typology of Agricultural Producers in Zambia

Approx.

# of

Producers

Approx

Farm Size

Technology,

Cultivation

Practice

Market

Orientation

Location Major

Constraints

Small-Scale

Producers

800,000 hhs < 5ha

(with majority

cultivating 2

or less ha of

rain-fed land)

Hand hoe,

minimal

inputs,

household

labor

Staple foods,

primarily

home

consumption

Entire country Remoteness,

seasonal labor

constraints,

lack of input

and output

markets

Emergent

Farmers

50,000 hhs 5 - 20 ha Oxen, hybrid

seed and

fertilizer, few

with irrigation,

mostly

household

labor

Staple foods

and cash

crops,

primarily

market

orientation

Mostly line-

of-rail

(Central,

Lusaka,

Southern

Provinces),

some Eastern,

Western

Provinces

Seasonal

labor

constraints,

lack of credit,

weak market

information

Large-Scale

Commercial

Farms

700 farms 50 – 150ha Tractors,

hybrid seed,

fertilizer,

some

irrigation,

modern mang.,

hired labor

Maize and

cash crops

Mostly

Central,

Lusaka,

Southern

Provinces

High cost of

credit,

indebtedness

Large

Corporate

Operations

10 farms 1000+ ha High

mechanization,

irrigation,

modern mang.,

hired labor

Maize, cash

crops, vertical

integration

Mostly

Central,

Lusaka,

Southern

Provinces

Uncertain

policy

environment

Source: Siegel and Alwang (2005), adapted from World Bank (2003b) and Francis, et al., (1997).

In this classification, all 800,0000 small-scale producers are grouped into a single category, and

only 50,000 farmers are referred to as ―emergent farmers..

For the PRSP, a different classification of agricultural producers was presented (see table I.6)

Table I. 6 Typology of Agricultural Producers in Zambia: From the PRSP

Farming

Characteristics

Small scale Emergent Medium Scale Large Scale

# of farmers 459,000 119,200 25,230 > 40

Crops grown Food crops Food/cash crops Food/cash crops,

livestock

Cash crops,

livestock

Production focus Subsistence Commercial/subsistence Commercial and

own consumption

Commercial

From: World Bank (2002). Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives: Agriculture Bulletin 2000.

In this classification of agricultural producers, it is assumed that there are 578,200 smallholders

with about 20% (119,200) assumed to be emergent and the other 80% are grouped together as

small-scale.

17

Differences from the typologies of agricultural producers indicate some uncertainty about the

numbers and classifications of smallholders.

Despite the difficulties incumbent on trying to classify agricultural producers, it is important to

try and identify similarities and differences among ―smallholders‖. Some rural households can be

considered to be located in ―high potential‖ or ―low potential ― areas, and some rural households

can be considered to have higher or lower potential based on their asset portfolios. Noting the

need to classify Zambian smallholders based on locational factors (e.g., agro-ecological potential,

proximity to roads and markets), in a very stylized manner, Siegel (2005) presented a simple 2x2

typology of conceptualize four types of smallholder households to conceptualize these

differences. See table 1.7:

Table I. 7 Stylized Classification of High/Low Potential Areas and Households

Household (HH) Asset Portfolio

High Low

Location-Specific

Assets (agricultural

potential and access to

markets)

High High-High

―High Potential Area/

High Potential HHs‖

High-Low


Low Potential HHs‖

Low Low-High

―Low Potential Area/


Low-Low


Low Potential HHs‖ Source: Siegel (2005)

Household Type A: ―High Potential Area/High Potential HHs‖

households mostly located in Agro-Ecological Zone II near line-of-rail (corresponds

mostly to Livelihood Zones: 4A, 5A, 5B, 7B, 13), with ample labor/land and oxen.

Household Type B: ―High Potential Area/Low Potential HHs‖

households mostly located in Zone II near line-of-rail, with high dependency ratio,

female-headed, not educated household head, and hand-hoe

Household Type C: ―Low Potential Area/High Potential HHs‖

households mostly located in zones I and III away from line-of-rail, with oxen and

low depency ratio

Household Type D: ―Low Potential Area/Low PotentialHHs‖

households mostly located in Zones I and III away from line-of-rail, with high

dependency ratio, female-headed, not educated household head, and hand-hoe

Clearly, the best candidates for market-oriented smallholder agricultural activities would be in

HH Type A. A key question is: to what extent can we identify, quantify, and locate the stylized

types of households (also there are different ways to disaggregate rural areas and households?

Similarly, at a recent conference held by MACO and the Food Security Research Project

(managed by MSU) on the agricultural sector in December 20045, another classification of

smallholders was presented:

HH Type #1: Welfare Cases: smallholders not succeeding as farmers, rural households

not in agriculture,

5 Conference: ―Improving the Performance of the Food and Agriculture System in Zambia – Planning the Way

Forward.‖ Sponsored by Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives in collaboration with Food Security Research

Project, Livingstone, December 3-5, 2004.

18

HH Type #2: Lower Middle Range: food self-sufficient, lack commercial opportunity,

HH Type #3: Higher Middle-Range: food self-sufficient, have commercial potential, and

HH Type #4: Better-off Households: produce surplus food staples, grow cotton and

tobacco.

There are numerous ways to try and classify Zambia’s smallholders. But the examples presented

above helps us conceptualize these differences. It also focuses attention on the fact that very

different strategies are needed to deal with different types of smallholder households. From the

livelihood zone maps and the wealth breakdowns and the preliminary attempts to classify rural

areas and households (above), it can be observed that a significant proportion of smallholder

households should not expect to directly benefit from smallholder commercialisation in the short

run. On the other hand, there are areas of the country that seem to have higher potential for

increased smallholder commercialization. Besides area potential, it is important to focus attention

on the assets, livelihoods and income/consumption of smallholders. This is done in the next

chapter in the poverty profile.

II. PROFILE OF RURAL POVERTY

In this chapter we present results from some recent analyses of rural poverty in Zambia. First, we

present results from a quantitative poverty analysis based on the 2002-2003 Living Conditions

Monitoring Survey (LCMS) prepared for the recent Zambia Poverty and Vulnerability

Assessment (P&VA) (World Bank, 2005). This is followed by a fairly detailed summary of

results from a qualitative poverty analysis carried out in 18 communities in 3 agro-ecological

zones by Parker and Mwape (2005) for the P&VA, and a brief summary of results from a

participatory assessment in a village carried out for the recent Poverty and Social Impact

Assessment (PSIA) by Skonsburg (2004). There is also a brief summary of results from a

quantitative analysis of smallholders carried out for the PSIA by Siegel and Alwang (2005).

Finally we present a classification of smallholder households based on the GRZ Post Harvest

Survey based on Pinder and Wood (2003).

II.A. Quantitative Poverty Profile – based on World Bank (2007)

Location of Poverty

Although Zambia is more urbanized than most Sub-Saharan African countries, it is still

predominantly a rural country. In the 2000 national census, from which the LCMS sampling

frame and weights are derived, 6.5 million of its nearly 10 million residents lived in rural areas.

This fact combined with the higher poverty rate in rural Zambia means that poverty is

concentrated in rural areas. About 72% percent of Zambia’s poor live in rural zones. There is a

high level of poverty in rural areas, with 62% of households below the standard poverty line and

40% below the core poverty line (poverty rates are based on food and non-food consumption

poverty line, core poverty rates are based on a food consumption poverty line).

Poverty and Core Poverty Rates

Demombynes (2005) measured two types of poverty headcounts. Poverty figures were calculated

primarily using the ―total‖ poverty line, which is equal to the consumption level sufficient to meet basic

needs for both food and non-food consumption. Additionally, ―core‖ poverty rates were determined using

a lower core poverty line, which is defined as the food component of the total poverty line. In analyses

conducted in other countries, core poverty rates are sometimes referred to as rates of extreme or severe

poverty. See World Bank (2005) for more details on the poverty lines.

19

In rural areas, poverty is highest among the small farm households that form the bulk of the rural

population, while non-agricultural households in rural areas have poverty rates similar to those of

medium-size farming households (but their core poverty rates are much higher which indicates

the extreme differences in non-agricultural livelihoods). Table II.1 shows separate headcount

rates by urban and rural areas within each province, and the corresponding breakdown of where

the poor are located.

Table II.1 Headcount Poverty Estimates, 2002-2003 LCMS

Poverty Core Poverty

National 0.56 0.36

Rural 0.62 0.40

Urban 0.45 0.28

Type of Household

Small Farm 0.63 0.41

Mid-Size Farm 0.47 0.24

Large Farm 0.30 0.13

Rural Nonagricultural 0.46 0.34

Province

Central 0.54 0.32

Copperbelt 0.52 0.35

Eastern 0.56 0.34

Luapula 0.67 0.47

Lusaka 0.47 0.29

Northern 0.75 0.54

Northwestern 0.61 0.37

Southern 0.47 0.25 Source: World Bank (2005)

Notes: a) Poverty is based on food and non-food consumption poverty line, core poverty is based on food

consumption poverty line.

b) For rural areas households were divided into small-scale farmers (< 5 ha), medium-scale

farmers (5-20 ha), large-scale farmers (20+ ha), and rural agricultural. Across provinces, there is substantial variation in poverty. The lowest poverty rates are found in

Lusaka and Southern Provinces, but even in these Provinces about 47% of the population has

consumption insufficient to meet basic needs. Northern Province stands out as having the highest

poverty rate at 75% with 54% core poverty. Also, there are very high poverty and core poverty

rates in Luapula (67% poor, 47% core poor) and Northwestern Provinces (61% poor, 37% core

poor).

The urban poor are highly concentrated in just two provinces, Lusaka and Copperbelt, home to

20% of Zambia’s poor, while the smaller urban areas of the remaining provinces account for only

an additional 8% of the nation’s poor (and about 1/4 of all the country’s urban poor). The rural

poor are more widely distributed throughout the country. They are most concentrated in Eastern

Province (13% of poor) and Northern Province (15% of poor); home to 28% of the nation’s poor.

See table II.2.

20

Table II. 2 Headcount Poverty Estimates Rural/Urban, and Province,

and Shares of Poor

Province Rural Urban

Fraction of

National Poor

Living in

Province

Fraction of

National Poor

Living in

Province's

Rural Areas

Fraction of

National Poor

Living in

Province's

Urban Areas

Central 0.55 0.52 0.10 0.08 0.02

Copperbelt 0.65 0.48 0.15 0.04 0.11

Eastern 0.58 0.34 0.13 0.13 0.01

Luapula 0.70 0.48 0.09 0.08 0.01

Lusaka 0.63 0.43 0.12 0.03 0.09

Northern 0.78 0.59 0.17 0.15 0.02

Northwestern 0.64 0.37 0.06 0.06 0.01

Southern 0.51 0.32 0.10 0.09 0.02

Western 0.53 0.40 0.07 0.06 0.01 Source: World Bank (2007)

Besides measuring poverty using a defined consumption/income poverty-line, respondents for the

2002-2003 LCMS were asked how they self-assess themselves in terms of ―very poor‖,

―moderately poor‖ and ―not poor‖. Only 5% of those surveyed reported that they are ―not poor‖,

with more in urban than rural areas. Some 52% of rural households reported being ―very poor‖

versus 37% of urban households. But, 55% of urban households reported they were ―moderately

poor‖ compared to 45% of rural households. See table II.3.

Table II. 3 Self-Assessed Poverty Status of Zambians, 2002-2003 LCMS

Self-Assessed Poverty

Status

All Zambia Rural Urban

Very Poor 47% 52% 37%

Moderately Poor 48% 45% 55%

Not Poor 5% 3% 8%

Total 100% 100% 100% Source: World Bank (2005, p.35).

Rural Household Demographics

Below we review the demographic characteristics of rural households, contrasting poorer

households with better-off households. Some basic mean demographic characteristics of rural

households are shown in table II.4.

21

Table II. 4 Demographic Characteristics of Rural Households, by Consumption Quintile

Quintile of National Distribution

Average

of All

HHs

Quintile #1

(Poorest

20%)

Quintile

#2

Quintile

#3

Quintile

#4

Quintile #5

(Richest

20%)

Mean HH size 5.3 6.5 6.2 5.5 4.7 3.7

Medium age of HH

head (years)

40 44 43 39 37 35

% of female headed

HHs

24% 27% 23% 23% 25% 24%

Mean schooling of

household head

5.3 4.4 4.9 5.1 5.5 6.2

Dependency ratio 1.15 1.35 1.33 1.25 1.06 0.80

Youth dependency

ratio

1.07 1.26 1.24 1.17 .98 .72

Old-age dependency

ratio

.08 .09 .09 .08 .09 .08

Share of HHs with 1

generation

12% 3% 5% 6% 15% 29%

Share of HHs with 2

generations

65% 65% 67% 72% 66% 58%

Share of HHs with 3

generations

22% 29% 27% 21% 18% 13%

Share of HHs with 4

generations

1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0%

Source: World Bank (2005)

Note: Calculations of the mean were done at the household level, weighted by household sampling weights.

Consequently, the figures are means of households rather than means of individuals.

Household size is highest among poorer households, averaging 6.5 for the poorest quintile, and is

sharply lower in the richest quintile. Poorer households also tend to be headed by older

individuals. The median age of household heads in the poorest quintile is 44 years, compared to

35 for heads of the richest rural households. There is a strong association between education

levels of household heads and household consumption. The relationship is consistent across the

distribution. It is strongest at the top: households in the top quintile have an average of 0.7 year of

schooling more than those in the next quintile.

The frequency of female-headed households varies much less consistently by consumption level.

Although female headship is highest among the very poorest—among whom women make up

27% of household heads -- moving up the income distribution there is no clear relationship

between the two variables.

Additional information about household demographics includes dependency ratios and the

number of generations found in each household. The denominator for the dependency ratios is the

number of adults in the household, defined as those age 15-64. The youth dependency ratio is the

mean number of children per adult, the old-age dependency ratio is the number of elderly per

adult, and the sum of the two is the household dependency ratio. The youth dependency ratio is

high; the average rural Zambian household has 1.07 children per adult, and the ratio is highest for

the poorest households. The old-age dependency ratio is only 0.08 and varies little by quintile.

Almost all rural Zambians live in multi-generational households. Two-thirds live in households

with two generations, and 23 percent live in households with three or more generations present.

22

The richest rural households, which are smaller on average, also are less likely to have three and

more likely to have just one generation.

Access to safe water. Only 34% of rural Zambian households have access to what would

generally be considered a safe source of water: a water tap, a borehole, or a protected well. The

remaining households rely on water taken directly from a river or lake, piped from a river or lake,

or taken from an unprotected well. Even among rural households in the top quintile, only 44%

have access to safe water.

Access to sanitation. Two-thirds of rural residents use a pit latrine, and almost all others have no

toilet facilities at all. Surprisingly, households in the poorest quintiles are slightly more likely

than better-off households to have their own pit latrines.

Access to household energy. The overwhelming majority of rural households use firewood they

collect for cooking. Better-off households are slightly more likely to use other fuels, chiefly

charcoal. Collecting of firewood can be a time consuming activity for women and girls.

Access to housing. 77% of households report owning a residential building. Homes of

households in the richer quintiles are slightly more likely to be made of concrete brick and less

likely to be made of mud brick. Mud floors are found in the homes of most rural Zambians at all

consumption levels. About 19% of households in the wealthiest quintile have concrete floors,

compared to 8% of those in the poorest quintile. Homes of better-off households are more likely

to have roofs of iron or asbestos, rather than grass or straw. But even among those in the richest

quintile, 80% have grass or straw roofs.

Access to markets, transport and public services. There is surprisingly little variation in median

distances to markets and public transport by quintiles. This suggests that wealthier households are

not highly concentrated by community but rather that rich and poor households are fairly

interspersed. Access to public services is mixed. While median distances to a middle-level basic

school (grades 1-7) and a health facility are five kilometers, median distances to a police station

(19 km) and post office (25 km) are much higher. The extent to which markets are accessible to

rural households is unclear. More than half report being within five kilometers of public

transportation, but it is not possible to evaluate whether available transportation could serve to

transport agricultural products to a market. The median distance to a food market is only 9

kilometers, but it is not known if these markets are integrated with the national economy. Median

distances seem large for the nearest bank (48 km), public phone (40 km), and agricultural input

markets (25 km) selling equipment and fertilizer needed for modern agriculture.

Asset ownership. Ownership of basic agricultural tools—an axe and hoe— is nearly universal

among households in all quintiles. Most durable consumer goods are owned by only a small

fraction of households. Exceptions are a bicycle (owned by 35% overall) and radio (34%). What

is most striking in the table is that there are few assets with sharply differentiated ownership rates

among rich and poor.

Principal economic activity. Agriculture is overwhelmingly the dominant activity in rural areas.

In 80% of rural Zambian households, the principal activity of the household head is farming.

People at the top of the distribution are slightly less likely to be engaged in agriculture; 71% of

household heads in the richest quintile report farming as their main activity. Only 9% of

individuals live in households where the head is engaged mainly in wage work, with a smaller

percentage among the poorest households. See table II.5.

23

Table II. 5 Principal Economic Activity of Rural Household Heads,

by Consumption Quintile


Activity Average

of All

HHs

Quintile #1

(Poorest

20%)

Quintile

#2

Quintile

#3

Quintile

#4

Quintile #5

(Richest

20%)

Farming 79% 82% 84% 80% 79% 71%

Fishing 2% 4% 2% 3% 3% 1%

Wage Work

(incl. Piece work)

11% 8% 8% 10% 10% 16%

Self-Employed 6% 4% 4% 4% 6% 10%

Other 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: World Bank (2005)

A breakdown of economic activities by males and females above the age of 20 did not exhibit

large differences in the share for farming (67% males, 71% females) or self-employment (5%

males, 4% females), but males were much more likely to work in wage work or piece work (10%

males versus 2% females) and females were more likely to work in productive but unpaid family

labor (16% females versus 6% males).

Sources of income. Another way to look at economic activity is to examine household sources of

income. Table xx shows a breakdown of the various income sources. The total income measure

includes the value of the household’s own production consumed. Consumption of own production

accounts for just over half of average rural household income for rich and poor households alike.

The other large categories of income are food crop sales, salary, and remittances (6% of income

in the average household), non-farm business income (10%), and ―other income‖ (11%) Salary

and non-farm business income are more important for better-off households. See table II.6.

Table II. 6 Mean Shares of Income by Source for Rural Households,



Activity Average

of All

HHs

Quintile #1

(Poorest

20%)

Quintile

#2

Quintile

#3

Quintile

#4

Quintile #5

(Richest

20%)

Consumption of

own production

55% 57% 55% 54% 55% 52%

Food crop sales 6% 7% 6% 6% 6% 5%

Non-food crop sales 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 2%

Livestock and other

ag income

2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3%

Non-farm business 10% 11% 10% 10% 13% 11%

Remittances 6% 7% 6% 6% 7% 6%

Other 12 13% 12% 12% 11% 9%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: World Bank (2005)

Land use patterns. Average total land worked varies little by quintile, but better-off households

average more than twice as much non-food cropland as the poorest households. The smaller

households in the richest quintile also work twice as much total land per capita as the poorest

households. See table II.7.

24

Table II. 7 Mean Area of Crop Land Used for Food and Non-Food Crops, by Household


Average

of All

HHs

Quintile

#1

(Poorest

20%)

Quintile

#2

Quintile

#3

Quintile

#4

Quintile

#5

(Richest

20%)

Hectares of food crops 1.08 0.97 1.11 1.11 1.05 1.16

Hectares on non-food crops 0.11 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.12

Hectares of all crops 1.19 1.02 1.20 1.26 1.16 1.28

Hectares of all crops per

capita

0.25 0.16 0.21 0.24 0.28 0.36


Table II.8 presents a further breakdown of household crop and livestock activities. Most

households in all quintiles grow at least some maize. Substantial fractions of households also

grow cassava, millet, sweet potatoes, and groundnuts. There is substantial differentiation in crop

choices by rich and poor for cassava, which is grown by half of the poorest households but just

over a quarter of the richest households, and hybrid maize, grown by 11% of the bottom quintile

and 28% of the top. Among the relatively few households with non-food crops, cotton and

sunflower are dominant. Nine percent of those in the poorest quintile grow at least some non-food

crops, compared to 13% overall.

Table II. 8 Crop Production Patterns and Livestock Ownership of Rural Households,



Activity Average

of All

HHs

Quintile #1

(Poorest

20%)

Quintile

#2

Quintile

#3

Quintile

#4

Quintile #5

(Richest

20%)

At least one food crop 93% 94% 96% 95% 92% 89%

Local Maize 59% 54% 63% 62% 62% 54%

Hybrid Maize 19% 11% 15% 19% 21% 28%

Cassava 38% 50% 45% 39% 33% 28%

Groundnuts 40% 40% 44% 45% 38% 32%

Mixed Beans 16% 18% 18% 16% 15% 12%

Millet 16% 24% 20% 16% 12% 11%

Sweet Potato 30% 30% 33% 32% 29% 26%

At least one cash crop 13% 9% 14% 16% 15% 13%

Cotton 9% 6% 7% 10% 10% 9%

Tobacco 1% 0% 2% 2% 1% 1%

Paprika <1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Sunflower 5% 3% 6% 5% 5% 4%

Any Livestock 71% 69% 73% 74% 72% 66%

Cattle 16% 11% 13% 18% 19% 19%

Goats 18% 17% 20% 18% 17% 16%

Chickens 64% 64% 69% 66% 65% 58%

Pigs 8% 7% 10% 8% 8% 8% Source: World Bank (2005)

In table II.8 we observe livestock ownership by quintile, and 71% of rural households reported

the ownership of some livestock. A clear difference by quintile is seen only for cattle ownership:

25

19% of households in the top quintile having cattle compared to 11% of those in the bottom

quintile. These differences are more profound by province than by quintile. See table II.9. It can

be observed that cattle are much more likely to be found in Central, Eastern, Lusaka, and

Southern Provinces – Agro-Ecological Zone II. Again we observe a strong correlation between

assets, livelihoods and location.

Table II. 9 Livestock Ownership: Rural Households, by Province:

Percentage of Households Owning Each Type of Livestock

All

Rural

House-

holds

Central Copperbelt Eastern Luapula Lusaka North-

ern

Nwest-

ern

South-

ern

West-

ern

Any

Livestock

71 77 53 74 68 60 76 69 73 66

Cattle 18 20 4 23 1 15 7 6 31 27

Goats 18 21 7 18 13 23 19 16 33 3

Pigs 8 2 2 17 2 6 11 6 10 4

Sheep 1 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 1

Chickens 64 70 51 67 61 54 72 63 63 58

Ducks

and

Geese

5 6 5 5 12 6 4 3 3 5

Guinea

Fowls

4 5 0 5 2 4 3 3 8 1

Other

Poultry

3 4 2 3 1 4 3 1 6 1


II.B. Qualtitative Poverty Profile – based on Parker and Mwape (2005)6

Parker and Mwape (2005) report on a qualitative study carried out in villages and settlements of

all three of Zambia’s major agro-ecological zones. Two districts were randomly selected in each

zone7, and 3 villages were visited in each district. A total of 18 villages were visited. Villages

were purposively selected to reflect the range of conditions that is typical of each of these three

zones. Within each village, the village committee was requested to invite approximately 30

residents to the discussions, which took about one week in each village.

Zambian villages do not appear to be characterized by wide discrepancies in levels of wealth (in

contrast to most rural communities in the world). Nearly every villager was defined as ―poor‖ to

some extent, but there are recognized differences between three categories: the very poor, the

poor and the better off. Even those households defined as better off, however, were viewed as

vulnerable to falling into poverty and their future well-being was uncertain. This was true even of

traditional leaders. In most study sites, the village headman or local chief was one of the

wealthiest individuals in the village, but this did not prove to be true in every case.

Although wide differences in household wealth levels exist in rural Zambia, the really wealthy

households were not found to be residing in the rural villages. Thus, rural elites were not found

6 Parker, B. and F. Mwape (2004). ―Rural Poverty and Vulnerability in Zambia, 2004: A Qualitative Study.‖ Paper

prepared for DFID and The World Bank, Social Protection Unit. mimeo. 7 Zone I: Luangwa and Siavonga Districts, Zone II: Katete and Mumbwa Districts, Zone III: Mpika and Mansa

Districts.

26

controlling local resources or denying them to the poor and powerless. Instead, a generalized

condition of economic uncertainty and material scarcity prevails in the villages. A type of social

and economic egalitarianism ―collective poverty‖ characterizes these communities. Another

consequence of this lack of wealth differentiation is that there are relatively few households with

enough resources and generating sufficient surpluses to hire poorer neighbors or provide them

with loans or other assistance in times of need. But, the better-off households do occasionally

provide emergency loans or assistance to the poor, or buy their surplus produce. In general,

however, they can only offer a day’s casual agricultural labor (ganyu), paid in food or in kind.

Characteristics of the 3 wealth categories (see table II.10):

Very Poor Households:

The very poor lack the meager assets normally found in rural homes and some of the basic

necessities of life. Food insecurity was mentioned as a primary aspect of extreme poverty in all

three zones. The very poor are often unable even to eat the two meals a day typically consumed

by the moderately poor. They have no stored grain and may be forced to go without meals for a

full day or for days. In addition, they do not have adequate clothing and may possess no bedding.

They are housed in mud huts with thatched roofs. They are unable to educate their children due

to their inability to meet minor expenses such as books and school supplies, uniforms, and fees

charged by the local parent-teacher association (PTA). In some areas (such as the poorest areas

of Zone 1), they do not own any livestock, while in slightly better-off areas (such as many found

in Zone 2), they are likely to own a single goat or 2-3 chickens. In all three zones, ownership of

livestock was an important criterion for separating better-off from the poorer households.

Particularly in Zones I and III, the very poor were said to have no identifiable source of income.

In drought-prone Zone I, households with labor and access to inputs are often unable to cultivate

due to lack of water. Most rely on seasonal casual agricultural labor in the fields of better-off

neighbors. They thus provide the labor pool that is available to better-off households with a

shortage of agricultural labor. The very poor were described as those who are always in search of

daily casual work or ganyu. Some of the very poorest are unable even to perform ganyu.

Typically, these are the labor deficient households headed by the elderly, the disabled, or

abandoned or widowed women caring for small children. Households are similarly constrained

when the only healthy adult is caring for a chronically ill family member. See table II.10.

Ganyu Labor

Daily casual work or ganyu is labor that is paid in kind or with a day’s supply of food.

Casual agricultural work of this kind is not a reliable source of income or food, since it

tends to be available only seasonally.

27

Table II.10 Key Characteristics of 3 Wealth Categories by Agro-Ecological Zone

ZONE I

The Poorest The Less Poor The Better-Off

Inadequate food

Poor clothing

Lack of bedding

No livestock

Mud/thatch house

No visible source of income

Aged, chronically ill, disabled

Work for others (ganyu)

Keep orphans

Illiterate

Unable to send children to school

Have steady source of

income

Have a skill (brick

making, mat weaving)

Own chickens and goats

Do not own cattle

Usually food sufficient but

occasionally food short

Always food secure/three meals per

day

Own cattle (as well as pigs, goats,

chickens)

Have house of permanent materials

Own farming implements (plough)

Have off-farm income source

(fishing, jobs)

Hire casual labor

Have stored grain (granary)

Have many wives

ZONE II


Food insecure all year (miss meals)

Use hand hoe for farming

Cultivate little

Lack agricultural inputs

Work for others

Own a few small livestock (fowl,

goats)

Grass-roofed house with dirt floor

No remittances from outside village

Old, orphans, widows, ill or

handicapped

Cultivate 2-5 ha of land

Use either hoes or ploughs

Own small livestock (a

few also own cattle)

Employed as driver, tailor,

etc. or own small shop in

village

House has concrete floor

Own cattle (as well as smaller

livestock)

Own vehicles

Farm using draught animals or

tractors

Adequate food at all times

Hire agricultural labor

Brick house with iron roof

ZONE III


Food insecure at all times

Own no livestock

Have land, not able to cultivate it

Poor clothing

Work in exchange for food

No remittances

Poor access to public resources

(schools, markets)

Sometimes food insecure

Own hoe (some own

ploughs but no oxen)

Own small livestock

Food secure always

Own farm implements (ploughs)

Own oxen, cattle and cart

Own bicycle, radio, a shop

Able to educate all children

Some receive remittances from

outside village

Employs others (ganyu)

House has iron roof Source: Parker and Mwape (2004)

Moderately Poor Households:

The moderately poor, or less poor, were said to be basically food secure; although they might

experience occasional food shortages during the lean season, they are normally able to maintain

an acceptable level of consumption. Their homes are usually thatched with grass but, unlike the

poorest, may have a cement floor. They possess a few assets in the form of beds, cooking pots,

livestock (usually smaller livestock such as goats and chickens) and basic farm instruments.

They are likely to possess a hoe, but rarely a plough and never oxen. Reliance on hand hoe

agriculture limits the amount of land they can cultivate, but since they are able to farm, they are

considered to have a reliable source of income. Some households were placed in this category

because a member had a skill such as carpentry, brick-laying or bicycle repair. In river areas,

households in this group are sometimes able to make and sell mats or basketry made from reeds.

28

Better-Off Households:

In all three zones, fewer than 10 of the 30 households categorized in the wealth ranking exercise

were assigned to the ―better off‖ group. In some villages of Zone I, only 2-3 households were

classified as ―better off.‖ The better off households usually own cattle and ―luxury goods‖ such

as radios and bicycles. They live in homes built of burnt brick and roofed with corrugated iron.

The better off households are food secure and can eat as many as three meals a day. They are

able to educate their children through secondary school, since they can afford school fees,

uniforms, and transport (or occasionally boarding fees).

Better-off households possess livelihoods that are more reliable than those of the moderately poor

and very poor. They have ploughs and draft animals, or in Zone II, maybe even a tractor. They

are thus able to cultivate a larger area and, since households in this category can afford to buy

inputs, they produce enough maize to fill a granary and often can sell surplus produce. They

often operate a small shop in the village, and they sell or trade produce, fish, etc. outside the

village. Although a few moderately poor households may hire ganyu labor, it is the better off

who usually employ members of other households to assist with planting, weeding and

harvesting. These relationships generally do not develop into long-standing patron-client

relationships, as they are usually ad hoc and temporary. These relatively wealthier villagers do

not, therefore, constitute a reliable source of credit, employment or emergency assistance to the

families they have employed. However, this does indicate the existence of labor and credit

linkages that can expand over time as the household succeeds.

The Importance of Livestock:

After basic food security, the factor most mentioned when informants were distinguishing poorer

from better-off households was possession of livestock, particularly cattle, pigs, goats and sheep.

Domestic animals were described as both an indicator and a source of higher economic standing.

The ability to plough using draught animals can dramatically increase a household’s productive

capabilities. Cattle, therefore, were described as the most desirable livestock asset; although they

are susceptible to disease and beyond the means of the average poor household. Small livestock

are a common means of attempting to cushion against shocks and shortfalls in consumption; since

they can be sold to smooth consumption, pay school fees or buy medicines, etc.

Oxen Use

Oxen use can help raise average yields and save labor at critical points in the cropping cycle. Such

innovations can help smallholders plant more land without resorting to hired labor, or be constrained by

household labor availability. Increasing land under production by smallholders is one of the keys for

agricultural growth to be poverty reducing. Nationally, it is estimated that only about 25% of smallholders

use oxen (Haggeblade and Tembo, 2003), but oxen are unevenly distributed throughout the country. For

example, oxen use is virtually non-existent in Northern and Northwestern Provinces.

29

Explanations for Wealth Differences

Informants suggested that the better-off are often those receiving remittances from urban

relatives, especially educated adult children, who were employed in well-paying jobs. The

moderately poor and better off were also said to possess either a remunerative skill or a

productive asset, such as a sewing machine, that could be used to generate income. In other

cases, the better off were recent immigrants (such as retirees) who arrived in the village with

some capital to invest in agriculture, horticulture, or livestock.

The very poorest were often described as the ―new poor‖—households that have lost a

breadwinner or are elder- or female-headed as a result of HIV/AIDS or other diseases, and

individuals returning to their natal villages because they have been retrenched, have retired witho

Risks and Vulnerability

Informants indicated that the number of households that had experienced declining

income/consumption during the past five years is much larger than the number that had managed

to improve their economic standing. Informants were asked to describe events that have caused

households to lose income/consumption. The events, which differed somewhat by agro-ecological

zone, were:

Zone I: Droughts, damage to crops by wildlife, floods, loss of livestock to disease (and attendant

loss of draught power), chronic illness in the household, laziness, and death of the household

head.

Zone II: Floods, droughts, inability to purchase fertilizer/inputs, human and animal diseases,

death of a breadwinner, theft of livestock, and cost of health care

Zone III: Droughts, floods, cholera outbreaks, crop destruction by pests, livestock diseases,

chronic illnesses, death of adult members of the household, fire, and violent crime/theft.

It was found that covariate shocks such as droughts, damage to crops by wildlife or pests, floods,

etc. were mentioned most of often as the critical risks faced by rural households. Idiosyncratic

shocks, however, particularly those resulting from diseases in humans and livestock, also trap

households in poverty; and households described as the poorest were mostly those that had lost

labor power to HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, cholera or other fatal illnesses. Households employ a

range of defensive and preventive strategies to reduce the risk of destitution in the event of

shocks, such as stockpiling grain, breeding small animals for sale, crop substitution, multiple

plantings etc. Removing a child from school is considered to be a last resort coping mechanism.

Rural Poverty and Vulnerability in Zambia

In a recent survey of several rural areas in Zambia carried out for C-SAFE, distinct spatial and

household differences were identified. A major conclusion was that: ―Rural households have

very few assets. In the survey, about 80% of households were classified as asset poor or very

poor. Households with limited assets are vulnerable, not only because of their relative poverty,

but also because they have few items to divest should they be forced to spend money on food

or emergencies (C-SAFE, 2003, p.45).‖

30

In many communities there seems to be less reliance on the extended household to provide

assistance in times of trouble than in the past. In addition, some traditional extended family

leveling and support mechanisms, such as communal meals, have broken down entirely.

Voluntary labor sharing between related households can still be found, but it is being gradually

replaced by ganyu arrangements. As part of the extended family tradition, Zambians have often

fostered children from related households. This tradition, too, is said to be on the decline.

Families feel the need to concentrate scarce resources on the feeding and education of their own

children, and they are less certain that their investment in nieces and nephews will be repaid.

Changes in Zone II: Outgrower Schemes and Conservation Farming

Most of the positive changes mentioned by informants were concentrated in Zone 2, the growth

of: a) contract farming or outgrower schemes, and b) conservation farming. In Zone 2, many

participants indicated that several private firms operate out-grower schemes to produce high value

cash crops, such as cotton, paprika, tobacco, etc. According to participants, these firms provide

inputs, train farmers on how to produce these crops, and offer a guaranteed market for the

products. Zone II informants noted that many households are taking advantage of these

opportunities. However, some people reported difficulties in working with out-grower schemes.

The field activities are labour intensive and sometimes beyond the capabilities of individual

households. Furthermore, cultivators have no say in establishing the grade and the price of the

product.

Another positive development that has primarily benefited Zone II is the Conservation Farming

(CF). Although Conservation Farming was initially concentrated in Zone II, efforts were made

under the FAO-FSP to expand it to Zone I. After a year of implementation, the results were found

to vary significantly according to soil quality and rainfall patterns. Some farmers in both Zone I

and Zone II expressed positive views about CF, but results were apparently better in Zone II.

However, complaints were heard from both zones. CF requires digging basins before the

beginning of the annual rains, and then planting maize within the basins. Some informants found

the effort of digging in dry, hard soils to be beyond their capacities, given the lack of tools.

Others reported that their basins had dried up or become water-logged. Clearly, CF is not a

universal panacea that is suitable to all parts of Zambia, but comments from informants were

more often favorable than unfavorable. It should be noted that CF techniques do not deliver their

full benefits for several seasons and that most trials are only one to two seasons old.

Changes in Zones I and III: Crop Diversification

In Zones I and III, no formal out-grower schemes were reported by study participants. It may be

assumed, therefore, that these opportunities are generally unavailable outside Zone II. Many

Zone III farmers reported that they have reduced or abandoned maize cultivation in favor of

cassava and millet; and a few cultivators in Zone I have ceased producing maize in favor of

sorghum. Cassava does not require fertilizer, it is a traditional crop in Zone III, and (although

difficult to process) it is easy to grow in this ecological zone. Sorghum is drought-resistant and

hence more appropriate to Zone I, a low rainfall area. A number of Zones II and III farming

households have also begun to intensify their investment in horticulture. This was said to have

improved the nutrition and food security of those households, as well as providing cash income if

markets can be found for the fruits and vegetables they produce. Some farmers in Zones I and III

have joined outgrower schemes where such arrangements are available.

31

Maize is Still the Choice of Smallholders

However, the majority of study participants from all zones expressed a desire to continue in

maize cultivation. Smallholder households that have abandoned it would still prefer to cultivate

maize– it is thought to be more palatable, more nutritious and far easier to process – but they find

it increasingly beyond their capacity. Maize is the staple crop of the country, and rural Zambians

feel that no meal is complete without it. Furthermore, they are familiar with maize cultivation but

may lack information on the requirements for growing other crops. The versatility of maize

appears to make it a safer choice for the risk-averse poor. It is a subsistence crop, a cash crop and

a safety net. Although produced primarily for own-consumption, maize surpluses can be sold as

a cash crop or, if an acceptable market price is not found, can be stored and consumed during lean

periods. Also, it produces fodder for livestock and can be eaten early (green) in the season if

alternative food is not available. Other crops offer few of these advantages. For example, markets

for sorghum, cassava and millet are smaller and unpredictable.

II.C. Participatory Assessment: Kefa Village – based on Skonsburg (2003)8

A rapid participatory assessment was undertaken in Kefa Village located in Eastern Province in

2003 (see Skonsberg, 2003). The findings reflect changes taking place in much of rural Zambia

since the early 1990s. It was found that:

a) Demise of the GRZ extension system that provided farmers with technical support,

subsidized credit, seeds and fertilizer, and the lack of public or private sector to

replace these services.

b) Land issues tend to be debated, but land reform per se is not an issue for the

community (only 25 percent of interviewed residents said they did not have enough

land).

c) Land is not equally distributed (advantaged groups include clan members,

wealthier farmers and long-time residents).

d) Soil fertility problems are increasing the need for fertilizer and improved seeds.

However, farmers do not have cash or credit to buy improved seeds and fertilizer.

e) Seeds and credit are sometimes available from agents of the cotton and tobacco

buyers.

f) Seeds and fertilizer are rarely available in a timely manner.

g) On average, a household cultivates about 1 ha maize and 0.4 ha groundnuts,

primarily for home consumption. The major binding constraint tends to be

available household labor, not land.

h) Livestock numbers, especially cattle, populations are declining due to drought and

illness.

i) Small livestock (e.g., chickens and goats) are gaining in importance.

j) Water scarcity is a major problem.

8 Skjonsberg, E. (2003) ―A Report on 25 Years of Rural Change in Kefa Village, Eastern Province, Zambia.‖

Background Report for Zambia PSIA. Prepared for Social Development Department. The World Bank: Washington,

D.C. mimeo.

32

k) Lack of fertilizers is claimed to be the biggest problem. When people say that

there is a ―lack of fertilizer‖, this includes the lack of suppliers and the high cost of

fertilizer when available.

l) GRZ programs for subsidized fertilizer do not reach Kefa farmers or reach them in

insufficient quantities.

m) Lack of fertilizer and water scarcity are driving cropping choices. Cotton

production has increased because it needs less fertilizer and water, and because and

agents for cotton processors tend to provide advances of inputs and guaranteed

markets)

n) There is also a lack of output markets. ―One big problem that we all have is where

to sell our produce. There is no market so instead we just have to sell it one by

one.‖

o) Increased problems with malaria, HIV/AIDS, and orphans.

p) Increased dependence on assistance from donors and NGOs (church groups).

q) Persistence of beliefs in witchcraft and fatalistic attitudes.

The findings from Kefa Village indicate that there are many factors that influence the

opportunities and constraints faced by smallholders, including important social and cultural

factors. Also, it is apparent that for most households, conditions worsened over time. Results

from the assessment at Kefa Village are very consistent with the findings reported by Parker and

Mwape (2004).

II.D. Smallholder Model – based on Siegel and Alwang (2005)

Siegel and Alwang (2005) used a stylized single-period linear programming (LP) model of

smallholder households in rural Zambia to examine potential impacts on land and labor use, and

income-generation of suggested land tenure reforms, changes in fertilizer policy, and

infrastructure investments, and also impacts of HIV/AIDS.9 Major findings include:

a) Because of a ―safety-first‖ objective function10

, smallholders’ primary objective is

to produce their own staple foods for home consumption, especially in remote

areas. These food security concerns and subsequent livelihood strategies imply a

significant (real and opportunity) cost to smallholders and sub-optimal use of

assets.

b) Using hoes and oxen, smallholder households can only cultivate about two to four

hectares of land, respectively, before household labor constraints become binding.

Increased access to land would therefore not benefit most households unless hired

labor became available at a relatively low cost. Labor-saving technology may

substitute for labor and allow for improved labor allocation.

9 The smallholder model is an update of Alwang and Siegel (1994) and Alwang, Siegel and Jorgensen (1996). The

model has an objective function, model activities, and constraints for different resources, with labor disaggregated by

month, over a one-year period. The model maximizes returns from agricultural production given fixed assets, subject

to the available technologies and technical constraints. The model only considered labor income from on-farm

agricultural activities, assumed to be carried out only household members. 10 The ―safety-first‖ objective function means that smallholders first make their production decisions based on

providing staple foods for home consumption, and then allocate remaining resources to other activities.

33

c) Technologies such as conservation farming can help spread out labor demand more

evenly though the year. However, the ―entry costs‖ of such technologies may be

prohibitively expensive for the majority of resource-poor smallholders.

d) Higher official market prices for fertilizer and lower prices for maize have made

hybrid maize production less economically attractive for smallholders. Lower

maize/fertilizer ratios and the continued lack of dependable input supplies have

slowed the adoption of improved technologies and encouraged a ―retreat‖ to semi-

subsistence farming, especially in remote areas.

e) For most smallholders, there are relatively low returns to farming—less than $1 per

person per day. This low return to labor makes it difficult to generate surpluses

that could be saved or invested in improved technologies, and thus contributes to a

cycle of poverty.

f) Market liberalization and commercialization increases the need for cash, other

liquid assets, or credit. The scarce amounts of cash available and the high returns to

cash suggest that demand for credit will likely be robust and the returns relatively

high.

g) I mproved infrastructure should, in theory, lower transport and transaction costs, and

increase the commercial orientation of smallholders. However, lower costs might

not compensate for the decline in output prices and rise in input costs that

smallholders have faced over time.

h) Remoteness leads to less land under cultivation, lower returns per household

member and lower returns to land. Improved transport should benefit remote

households and encourage more intensive and extensive utilization of land, and

higher income-earning potential.

i) Improved infrastructure increases confidence in markets. Such confidence could,

over time, reduce the tendency of smallholders to allocate scare resources to

production of staple foods for own consumption. The combination of less

remoteness and increased confidence in the market can lead to significant

improvements in household well-being.

j) The food security constraint severely lowers household returns, and its ―removal‖

should allow smallholders to produce higher-value crops instead of traditional low-

value staple crops. Over time, these households might adopt improved

technologies and possibly increase their demand for land.

k) HIV/AIDS and other serious illnesses will likely continue to negatively impact

household welfare. Labor reductions lead to less land under cultivation and more

staple foods as a share of total crops. Purchased inputs increase as a share of the

total value of production, indicating some substitution of purchased inputs for

scarce labor.

From the above discussion of results of the smallholder model, and consistent with findings of

many other studies – a major aspect of successful commercial smallholder agriculture in Zambia

is improving the efficiency and intensity of household labor in order to expand the amount of land

under production. In addition, it is important to identify farming systems – farm and off-farm

agricultural (crops and livestock) and non-agricultural activities that are based on a more even

spread of labor throughout the year. Improved efficiency in land preparation using oxen or

tractors and improved water management through conservation and/or irrigation is also needed.

34

II.E. Classification of Rural Households – based on Pinder and Wood (2003)11

Based on the GRZ’s 2000 Post Harvest Survey, there were 830,000 rural households dependent

on agriculture. Assuming an average of between 5-6 people per household, these 830,00

households approximately account for the estimated 4,600,000 rural poor and ultra poor persons

in Zambia.

Pinder and Wood (2003) have classified these 830,000 smallholder households into 3 groups:

1) The very poorest and most vulnerable households who suffer chronic food

insecurity and require long-term social protection and support (200,000 ―sub-

subsistence‖ smallholders)

2) The very poor households that have potential to achieve a poor but sustainable

livelihood, marketing a small surplus viable in a year of a reasonable amount of

rain, with the eventual possibility of joining an outgrower scheme (300,000

‖marginal smallholders‖)

3) The poor households with potential to become, or which have already become

commercially viable small-scale farmers, either joining an outgrower scheme or

marketing their surplus in the domestic market (330,000 ―viable‖ or ―emergent

smalllholders‖. This includes about 30,000 households with 10 hectares or more.

In this classification, Pinder and Wood (2004) estimate that about ¼ of smallholder households

are ―sub-subsistence’ households. In a recent study on the ―incapacitated poor‖ in Zambia,

several estimates were presented, but most were in the range of 15-20% (Milimo and others,

2004). On the other and, they assume that about 35% of smallholders are ―marginal‖ and 45%

are ―viable/emergent‖. Based on all the other evidence presented in this chapter, the estimates

seem high for ―viable/emergent‖ smallholders. So, instead of focusing on the precise distribution

of households in each group, it is important to focus on the characteristics of the respective

households groups knowing that they all represent significant shares of the smallholder

population.

Below are some salient characteristics of each group:

Sub-subsistence Smallholders: smallholder households that are not commercially viable

farmers and are unlikely to ever become so. They represent the most vulnerable social groups.

Ultra poor, often female headed households, or elderly or child headed households, the

chronically sick and/or disabled – with less than sufficient to feed themselves throughout the

year. They are usually far distant from main rail and road routes, occupy the least arable land in

the community, and they have no resources on which to call in event of a ―shock‖ (e.g., drought,

death, sickness). They usually provide seasonal unskilled labor to large farm estates and

outgrowers’ holdings. The term ―farmer‖ might be a misnomer for this group since they are

simply surviving by whatever means they can, frequently as casual laborers on larger farms and

estates, more often on food relief. They are likely to continue to need social protection measures

in the foreseeable future.

11 Pinder, C. and Wood, D. ―The Socio-Economic Impact of Commercial Agriculture on Rural Poor and Other

Vulnerable Groups.‖ Working Document. DFID. February 2003.

35

Marginal Smallholders: smallholder households who could, potentially become self-sufficient

in food and capable of producing a small marketable surplus. Many are bordering on ultra poor,

but they have some resources on which to call – e.g., greater physical strength and better health,

slightly more and better land closer to means of irrigation, some small savings or livestock to use

as collateral for informal or micro-loans. Again, they often reply on obtaining causal work on

larger farms and estates. Some of these households benefit from their location in a more favored

agro-ecological zone and/or better access to roads and markets – which make transactions costs

for both production and consumption lower. Some in this group have failed to participate in an

outgrower scheme or failed while participating in an outgrower scheme, or who do not live in an

area where outgrower schemes exist; they grow for subsistence and the local market, and provide

seasonal labor to the estates and outgrowers.

Viable/Emergent Smallholders smallholder households who are poor but potentially, or already

commercially viable small scale farmers. They often have assets that are used inefficiently

because of conditions such as lack of access to markets because of poor infrastructure, or inability

to raise small loans for investment because they do not hold title to their land. As a result they

are vulnerable to exploitative buyers (e.g, they are unable to store their surplus and are forced to

sell it when prices are low, or they are forced to accept a low price from the only trader who

passes through the area). They have the potential to participate, or may well be participating

already in outgrower schemes, or they are functioning as commercially viable independent small-

scale farmers selling to the domestic market

II.F. Hard to Measure Factors: Culture and Attitudes

There are many ―hard to measure‖ factors that influence the potential for agricultural

commercialization. Most notable, are cultural and attitudinal factors associated with farming.

Many lament the fact that the greatest constraint facing Zambian smallholders is the lack of a

more business oriented approach to farming. Most smallholders view agriculture as a way of life

and not as a business. Other cultural and attitudinal factors affect Zambian smallholders – as

noted in the qualitative studies by Parker and Mwape (2004) and Skonsburg (2003). Culture and

attitudes about farming also linked to locational factors (and historical factors) in much of Zambia

(Francis and other, 1997; Milimo, Shilito and Brock, 2000).

As noted by Chiwele and Sikananu (2004, p.71-2): ―Unfortunately in Zambia, agriculture is

mostly taken as a way of life rather than as a business such that entering into markets is not well

planned for. Helping farmers to take a more commercial approach to their activities is important

and must be deliberately promoted.‖ ―Two elements necessary in commercializing smallholder

agriculture are raising the entrepreneurial skills and reorienting the mindset of small producers

towards markets as well as adopting policy actions that help the markets work for the poor. ―

In Zambia some smallholders have experience with commercial agriculture, but that does not

mean that they are commercial smallholders. Smallholders in Zambia have a history of

dependency on others to carry out the commercial activities associated with agricultural

production while they focus on the productive activities. In many ways, the services that

smallholders receive thorough outgrower schemes are very similar to the services they received in

the past from government-supported programs that provided inputs, markets for outputs, credit

and technical assistance. In both cases there was a lack of development of commercially-oriented

smallholders rather than smallholders engaged in commercial activities.

The reluctance of poor and vulnerable households to invest in new and potentially risky ventures

is well known. Parker and Mwape (2004) note that: ―In this context, the mistrust rural Zambians

36

display toward new crops is based primarily on the difficulties they encounter in identifying

markets for these commodities, and on the wide fluctuation in market prices. These uncertainties

undermine the willingness of smallholders to invest in crops that cannot be stored and eaten if

unsold.‖

Also, with respect to outgrower schemes, Parker and Mwape (2004) note: Although the study did

not find communities that had refused contract farming outright, many said they would engage in

it only as long as it took to achieve a short-term goal such as roofing their house with iron

sheeting. The explanation may lie in the complaints heard from some villagers who had

undertaken these contracts. They feel that the labor required to produce these crops is harder and

more strenuous than that required to produce the preferred crop, maize. They also feel they get

too little payment for the harvested crop, and that they are often cheated. For example, the

payment for a paprika crop is determined by its quality or ―grade.‖ It is the contractor who

judges the grade, however; and there is no incentive for him to assess it as top quality. There is a

conflict of interest, therefore, in this arrangement. Nevertheless, these schemes were generally

described favorably as options that have raised some household incomes.‖

II.G. Summary of Key Points on Profile of Rural Poverty

From the various analyses presented above, there are some common issues about smallholders

that affect their potential for poverty reducing commercialization:

a) In rural areas, there is a remarkable homogeneity of conditions. The vast majority

of rural households are poor in terms of income/consumption poverty measures.

Thus, smallholders tend to be asset-poor and various shades of ―poor‖.

b) Rural households, including those who rank higher in terms of consumption, own

consumption of agricultural production contributes a major share to household

income/consumption.

c) In general, poorer households are constrained by the availability of labor and not

the availability of land. Household well-being is closely correlated to the

availability of household labor.

d) Households without a healthy adult are particularly disadvantaged. The poorest

households are those headed by an elder, child, widow or chronically ill person –

are usually unable to work for others or even to cultivate their own lands

e) There is a lack of human capital – notably entrepreneurial skills, and a lack of

affordable and dependable access to credit and input/output markets.

f) Locational factors such as agro-ecological zone, access to infrastructure and

proximity to population centers have a major influence on livelihoods. Factors

such as culture and attitudes are also important and often associated with locational

factors.

g) There are 3 basic groups of smallholders: 1) sub-subsistence, 2) marginal, and 3)

emergent/viable based on a combination of locational factors and household-

specific assets.

h) There is a need for at least 3 distinct strategies for smallholders households in

different areas of the country that include safety nets, a focus on food security and

natural resource management (e.g., conservation Farming), outgrower schemes and

other market-oriented activities. There is also a need to consider rural labor

37

markets and migration to rural towns and urban centers.

Different spatial and sectoral approaches and strategies are needed to deal with the different types

of rural households, with many requiring social protection and safety nets.

1. The very poorest and most vulnerable households will require long-term social

protection and safety net support. The needs of this group are for free or cheap

farming inputs, for example food relief and PAM, and agricultural and input packs

(fertilizer and seed). Most households in this group are almost certain to need

social protection measures on a long-term basis.

2. The very poor households that have the potential to achieve a poor but sustainable

livelihood, regularly marketing a surplus, with the eventual possibility of joining an

outgrower scheme. The approach to this group should be one of enabling and

supporting them through to a position of food security and viability (possibly

through applying Conservation Farming techniques), eventually capable of

producing a small marketable cash crop in addition to meeting their subsistence

needs. Eventually some may be able to join outgrower schemes. Others will

provide labor to emergent smallholders and/or find employment in rural non-

agricultural activities. Others will out-migrate to rural towns or urban areas.

3. Poor households with potential to become, or which have already become,

commercially viable small-scale farmers, either by joining an outgrower scheme or

marketing their surplus in the domestic market. The approach to this group should

be one of enabling and supporting them through to achieving stronger commercial

viability so that they increases profitability and maintain their viability, and do not

slip back to the previous group. The types of support and enablement they need

will be different to what is needed for the previous group: more support in

developing export market linkages, improved technology and infrastructure that

leads to greater efficiency and lower transaction costs in order to strengthen

comparative advantage. There is a need for pro-active methods to organize these

smallholders and improve their entrepreneurial skills.

II.H. Where and Who are the Potential Beneficiaries of Agricultural Commercialization?

There are different estimates on how many smallholders currently participate in outgrower

schenmes or other forms of contract farming. Some estimates indicate about 150,000-200,000

smallholders participating in cotton, tobacco, paprika, and vegetables. Outgrower schemes have

been rising rapidly and is the channel through which small farmers are participating in export

markets, particularly cotton. It is expected that before 2010, as many as 25% of the small farmers

would be participating in contract farming (Chiwele and Sikananu, 2004). This is then an

estimate of the number of small farmers with links to both input and output markets.

Thus, it seems that about 20-25% of all smallholder households currently participate in outgrower

schemes and there are others who have some past experience or are considering joining. From

the various classifications of rural households presented in this paper, it seems that about 30-40%

were classified as having more potential to be viable commercial smallholders. As pointed out

throughout the paper, it would seem that most of the households participating in outgrower

schemes are located in Agro-ecological Zone II (which is home to almost 40% of rural

households) or in Livelihood Zones 4A (Central Maize-Cotton, 5A Line of Rail Commercial

38

Farming, 5B Eastern Province Cash Crop, 7B Chongwe-Nyimba Plateau, and 13 Mkushi

Commercial Block -- which zones account for about 3,604,00 out of an estimated 9,900,000

Zambians (about 36% of all rural and urban residents).

It is important to note that in discussions about Zone II and the equivalent livelihood zones, we

have not specifically addressed the need to consider the major urban areas of the Copperbelt,

home to about 1.8 million persons (consumers of agriculural products), in a broader spatial rural

development strategy that would include these urban markets that are well-connected by road/rail

infrastructure to the ―line-of’rail‖ high-potential agricultural areas. Also, the Copperbelt urban

areas are linked to markets in neighboring countries.

In any case, below we explore various ways to disaggregate smallholder households. The

suggested next step would be to discuss this issue with stakeholder in Zambia to try and allocate

the estimated number of households to the different groups, using, for example the following

classification schemes(or some other means of grouping smallholder households).

Table II. 11 Stylized Classification of High/Low Potential Areas and Households

Household (HH) Asset Portfolio

High Low

Location-Specific

Assets (agricultural

potential and access to

markets)

High High-High



High-Low



Low Low-High



Low-Low



The simple 2x2 typology in table II.11 generates the following classification of households:

HH Type #1: Welfare Cases: smallholders not succeeding as farmers, rural households

not in agriculture,

HH Type #2: Lower Middle Range: food self-sufficient, lack commercial opportunity,

HH Type #3: Higher Middle-Range: food self-sufficient, have commercial potential, and

HH Type #4: Better-off Households: produce surplus food staples, grow cotton and

tobacco

Alternatively, table II.12 classifies households based on the 3x3 classification by agro-

ecological/livelihood zone and household assets:

Table II. 12 Smallholder Households Classified by Agro-Ecological/Livelihood Zone

and Agricultural Potential

ZONE 1

The Poorest (―sub-subsistence‖ The Less Poor (―marginal‖) The Better-Off (viable/emergent‖)

ZONE 2


ZONE 3


TOTAL


39

III. POTENTIAL FOR SMALLHOLDERS MOVING INTO HIGHER VALUE CROP ACTIVITIES AND CONSERVATION FARMING

The major positive innovations in recent years for Zambia’s smallholders have been the move

into higher-value crop activities and conservation farming. Below are some excerpts from Siegel

and Alwang (2005) and Siegel (2005) about the lessons to be learned from these innovations as

they relate to agricultural commercialization.

Traditional smallholder crops in Zambia such as local maize, groundnuts and cotton tend to have

low input costs, but also relatively low returns. Given the lack of dependable input and output

markets and high prices of inputs relative to outputs, the low-input low-return strategy adopted by

many smallholders is an economically rational strategy, especially those located in remote areas.

In most cases, labor and credit constraints dominate land constraints. Suitable farming systems

must be identified depending on location-specific agro-ecological conditions, access to

infrastructure and markets, and household-specific assets.

Crops grown on relatively small landholdings, while contributing to food security and

supplementing household income, can not be expected to make substantial contributions to

poverty reduction. That is, growing rain-fed staple food crops on less than 2 hectares of land can

not create sufficient income for smallholder households to exit poverty. An alternative is clearly

needed. Higher-valued crops might yield higher returns, but also do not necessarily provide

enough income by themselves to reduce poverty much - especially considering when extra labor

and cash requirements needed to obtain higher returns. Since most rural households are labor

constrained and not land constrained, expanding land under cultivation is also an alternative

strategy that should be explored. The majority of smallholders, are risk-averse and firmly

committed to production of staple crops primarily for own-consumption. Due to lack of access to

markets and market price instability, the poor tend to view crop diversification as likely to

increase the vulnerability of their households. Private sector initiatives, particularly outgrower

schemes (and contract farming), have been popular with smallholders when and where they have

been available (mainly in agro-ecological Zone II).

Outgrower schemes can offer a solution to the problems of securing inputs (including credit) and

market access. At least for some crops in some areas and for some types of producers. A recent

report by DFID concludes that: ―Outgrower schemes could never cover the main food and

industrial grain, legume, and oil seed crops on a large scale, and so are often not relevant for the

large mass of poorer smallholders. Despite the many exciting trends in this area, it must be

remembered that the poorest producers face such daunting livelihood challenges that they will be

unable and unwilling to participate in the higher risk, specialized, input-intensive technologies

required for much cash crop production (DFID, 2002, p.18).‖ Furthermore, most outgrower

schemes are limited to more favorable agro-ecological regions with good access to roads and

airports. ―For example, Zambia’s largest horticultural exporter Agriflora is only able to take on

outgrowers within a 50 km radius of its Lusaka operations (DFID, 2002, p.14).‖12

III.A. Higher Value Agricultural Activities

Most traditional smallholder crops, such as local maize, groundnuts and cotton, might have low

input costs, but they also have relatively low returns to labor. The smallholder models by Siegel

12 Agriflora recently went out of business, the Zambia Export Growers Association (ZEGA) is assisting the smallholder

outgrowers establish alternative contractual arrangements.

40

and Alwang (2004) indicate net returns of $0.29 per person per day with hand-hoe technologies

and $1.06 per person per day with oxen technology, Likewise, detailed financial analyses of

returns to different smallholder crops by Keyser (2002) indicate very low returns to labor.

Budgets from Keyser (2002) for commercially oriented emergent and large-scale farmers show

higher returns, but initial investments and the operating costs for such enterprises require

substantial outlays. Higher-value crops like paprika and tobacco have higher cash input and labor

demands. Furthermore, many crops experienced stagnant or falling prices from the mid 1990s,

while input costs tended to rise. In any case, returns to labor have remained low and in many

cases declined, even in cases where there might have been improvements in yields. High cash

and labor requirements are a major constraint for smallholders.

Paprika is an example of a non-traditional higher value crop. It was first introduced into Zambia

in the early 1990s and quickly developed as a smallholder crop and important agricultural export.

Development of this sector was only possible due to investment decisions made by a few

entrepreneurs. These entrepreneurs identified a specific market potential and made long-term

investments to sustain their operations. This has required substantial investments in farmer

extension, input supply, marketing support, laboratory equipment, processing facilities,

construction of rural depots and negotiation with potential buyers around the world. Opportunities

in other areas exist, but success still depends on individual entrepreneurs who are willing to

respond to market signals and accept the risk and high cost of investing in new areas (Keyser,

Helsop, Abel, 1999, p. 39-40). Producers have experienced declining returns to labor despite

improvements in average yields. These are not good omens for increasing paprika production.

Keyser (2002) and Mwape (2003) claim that commercial agricultural producers in Zambia can

attain higher yields than small-scale producers. Higher returns per hectare, combined with the

fact that these returns are spread over more hectares demonstrate that small-scle farming can be a

profitable enterprise. Attainment of ―commercial‖ status requires knowledge of advanced

farming techniques and business and financial management skills. Financial barriers to entry can

be daunting, and the combination of huge outlays, the need to spread investments over large land

areas and the technical skill required to produce and market at a commercial level creates a

substantial barrier to entry into commercial farming. Even a smaller-scale commercial maize

farmer requires substantial financial resources: a basic, small-scale commercial farmer with a

single 60-horsepower tractor and basic cultivation implements (plows, harrows, cultivators,

fertilizer spreader and maize sheller) would incur more than $100,000 in fixed investments. ―The

realistic potential for poor people to diversify out of maize must be put in the context with the

discussion above – in terms of access to the necessary marketing and service infrastructure,

appropriate soil and ecological conditions and the potential for irrigation (DFID, 2002, p.14).‖

The rapid increase in cassava production, especially replacing maize in Northern and Western

Provinces is an example of adoption of a low-value staple food crop primarily for home

consumption. However, cassava has some potential to be a higher value crop if drying and

processing and marketing can be improved (Haggblade and Zulu, 2003). Dried and processed

cassava can also be used by smallholders as livestock feed in an integrated crop-livestock farming

system. ―Yet, considerable resources and efforts will still be required to master cassava

processing and marketing in (Malawi and) Zambia. And without such efforts, the cassava boom

will stall (Haggblade and Zulu, 2003, p.18).‖

41

III.B Conservation Farming

Conservation farming (CF) in Zambia is a locally adopted variant of traditional minimum tillage

technologies adopted in many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa (Haggblade and Tembo, 2003). CF

has gained popularity in the 1990s in response to market liberalization and the perceived needs to

increase fertilizer efficiency, better conserve and manage water resources, increase productivity,

and also to spread labor more evenly over the year. As applied in Zambia, CT involves a package

of several key practices: dry-season land preparation using minimum tillage (rather than plowing

after the first rains), crop residue retention (instead of burning), seed and fertilizer application in

fixed planting stations (rather than spreading), and nitrogen fixing crop rotations and fallows

(rather than continuous production of crops such as maize and cotton). CF technologies and

implements have been developed for hand-hoe and oxen land preparation. Minimum tillage is not

synonymous with ―low-input‖ agricultural production. In many cases there is need for increased

labor and outlays on improved seeds and fertilizers. This is a reason behind the fact that the

highest adoption rates of CF in Zambia have actually been by commercial and emergent farmers.

In 1998, MACO officially formally accepted CF as an official policy of GRZ, and increased

promotion efforts. One of the emerging ―success stories‖ has been the adoption of CF by many

smallholder cotton producers participating in the outgrower ―Dunavant Distributor System‖. In

fact, there is evidence that ―CF farmers often receive extra extension support as well as input

packages of high-yielding variety (HYV) seeds and fertilizers to which most conventional

farmers have not had access in the decade and a half following the collapse of Zambia’s input

supply and credit systems. Even under conventional tillage, higher fertilizer and HYV seed use

will increase output (Haggblade and Tembo, 2003, p.3).‖ Thus, it has been difficult to assess the

impacts of changes in tillage practices alone versus the package of different tillage practices and

use of improved inputs and increased input use.

A recent review of CF in Zambia (see Haggblade and Tembo, 2003) notes that it is hard to

estimate the number of smallholders that have adopted CF, because many adopt some

components and not others. Haggeblade and Tembo (2003, p.80) estimate that ―between 20,000

and 75,000 Zambian farmers currently benefit from increased yield and incomes under

conservation farming.‖ Although some donors and NGOs advocate conservation tillage, more

research is needed on the economics of conservation tillage, especially information on labor and

cash flows. More research is also needed into intra-household effects of adopting conservation

tillage technology, given the different labor demands (in terms of their timing and types of tasks)

for land preparation (that is generally carried out by males) and for other field operations that are

often carried out by women and children (Copesake, 1997, p.31). Thus, more information is

needed about conservation farming to assess its benefits and costs in the smallholder household

farming system.

III.C. General Observations

Smallholder agriculture has some potential in Zambia, but faces major constraints. A key priority

to benefit poor producers should be labor-saving technologies and better-functioning input and

output markets. Access to credit is also important because movement to higher-productivity

farming systems usually requires increased investments in inputs and working capital. Capacity

building and extension services are also critical. Remoteness is a problem that can be overcome

through investments in infrastructure, but complementary assets are lacking in low-productivity

remote areas. Deeply rooted Structural problems further exacerbate the problem. Issues such as

land reform, liberalization of fertilizer markets, and improving infrastructure need to be part of a

broader rural development strategy. The rural poor do not lack land, but the other complementary

42

productive resources that would allow them to respond to policies and investments that are aimed

at stimulating agricultural growth. Recent innovations in contract farming and conservation

farming for smallholders point to the potential when a more holistic technology-technical

assistance-credit-marketing approach is adopted. Improved transportation, communication and

storage infrastructure are all needed to assure timely access and minimal transaction costs for

inputs and outputs. Aggregated smallholder activities, to reap economies of scale, lower

transaction costs and improve bargaining power with the private sector are also critical; including

formation of cooperatives, and participation in outgrower schemes.

There is a need for appropriate technologies and farming systems that are suited to diverse agro-

ecological conditions, with technological innovations to increase labor productivity, and that are

financially and ecologically sustainable, To help smallholders, it is important that research and

extension also address natural resource management issues (e.g., environmental sustainability),

and to also provide technical assistance about prices, markets and business practices so that

smallholders can better participate in domestic and international markets. It is also important for

research and extension to provide technical assistance with respect to food consumption (e.g.,

nutrition, food preparation, improving energy efficiency and lowering pollution for cooking), and

activities linked agricultural activities (e.g., activities involved in input and output supply), and

non-agricultural activities (e.g., crafts and small enterprises).

Considering the potential for higher-value crops and conservation farming, Siegel and Alwang

(2004, p.30) conclude: ―… many smallholders are trapped in a ―low-level equilibrium.‖ Breaking

out of this trap will require adopting new technologies and cropping patterns, relatively large

investments in fixed assets and working capital. Additional modeling of smallholder adoption of

technologies, and subsequent returns from adoption would be beneficial. This line of research

will be more fruitful than focusing on how smallholders can survive using existing technologies

and cropping patterns. More research needs to be carried out to investigate the economics of

adopting higher value crops and/or for the adoption of conservation farming for staple and higher

value crops. There is a need to explicitly incorporate risks (e.g., climate and price risks) into the

modeling of smallholder agriculture and to better understand how the existence or absence of

risks and risk management instruments impact the transformation from subsistence-oriented

smallholders to market-oriented emergent farmers.‖

A critical issue that needs to be raised in any discussion on the future of Zambian agriculture is if

and how to exploit the vast potential for irrigation. The potential for expanding irrigation in areas

where it exists and introducing it to other areas needs much mote attention. Chiwele and Sikananu

(2004) devote a lot of attention to irrigation potential and how it can help different types of

smallholders in different areas achieve improved food security, crop and livestock diversification

and more intensive commercial agriculture.

More realistic expectations about the possbilities for smallholder transformation are needed. As

Whiteside (1998, p.1) noted: ―Donors and governments need to recognize that to achieve

sustainable increases in agricultural productivity will take decades, not years.‖ Improved

research and extension based on the assets held by smallholders and the new policy regime are

needed, including a ―basket of choices‖ that consider smallholder farming systems and off-farm

opportunities. Investments in transport and communication infrastructure can help lower

transaction costs.

There is a need for a more comprehensive and holistic approach to rural development, not just an

agricultural or commodity-specific strategy. What is really needed is a regional approach to rural

development, on that also considers the role of urban centers and secondary towns. As noted by

43

Chiwele and Sikananu (2004, p.68):―Zambia may need to learn from other countries on putting

up ―growth centers‖ … These centers would be provided with the vital infrastructure useful in

linking rural areas to the larger world. This strategy recognizes that although vital infrastructure

may not be taken at the doorstep of each and every smallholder, at least the distance to it can be

drastically reduced.‖

Despite the need for a more holistic approach to rural development, it is important to consider: a)

the limited implementation capacity of government and a lack of resources; (b) local government

decentralization in Zambia has still not been institutionalized.

IV. IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL BENEFICIARIES FROM AGRICULTURAL COMMERCIALIZATION IN ZAMBIA

A recent assessment of potential ―winners‖ and ―losers‖ from agricultural commercialization in

Zambia (by Pinder and Wood, 2003) reveals an important split among those referred to as ―small

and emergent farmers that are located in high potential areas or demarcated farm blocks and those

that are ―not located in high potential areas or demarcated farm blocks. The later are classified as

―potential losers‖ along with the ―poorest and most vulnerable households‖ (located in all areas) .

See table IV.1. Domestic and foreign consumers are also ―potential winners.‖ Pinder and Wood

(2003) note highlight a concern that expected investments in infrastructure will bypass those in

less favored areas.

Table IV. 1 Potential Winners and Losers from GRZ’s Agricultural

Commercialization Policies

Potential Winners Potential Losers Mixed Impact

Foreign owned estates producing

for European markets

Poorest and most vulnerable

households

Agricultural traders and suppliers

of services

Small and emergent farmers that

are located in high potential areas

or demarcated farm blocks

Small and emergent farmers that

are not located in high potential

areas or demarcated farm blocks

Domestic and overseas consumers

Source: Pinder and Wood (2003), Appendix E: Social Impact Analysis and Primary Stakeholder Analysis

The focus of this paper is the potential well-being of the ―poorest and most vulnerable

households‖ and ―small and emergent farmers‖. So, to briefly comment on the other specified

potential ―winners‖, ―losers‖ and ―mixed impacts‖. Foreign-owned estates producing for export

are potential winners and crucial for the success of agricultural commercialization. Domestic

consumers should definitely benefit from agricultural commercialization. Many poor households

will benefit from lower food prices and greater choice and also through labor linkages as labor in

agriculture or linked agricultural and non-agricultural activities. The mixed impact for traders

and suppliers is most probably correct, and certainly deserves more thought..

In this paper we have identified a group of livelihood zones that seem to correspond to the

―higher-potential areas‖. Throughout the paper it was emphasized that the area most like to

benefit from agricultural commercialization is located in Agro-ecological Zone II, and more

precisely in livelihood zones: We have identified these areas as:

Agro-ecological Zone II: Average yields vary substantially among provinces. In general, yields

are higher in Zone II for most crops and conditions for livestock production are also more

favorable. Higher yields are due to more favorable agro-ecological conditions and the fact that

44

much of this zone is located along the ―line-of-rail‖ which allows for greater access to input and

output markets. Smallholder households in this area tend to have better access to infrastructure,

higher use of inputs, and a higher share of medium- and large-sized commercial farms using

improved technologies. The existence of medium- and larger-commercial farms in the area is

beneficial to smallholders through labor linkages and the existence of outgrower schemes, and

also through demonstration effects. This is important with respect to Zones I and III, which are

characterized by a virtual absence of medium- and larger-commercial farm

―Dynamic‖ Livelihood Zones. The livelihood zones most associated with a higher prevalence of

commercial smallholder agricultural activities (and large-scale commercial farmers) are

livelihood zones 4A (Central Maize-Cotton, 5A Line of Rail Commercial Farming, 5B Eastern

Province Cash Crop, 7B Chongwe-Nyimba Plateau, and 13 Mkushi Commercial Block. In

general, these livelihood zones coincide to: a) Agro-Ecological Zone II, and b) the ―line-of-rail‖

road and market infrastructure, Together these zones account for about 3,604,00 out of an

estimated 9,900,000 Zambians (about 36% of all rural and urban residents). The combination of

small and large commercial farmers, relatively good agro-ecological and infrastructure

conditions, and the proximity to major urban markets make this the most ―dynamic‖ agricultural

area in Zambia at the present time.

The broader regional economy is also important to consider, and a regional approach (that

includes urban centres and secodary towns) is needed to plan major road and communication

infrastructure. It is important to note that in discussions about Zone II and the equivalent

livelihood zones, we have not specifically addressed the need to consider the proximity to major

urban areas of the Copperbelt, home to about 1.8 million persons (consumers of agriculural

products), in a broader spatial rural development strategy that would include these urban markets

that are well-connected by road/rail infrastructure to the ―line-of’rail‖ high-potential agricultural

areas. Also, the Copperbelt urban areas are linked to markets in neighboring countries.

Together the Copperbelt-Lusaka-Livingstone ―line-of-rail‖ and including a connection to Eastern

Province, the rural and urban households represent about ½ of smallholder households and more

than 80% and urban residents. So, rural and urban households in this this area should benefit

from agricultural commercialization as producers and consumers. As we have noted,

smallholder households are heterogeneous and only some seem positiooned to benefit from

agricultural commercialization. Most rural Zambian households are a ―shade of poor‖, and even

―better-off‖ households are poor. Furthermore the really wealthy households were not found to be

residing in the rural villages. Thus, rural elites were not found controlling local resources or

denying them to the poor and powerless. Instead, a generalized condition of economic

uncertainty and material scarcity prevails in the villages. A type of social and economic

egalitarianism ―collective poverty‖ characterizes these rural communities.

According to a recent study that was carried out in 18 communities over all three agro-ecological

zones, fewer than 10 of the 30 households categorized in a wealth ranking exercise were assigned

to the ―better off‖ group. In some villages of Zone I, only 2-3 households were classifiied as

―better off.‖ The better off households usually own cattle and ―luxury goods‖ such as radios and

bicycles. They live in homes built of burnt brick and roofed with corrugated iron. The better-off

households are food secure and can eat as many as three meals a day. They are able to educate

their children through secondary school, since they can afford school fees, uniforms, and

transport (or occasionally boarding fees). Better-off households possess agricultural livelihoods

(and maybe some other livelihood activities) that are more reliable than those of the moderately

poor and very poor. They have ploughs and draft animals, or in Zone II, maybe even a tractor.

They are thus able to cultivate a larger area (at least 2 ha but mostly greater than 5 ha) . Since

45

households in this category can afford to buy inputs, they produce enough maize to fill a granary

and often can sell surplus produce. Many participate in outgrower schemes and/or have

participated in the past. Most were dependent on government provided inputs, credit, markets

and technical assistance in the past. They often operate a small shop in the village, and they sell

or trade produce, fish, etc. outside the village. Although a few moderately poor households may

hire ganyu labor, it is the better off who usually employ members of other households to assist

with planting, weeding and harvesting. These relationships generally do not develop into long-

standing patron-client relationships, as they are usually ad hoc and temporary. These relatively

wealthier villagers do not, therefore, constitute a reliable source of credit, employment or

emergency assistance to the families they have employed. However, this does indicate the

existence of labor and credit linkages that can expand over time as the household succeeds.

Wealthy households were actually not found to be residing in the rural villages.

The big question is what share of smallholder households in the Agro-ecological Zone

II/Commercial Livelihood Zone are ―better-off‖ and able to benefit from agricultural

commercialization? And, also to identify smallholders who are ―marginal‖ and would benefit

from Conservation Farming and expanded irrigation to focus on food security concerns and to

produce a surplus. Over time they could become more commercially oriented. Then there is the

―sub-subsistence‖ or ―welfare‖ group that requires social protection and does not have the

physical ability to farm. But they can benefit as consumers and as workers in agricultural

processing or other post-harvest activities, or agro-industrial activites.

A wealth breakdown in several rural communities in 4 different livelihood zones. The following

range of wealth breakdowns was found in the selected communities (they vary somewhat among

the respective zones, hence the ranges):

Poor and Very Poor Households: 40-60%

Middle Households: 20-30%

Better-off Households: 10-20%

This indicates about 1/2 of rural households are considered poor or very poor in the respective

livelihood zones. In general all of the poor and very poor households cultivated less than 1 ha of

food staple crops and possibly had some chickens. The middle and better-off households tended

to cultivate more than 2 ha and land and engage in both food and cash crops and grow enough

staple foods for own-consumption, and also have (small and large) livestock. Another proposed

breakdown of smallholder households by Pinder and Wood (2003) is:

―Sub-subsistence smallholders‖ 200,000 households (24%)

―Marginal Smallholders‖ 300,000 households (36%)

―Viable/Emergent smallholders‖ 330,000 households (40%)

There is evidence that close to 25% of Zambian smallholders are currently participating in

outgrower schemes maybe another 5-10% practicing Conservation Farming (CF). These

―innovators‖ are mostly to found in Agro-ecological Zone II in the ―dynamic‖ livelihood zones.

In some cases, smallholders are participating in outgrower schemes and are also practicing CF.

So, these households would seem to be the primary producer beneficiaries from agricultural

commercialization. Of this 30% (+/-) of Zambian smallholder households some can be expected

to succeed as ―commercial farmers‖ over time. Possibly some ―marginal smallholder‖

households can also benefit as producers and as laborers for the commercial smallholders or

having other part-time incomes to complement agricultural production primarily for home

consumption. This labor-linkage is important. Also, there will probably be many smallholder

46

households that straddle between commercial and semi-commercial agricultural production.

These ―marginal smallholders‖ would produce primarily for own-consumption and mostly live in

remote areas or where transport costs make food staples relatively expensive to purchase.

―marginal smallholders‖ in higher potential areas have greater potential to transform into

commercial farmers. So they are potential ―winners‖.

However, unlike Pinder and Wood (2003), a negative impact on ―marginal smallholders‖ in lower

potential areas should not be expected. They are really potential ―winners‖ as producers and

consumers. The ―ultra-poor‖ should not be expected to be ―tillers of the soil‖. There is a

relatively high share of ―sub-subsistence‖ smallholders who are ―incapacitated poor‖ consisting

of elderly, crippled, infirm, orphans, HIV positive. These households require social protection

and should benefit from agricultural commercialization as consumers and as the social safety net

gets a boost from higher incomes of other rural households. Pro-active efforts need to be made

to guarantee that the design of programs supporting agricultural commercialization also benefit

the ―marginal‖ and ―sub-subsistence‖ smallholder households.

V. CONCLUDING COMMENTS

The objective of this paper is to help contribute to efforts to identify where and who are the



strategies for poverty reduction. This paper draws on the existing literature (both quantitative and

qualitative analyses) to try and classify higher and lower potential households based on different

factors. As such, this paper should be viewed as the beginning of a process to better identify the

different potential of different households to help policymakers design differentiated policies and

investment strategies that can be targeted based in these differences.

47

REFERENCES

Alwang, J. and P.B. Siegel (1994) ―Zambia Poverty Assessment, Volume III: Rural Poverty

Assessment,‖ Report No. 12985-ZA. Southern Africa Department, The World Bank,

Washington, D.C.

Alwang, J., P.B. Siegel and S. Jorgensen. ―Seeking Guidelines for Poverty Reduction Policies for

Zambia,‖ World Development. Volume 24, No. 11, pp. 1711-1723. November 1996.

Chiwele, D.K and R. Sikananu (2004) ―Agriculture Development and Food Security in Sub-

Saharan Africa: Builing a Case for More Support, A Case Study for Zambia.‖ Submitted to FAO,

Agriculture Policy Analysis Unit. September.

Copestake, J.G. (1997) ―Encouraging Sustainable Smallholder Agriculture in Zambia.‖

Agricultural Services Reform in Southern Africa Report R6452CA. Centre for Development

Studies, University of Bath.

C-SAFE (2003) ―Zambia Baseline Survey: Report of Findings.‖ Prepared by TANGO

International, Inc. In Collaboration with C-SAFE M&E Team. Lusaka.

DFID (2002) ―An Assessment of Trends in the Zambian Agricultural Sector.‖ Report prepared by

IDL . Somerset, UK.

Francis, P.A., J.T. Milimo, G.A. Njobvu, and S.P.M. Tembo (1997) ―Listening to Farmers:

Participatory Assessment of Policy Reform in Zambia’s Agriculture Sector.‖ The World Bank:

Washington, D.C.

Haggblade, S. and G. Tembo (2003) ―Conservation Framing in Zambia.‖ EPTD Discussion Paper

No. 108. International Food and Policy Research Institute (IFPRI): Washington, D.C.

see www. ifpri.org

Haggblade, S. and B. Zulu (2003) ―The Recent Cassava Surge in Zambia and Malawi.‖ Paper

presented at the WeNT, NEPAD, CTA Conference ―Successes in African Agriculture‖,

December 1-3, Pretoria.

Keyser, J.C. (2002) ―Zambia Financial Crop Models: Comparison of 1994-5 and 2001-2 Seasons

and Zimbabwe 2000-02 Seasons.‖ Report prepared for The World Bank: Washington, D.C.

mimeo.

Keyser, J.C., T. Helsop, and J. Abel (2001) ―Trade and Investment Opportunities in Agriculture.‖

Prepared for USAID Zambia Trade and Investment Enhancement Project (ZAMTIE) under

contract # 690-C-00-00-00283-00. Lusaka.

McPherson, M. (2004) ―The Role of Agriculture and Mining in Sustainable Growth and

Development in Zambia.‖ In Promoting and Sustaining Economic Reform in Zambia. Edited by

C.B. Hill and M. McPherson, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

48

Milimo, J.T., T. Shilito, and K. Brock (2000) ―The Poor of Zambia Speak.‖ Published by the

Zambia Social Investment Fund. Lusaka.

Milimo and others (2004) ―Incapacitated Poor Persons in Zambia: Report on a Study by

Participatory Assessment Group and Public Welfare Assistance Scheme‖. GTZ Social Safety Net

Project. Lusaka.

Mwape, F. (2003) ―Rural Household Models in Zambia‖. Consultant Report prepared for Social

Development Department. The World Bank: Washington, D.C. mimeo.

Parker, B. and F. Mwape (2004). ―Rural Poverty and Vulnerability in Zambia, 2004: A

Qualitative Study.‖ Paper prepared for DFID and The World Bank, Social Protection Unit.

mimeo.

Pinder, C. and Wood, D. (2003) ―The Socio-Economic Impact of Commercial Agriculture on

Rural Poor and Other Vulnerable Groups.‖ Working Document. DFID: London.

Siegel, P.B. (2005) Poverty Reducing Potential of Smallholder Agriculture in Zambia: Dualism

and Dualism within the Dualism.‖ Prepared for The World Bank Social Protection Unit as a

background paper for the Zambia Poverty and Vulnerability Assessment. February. Mimeo.

Siegel, P.B. and J. Alwang (2005) Poverty Reducing Potential of Smallholder Agriculture in

Zambia: Opportunities and Constraints.‖ Africa Region Working Paper Series, Number 85. The

World Bank. Washington, D.C. http://worldbank.org/afr/wps/index.htm

Skjonsberg, E. (2003) ―A Report on 25 Years of Rural Change in Kefa Village, Eastern Province,

Zambia.‖ Background Report for Zambia PSIA. Prepared for Social Development Department.

The World Bank: Washington, D.C. mimeo.

World Bank (2002) ―Zambia: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper and Joint Staff Assessment.‖

Report No. 24035-ZA. The World Bank: Washington, D.C.

World Bank (2004) ―Zambia Country Economic Memorandum: Policies for Growth and

Diversification.‖ Report No. 28069-ZA. Washington, D.C.

World Bank (2005)13

―Zambia: Poverty and Vulnerability Assessment.‖ Report No. 32573-ZM.

Draft. Washington, D.C. June 29, 2005. http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001457/index.php

Zambia (2004) ―Zambia Livelihood Map Rezoning and Baseline Profiling.‖ Final Report by the

Zambia Vulnerability Assessment Committee. October. Lusaka.



13 The final version is:

World Bank (2007) ―Zambia: Poverty and Vulnerability Assessment.‖ Report No. 32573-ZM.

Washington, D.C. August 20, 2007.

http://worldbank.org/afr/wps/index.htm

http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001457/index.php



49

ANNEX

Description of livelihood Zones

Central Maize-Cotton Zone (Zone 4A): This is mostly Mumbwa District. Maize and cotton

growing is widespread. Game meat is very common. This area is not prone to drought as rainfall

is normally adequate and has moderate access to the market.

Line-of-Rail Commercial (Zone 5A): The main characteristics in this zone are the growth of

rainfed and irrigated crops. The soils are good and a lot of different crops are grown. Access to

agro inputs is good because of the proximity to towns. Access to markets is fairly good. In the

south west part of the zone where road infrastructure and the general terrain is poor (Kafue River

flat plains), fishing and game form the major sources of food and income. However the north-

eastern parts of the zone is characterised by commercial production of maize, cotton, tobacco,

sugarcane and grain legumes. The area has good infrastructure, thereby promoting trade. The

population is large and livestock diseases are common harzards. Lately the area has been prone to

drought. Deforestation is prominent due to charcoal sales and curing of tobacco.

Eastern Province Cash Crop (Zone 5B): Rainfall is high and the soils are fertile in this

livelihood zone, which is favourable for crop production (Cotton, Tobacco, Maize and

Groundnuts). Except around the main towns (especially Chipata), the area is sparsely populated.

Growth of food and cash crops (cotton, tobacco and groundnuts) is another characteristic. The

main sources of income are sale of crops, trading and wages.

Chongwe-Nyimba Plateau Zone 7B): Compared to many other parts of the country, the

Chongwe- Nyimba Plateau has good access to markets and is highly productive in terms of crops

and livestock. This livelihood zone is serviced by an all weather road, the Great East Road,

which leads to Chipata, the provincial capital. Normal rainfall is about 800 mm per year. The

Plateau is a smallholder farming zone, with maize produced as the staple crop, sweet potatoes and

pumpkins as supplements, and groundnuts as a component of both relish and snacks. Contract

farming of cotton has become the most important cash crop followed by localized production of

cassava. Goats are the main livestock reared, though cattle and pigs are also kept. In a year of

average production, farmers in the Chongwe-Nyimba Plateau produce a surplus of maize.

However, due to the poor feeder road infrastructure, households have difficulties accessing the

main markets to sell their crops and livestock at economic prices.

Mkushi Commercial Block (Zone 13): This livelihood zone has fertile land and receives

rainfall of 800-1000 mm per year, which makes it a high potential area for both crop and

livestock production. It is predominantly a commercial farming area, with large-scale farming

conducted by both local farmers and settlers from outside the country (especially South Africans

and Zimbabweans). The major crops grown are maize, wheat and tobacco, while the main

livestock raised are cattle. Despite the long distance to the major markets in Lusaka and

Copperbelt the infrastructure is quite good and this zone is a major source of tomatoes, bananas

and potatoes for Lusaka and Copperbelt Provinces. The local people around this commercial

farming area provide the main source of labour.

Northwest High Rainfall (Zone 1A): This livelihood zone is characterised by high rainfall and

is covered with dense rain forests. Forest products are important sources of food and income,

50

particularly game, timber and honey. The area was once the leading producer of pineapples in the

country, but production has declined since the closure of the processing plant in the late 1990s.

The zone is mostly rural and is sparsely populated.

Tuta-Luapula Corridor (Zone 1B): This livelihood zone receives rainfall of over 1200 mm per

year and lies at a low altitude. Since it lies on the border with Democratic Republic of the Congo,

there is a high level of cross-border trade. The zone is densely populated and the economy is

based on fishing and cassava production. The infrastructure to markets is average.

Copperbelt Mining (2A): This zone is highly urbanised, with wage employment (in mining,

manufacturing, banking, etc) and trading representing the main livelihood options for most

people. Staple food production is minimal. Copper mining is the main economic activity in the

zone, although due to the recent sale of mines, a number of people have been retrenched and have

migrated to other zones however new buyers of the mines are increasing operations in the

southern and eastern parts of the zone. Already a major copper mine, Kansenshi, has started

operating in the eastern part (around Solwezi district) while there are scaled up activities with

gemstone mining in the area around Mkushi district. Apart from mining other common livelihood

activities are charcoal burning and game, the zone has relatively good infrastructure.

Northern Province Plateau (Zone 2B): This livelihood zone covers a large part of Luapula and

Northern Provinces. It is sparsely populated and the soils are relatively fertile. Rainfall is well

above 1200 mm per year. Livelihoods are based on subsistence cultivation, limited livestock

keeping and trading in agricultural products. The infrastructure is poor in terms of road network.

The main chronic problems are crop pests and livestock disease. The major sources of income are

cross border trade with Tanzania, charcoal sales and wages.

Mufumbwe-Kasempa Zone (3A): This zone is self-sufficient in food production and is sparsely

populated. It has a good road network and rail system, except for Lufwanyama, Mufumbwe and

Kesempa districts in the western part. It is also a major forest reserve and is crossed by two

national parks. Timber, honey and game are the major sources of livelihood. In the eastern part

of the zone, there has been increased demand for land for agricultural purposes from retrenched,

retired and unemployed people. There are moderate numbers of commercial farms in the zone,

mostly growing maize, coffee and soya beans.

Muchinga Escarpment (Zone 3B)

This zone is moderately populated, the soils are relatively fertile and production of maize is a

common livelihood. The zone has the potential to grow into a major commercial agricultural

producing area as more area is being opened up in the form of farming blocks. The zone is close

to the Great North Road and Tazara Railway line, which links Tanzania and Zambia. As such,

significant petty trading in assorted merchandize takes place along the main road and railway.

Chama-Lundazi Rice Zone (Zone 4B): This zone mostly covers Chama and Lundazi Districts,

and includes a small area in Mambwe District. Small-scale farming is prominent in most of the

zone. Illegal hunting (poaching) is being done. Petty trade and rice production is prevalent in all

areas. Tourism in the zone is very active with good (efficient) air travel and several lodges which

provide jobs to locals too. The area is prone to droughts and floods. Casual labour is widely used

as a coping strategy.

Sioma Plain (Zone 6): This zone is a cropping (maize and cassava) and cattle rearing zone.

Incomes for most households come from limited crop and livestock sales and to some extent

51

timber sales. Cattle also provide manure, draught power and milk. Market channels are moderate

to difficult mainly because of poor infrastructure. Cattle are mainly sold through local butcheries

and main abattoirs by farmers and traders. Maize and cassava is purchased from the local market.

Kazungula-Mwandi Plain (Zone 7A): This livelihood zone has a generally semi-arid climate,

with periodic drought and flooding (especially in the valleys). The main economic activities

include crop and livestock production, formal employment, trading, curios (related to tourism),

fishing and sale of wild fruits. With the mushrooming of lodges/hotels along the Zambezi River

shores, employment opportunities for local people and even for people from outside the zone has

increased. Prostitution is common in high-risk areas such as Livingstone, Sesheke and other

border areas and is a means of earning an income. The road infrastructure of late has improved

with the completion of an all-weather road from Livingstone to Sesheke. A modern bridge across

the Zambezi River connecting Zambia (Sesheke) and Namibia has also been completed and is

likely to influence the livelihoods of most communities in terms of cross border trading, labour

based migration, and prostitution.

Luano Valley (Zone 7C): This zone covers the southern parts of Mkushi and Chibombo

Districts. Small-scale farmers occupy this area. The main crops grown are maize, tobacco,

cotton, cassava, and vegetables. The main livestock kept include cattle, goats, poultry and pigs.

The infrastructure in the zone is relatively good in some areas, providing access to markets on the

Great North Road, including Kabwe and Lusaka. However, in areas near the Luano valley, roads

are impassable and households there are constantly in need of food aid which is usually air lifted.

Crop pests and livestock diseases are the main hazards experienced in the area.

Mulobezi Woodlands (Zone 9): The zone receives little rainfall with plenty of Kalahari sands

which are generally infertile soils. It is sparsely populated, with the population concentrated

around the few fertile areas. Livelihood patterns are largely subsistence oriented. The zone has a

weak road network and market access is poor. The zone has plenty of forests which are major

sources of timber. Timber is sold to major towns within Zambia. In the 1990s, the business in

timber lead to establishment of some saw mills and a rail line, which provided major sources of

income. The saw mills and railway lines are currently undergoing privatization and activities have

temporarily slowed down. The major subsistence crop grown is maize, while the major livestock

are cattle and goats.

Zambezi West Bank (Zone 10A): The zone is sparsely populated, with a poor road network. It

is connected to the country by a pontoon on the Zambezi River and in times of high rainfall it is

inaccessible. There is limited electricity supply and telephone facilities in the area.. The main

crops are cassava, maize and sweet potatoes. The main types of livestock kept by households are

cattle, goats and poultry. Unskilled casual labour and petty trade are the main income sources for

poor households.

The zone has less developed infrastructure in terms of schools, agricultural, medical facilities, etc.

Moderate trade takes place with Angola in small livestock and fishing is common. Households in

this zone barter fish for maize with adjacent zones. The major crop is cassava

Zambezi East (Zone 10B): The zone is sparsely populated, with a poor road network, and is

dependent on thermal power for electricity. The main crops are cassava, maize, and sweet

potatoes. The main types of livestock kept by households are goats, cattle and poultry. Unskilled

casual labour and petty trade are the main income sources for poor households. The zone has well

developed social and economic infrastructure. The zone is also the major source of maize

consumed or traded in Zambezi West Bank (Zone 10A).

52

Gwembe Valley (Zone 11A): This livelihood zone is populated by Tonga people who were

displaced from the area that is now covered by Lake Kariba when the Kariba Dam was built in

the 1960s. Due to its relatively low altitude, the climate is mostly hot and dry, with average

rainfall of about 600-700 mm per year. The livelihood pattern in this zone is one of small-scale

subsistence agriculture and livestock rearing. The main food crops cultivated are sorghum, millet

and maize. These are grown for household consumption with only a little local trade within the

zone and no exports outside the zone. Cotton is the main cash crop and vegetable cultivation is

an income source for some households during the dry season. The main livestock kept are cattle,

goats and chickens and these are important income sources at household level. Cattle are also

essential for ploughing. The Gwembe Valley is prone to weather extremes where both droughts

and floods are regular problems.

Lake Kariba Fishing (Zone 11B): This is a small livelihood zone that borders Lake Kariba in

Southern Province. The population lives in small fishing camps and includes migrants from other

provinces. Fishing on the lake is the dominant economic activity, but very small-scale crop

production and livestock keeping is also practiced. The zone has a large concentration of

commercial fishing companies such as crocodile farms and kapenta (small fish) trade. This

activity is a major source of income for some households. The zone is also a major tourist

destination and has several lodges along the lakeshores. The lodges provide regular employment

to some households within the zone.

Chiawa-Zambezi Lowlands (Zone 12A): This livelihood zone receives less than 700 mm

annual rainfall and is prone to a number of periodic hazards, including drought, flood and damage

of crops by wild animals. Traditionally, the farming system is sorghum-based and households

generally do not produce enough food to sustain themselves throughout the year. Other crops

grown include cassava, maize and bananas. Goats and pigs are the main livestock kept. Sources

of cash income include fishing, trading and crafts.

Mambwe-Petauke valley (Zone 12B)

The livelihood of this zone is mainly maize production at subsistence level. Cotton production is

done through contract farming and game is another major source of food and income in the zone.

Zambezi Floodplain (Zone 14): This is a low-lying wetland that floods yearly. The floods are

excessive with a frequency of one in ten years, destroying crops and infrastructure. Households

grow maize, rice and sorghum and keep cattle and pigs. Pigs are kept mainly for sale. The area

is dissected by the Zambezi River, offering opportunities for fishing and water transport. There is

the potential to produce two crops of maize per year in this livelihood zone.

Luapula Valley (Zone 15B)

This zone is predominantly a cassava growing area. The major sources of income for most

households is cross border trade with the Democratic Republic of Congo, fish trading is another

important source of food and income because of relatively good road infrastructure, there is

significant trade, in fish and cassava, with other zones.

Luangwa-Mfuwe Valley (Zone 15C)

The zone lies in the valley and experiences very high temperatures and periodic droughts, which

has affected its agricultural activities. As a result of poor climatic conditions, most cropping

activities are limited to the riverbank, which exposes them to the risk of flooding. The zone is

53

mainly in the game management area and therefore crops including livestocks are frequently

attacked by wild animals. The major source of livelihood is fishing, game and employment at

numerous tourist game resorts and lodges

Luapula-Northern Wetlands (Zone 16A): This livelihood zone is at very low altitude and is

dominated by wetlands and islands. There is a lot of fishing and rice production and is

characterised by a low population density.

Kaputa Rice (Zone 16B): This livelihood zone is at very low altitude and is dominated by

wetlands and highlands. There is a lot of fishing and rice production. The zone has a low

population density with major settlements for refugees that cross from the Democratic Republic

of Congo (DRC). The proximity of the DRC has provided opportunities for cross-border trade in

fish and maize meal which is sold or battered for second-hand clothes and other petty

commodities.

54

Africa Region Working Paper Series

Series # Title Date Author

ARWPS 1 Progress in Public Expenditure Management in

Africa: Evidence from World Bank Surveys

January 1999 C. Kostopoulos

ARWPS 2 Toward Inclusive and Sustainable Development in

the Democratic Republic of the Congo

March 1999 Markus Kostner

ARWPS 3 Business Taxation in a Low-Revenue Economy: A

Study on Uganda in Comparison with Neighboring

Countries

June 1999 Ritva Reinikka

Duanjie Chen

ARWPS 4 Pensions and Social Security in Sub-Saharan Africa:

Issues and Options

October 1999 Luca Barbone

Luis-A. Sanchez B.

ARWPS 5 Forest Taxes, Government Revenues and the

Sustainable Exploitation of Tropical Forests

January 2000 Luca Barbone

Juan Zalduendo

ARWPS 6 The Cost of Doing Business: Firms’ Experience with

Corruption in Uganda

June 2000 Jacob Svensson

ARWPS 7 On the Recent Trade Performance of Sub-Saharan

African Countries: Cause for Hope or More of the

Same

August 2000 Francis Ng and

Alexander J. Yeats

ARWPS 8 Foreign Direct Investment in Africa: Old Tales and

New Evidence

November 2000 Miria Pigato

ARWPS 9 The Macro Implications of HIV/AIDS in South

Africa: A Preliminary Assessment

November 2000 Channing Arndt

Jeffrey D. Lewis

ARWPS 10 Revisiting Growth and Convergence: Is Africa

Catching Up?

December 2000 C. G. Tsangarides

ARWPS 11 Spending on Safety Nets for the Poor: How Much,

for

How Many? The Case of Malawi

January 2001 William J. Smith

ARWPS 12 Tourism in Africa February 2001 Iain T. Christie

D. E. Crompton

ARWPS 13 Conflict Diamonds

February 2001 Louis Goreux

ARWPS 14 Reform and Opportunity: The Changing Role and

Patterns of Trade in South Africa and SADC

March 2001 Jeffrey D. Lewis

ARWPS 15 The Foreign Direct Investment Environment in

Africa

March 2001 Miria Pigato

ARWPS 16 Choice of Exchange Rate Regimes for Developing

Countries

April 2001 Fahrettin Yagci

ARWPS 18 Rural Infrastructure in Africa: Policy Directions

June 2001 Robert Fishbein

ARWPS 19 Changes in Poverty in Madagascar: 1993-1999 July 2001 S. Paternostro

J. Razafindravonona

55



David Stifel

ARWPS 20 Information and Communication Technology,

Poverty, and Development in sub-Saharan Africa and

South Asia

August 2001 Miria Pigato

ARWPS 21 Handling Hierarchy in Decentralized Settings:

Governance Underpinnings of School Performance

in Tikur Inchini, West Shewa Zone, Oromia Region

September 2001 Navin Girishankar A.

Alemayehu

Yusuf Ahmad

ARWPS 22 Child Malnutrition in Ethiopia: Can Maternal

Knowledge Augment The Role of Income?

October 2001 Luc Christiaensen

Harold Alderman

ARWPS 23 Child Soldiers: Preventing, Demobilizing and

Reintegrating

November 2001 Beth Verhey

ARWPS 24 The Budget and Medium-Term Expenditure

Framework in Uganda

December 2001 David L. Bevan

ARWPS 25 Design and Implementation of Financial

Management Systems: An African Perspective

January 2002 Guenter Heidenhof H.

Grandvoinnet

Daryoush Kianpour

B. Rezaian

ARWPS 26 What Can Africa Expect From Its Traditional

Exports?

February 2002 Francis Ng

Alexander Yeats

ARWPS 27 Free Trade Agreements and the SADC Economies February 2002 Jeffrey D. Lewis

Sherman Robinson

Karen Thierfelder

ARWPS 28 Medium Term Expenditure Frameworks: From

Concept to Practice. Preliminary Lessons from

Africa

February 2002 P. Le Houerou

Robert Taliercio

ARWPS 29 The Changing Distribution of Public Education

Expenditure in Malawi

February 2002 Samer Al-Samarrai

Hassan Zaman

ARWPS 30 Post-Conflict Recovery in Africa: An Agenda for the

Africa Region

April 2002 Serge Michailof

Markus Kostner

Xavier Devictor

ARWPS 31 Efficiency of Public Expenditure Distribution and

Beyond: A report on Ghana’s 2000 Public

Expenditure Tracking Survey in the Sectors of

Primary Health and Education

May 2002 Xiao Ye

S. Canagaraja

ARWPS 33 Addressing Gender Issues in Demobilization and

Reintegration Programs

August 2002 N. de Watteville

56



ARWPS 34 Putting Welfare on the Map in Madagascar August 2002 Johan A. Mistiaen

Berk Soler

T. Razafimanantena

J. Razafindravonona

ARWPS 35 A Review of the Rural Firewood Market Strategy in

West Africa

August 2002 Gerald Foley

P. Kerkhof, D.

Madougou

ARWPS 36 Patterns of Governance in Africa September 2002 Brian D. Levy

ARWPS 37 Obstacles and Opportunities for Senegal’s

International Competitiveness: Case Studies of the

Peanut Oil, Fishing and Textile Industries

September 2002 Stephen Golub

Ahmadou Aly Mbaye

ARWPS 38 A Macroeconomic Framework for Poverty

Reduction Strategy Papers : With an Application to

Zambia

October 2002 S. Devarajan

Delfin S. Go

ARWPS 39 The Impact of Cash Budgets on Poverty Reduction

in Zambia: A Case Study of the Conflict between

Well Intentioned Macroeconomic Policy and Service

Delivery to the Poor

November 2002 Hinh T. Dinh

Abebe Adugna

Bernard Myers

ARWPS 40 Decentralization in Africa: A Stocktaking Survey November 2002 Stephen N. Ndegwa

ARWPS 41 An Industry Level Analysis of Manufacturing

Productivity in Senegal

December 2002 Professor A. Mbaye

ARWPS 42 Tanzania’s Cotton Sector: Constraints and

Challenges in a Global Environment

December 2002 John Baffes

ARWPS 43 Analyzing Financial and Private Sector Linkages in

Africa

January 2003 Abayomi Alawode

ARWPS 44 Modernizing Africa’s Agro-Food System: Analytical

Framework and Implications for Operations

February 2003 Steven Jaffee

Ron Kopicki

Patrick Labaste

Iain Christie

ARWPS 45 Public Expenditure Performance in Rwanda March 2003 Hippolyte Fofack

C. Obidegwu

Robert Ngong

ARWPS 46 Senegal Tourism Sector Study March 2003 Elizabeth Crompton

Iain T. Christie

ARWPS 47 Reforming the Cotton Sector in SSA March 2003 Louis Goreux

John Macrae

ARWPS 48 HIV/AIDS, Human Capital, and Economic Growth

Prospects for Mozambique

April 2003 Channing Arndt

ARWPS 49 Rural and Micro Finance Regulation in Ghana:

Implications for Development and Performance of

June 2003 William F. Steel

David O. Andah

57



the Industry

ARWPS 50 Microfinance Regulation in Benin: Implications of

the PARMEC LAW for Development and

Performance of the Industry

June 2003 K. Ouattara

ARWPS 51 Microfinance Regulation in Tanzania: Implications

for Development and Performance of the Industry

June 2003 Bikki Randhawa

Joselito Gallardo

ARWPS 52 Regional Integration in Central Africa: Key Issues June 2003 Ali Zafar

Keiko Kubota

ARWPS 53 Evaluating Banking Supervision in Africa June 2003 Abayomi Alawode

ARWPS 54 Microfinance Institutions’ Response in Conflict

Environments: Eritrea- Savings and Micro Credit

Program; West Bank and Gaza – Palestine for

Credit and Development; Haiti – Micro Credit

National, S.A.

June 2003

Marilyn S. Manalo

AWPS 55 Malawi’s Tobacco Sector: Standing on One Strong

leg is Better than on None

June 2003 Steven Jaffee

AWPS 56 Tanzania’s Coffee Sector: Constraints and


June 2003 John Baffes

AWPS 57 The New Southern AfricanCustoms Union

Agreement

June 2003 Robert Kirk

Matthew Stern

AWPS 58a How Far Did Africa’s First Generation Trade

Reforms Go? An Intermediate Methodology for

Comparative Analysis of Trade Policies

June 2003 Lawrence Hinkle

A. Herrou-Aragon

Keiko Kubota

AWPS 58b How Far Did Africa’s First Generation Trade

Reforms Go? An Intermediate Methodology for

Comparative Analysis of Trade Policies

June 2003 Lawrence Hinkle

A. Herrou-Aragon

Keiko Kubota

AWPS 59 Rwanda: The Search for Post-Conflict Socio-

Economic Change, 1995-2001

October 2003 C. Obidegwu

AWPS 60 Linking Farmers to Markets: Exporting Malian

Mangoes to Europe

October 2003 Morgane Danielou

Patrick Labaste

J-M. Voisard

AWPS 61 Evolution of Poverty and Welfare in Ghana in the

1990s: Achievements and Challenges

October 2003 S. Canagarajah

Claus C. Pörtner

AWPS 62 Reforming The Cotton Sector in Sub-Saharan Africa:

SECOND EDITION

November 2003 Louis Goreux

AWPS 63 (E) Republic of Madagascar: Tourism Sector Study November 2003 Iain T. Christie

D. E. Crompton

AWPS 63 (F) République de Madagascar: Etude du Secteur

Tourisme

November 2003 Iain T. Christie

D. E. Crompton

58



AWPS 64 Migrant Labor Remittances in Africa: Reducing

Obstacles to Development Contributions

Novembre 2003 Cerstin Sander

Samuel M. Maimbo

AWPS 65 Government Revenues and Expenditures in Guinea-

Bissau: Casualty and Cointegration

January 2004 Francisco G. Carneiro

Joao R. Faria

Boubacar S. Barry

AWPS 66 How will we know Development Results when we

see them? Building a Results-Based Monitoring and

Evaluation System to Give us the Answer

June 2004 Jody Zall Kusek

Ray C. Rist

Elizabeth M. White

AWPS 67 An Analysis of the Trade Regime in Senegal (2001)

and UEMOA’s Common External Trade Policies

June 2004 Alberto Herrou-Arago

Keiko Kubota

AWPS 68 Bottom-Up Administrative Reform: Designing

Indicators for a Local Governance Scorecard in

Nigeria

June 2004 Talib Esmail

Nick Manning

Jana Orac

Galia Schechter

AWPS 69 Tanzania’s Tea Sector: Constraints and Challenges June 2004 John Baffes

AWPS 70 Tanzania’s Cashew Sector: Constraints and


June 2004 Donald Mitchell

AWPS 71 An Analysis of Chile’s Trade Regime in 1998 and

2001: A Good Practice Trade Policy Benchmark

July 2004 Francesca Castellani

A. Herrou-Arago

Lawrence E. Hinkle

AWPS 72 Regional Trade Integration inEast Africa: Trade and

Revenue Impacts of the Planned East African

Community Customs Union

August 2004 Lucio Castro

Christiane Kraus

Manuel de la Rocha

AWPS 73 Post-Conflict Peace Building in Africa: The

Challenges of Socio-Economic Recovery and

Development

August 2004 Chukwuma Obidegwu

AWPS 74 An Analysis of the Trade Regime in Bolivia in2001:

A Trade Policy Benchmark for low Income Countries

August 2004 Francesca Castellani

Alberto Herrou-

Aragon

Lawrence E. Hinkle

AWPS 75 Remittances to Comoros- Volumes, Trends, Impact

and Implications

October 2004 Vincent da Cruz

Wolfgang Fendler

Adam Schwartzman

AWPS 76 Salient Features of Trade Performance in Eastern and

Southern Africa

October 2004 Fahrettin Yagci

Enrique Aldaz-Carroll

AWPS 77 Implementing Performance-Based Aid in Africa November 2004 Alan Gelb

Brian Ngo

Xiao Ye

AWPS 78 Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers: Do they matter

for children and Young people made vulnerable by

HIV/AIDS?

December 2004 Rene Bonnel

Miriam Temin

Faith Tempest

59



AWPS 79 Experience in Scaling up Support to Local Response

in Multi-Country Aids Programs (map) in Africa

December 2004 Jean Delion

Pia Peeters

Ann Klofkorn

Bloome

AWPS 80 What makes FDI work? A Panel Analysis of the

Growth Effect of FDI in Africa

February 2005 Kevin N. Lumbila

AWPS 81 Earnings Differences between Men and Women in

Rwanda

February 2005 Kene Ezemenari

Rui Wu

AWPS 82 The Medium-Term Expenditure Framework: The

Challenge of Budget Integration in SSA countries

April 2005 Chukwuma Obidegwu

AWPS 83 Rules of Origin and SADC: The Case for change in

the Mid Term Review of the Trade Protocol

June 2005 Paul Brenton

Frank Flatters

Paul Kalenga

AWPS 84 Sexual Minorities, Violence and AIDS in Africa

July 2005 Chukwuemeka

Anyamele

Ronald Lwabaayi

Tuu-Van Nguyen, and

Hans Binswanger

AWPS 85 Poverty Reducing Potential of Smallholder

Agriculture in Zambia: Opportunities and

Constraints

July 2005 Paul B. Siegel

Jeffrey Alwang

AWPS 86 Infrastructure, Productivity and Urban Dynamics

in Côte d’Ivoire An empirical analysis and policy

implications

July 2005 Zeljko Bogetic

Issa Sanogo

AWPS 87 Poverty in Mozambique: Unraveling Changes and

Determinants

August 2005 Louise Fox

Elena Bardasi,

Katleen V. Broeck

AWPS 88 Operational Challenges: Community Home Based

Care (CHBC) forPLWHA in Multi-Country

HIV/AIDS Programs (MAP) forSub-Saharan Africa

August 2005 N. Mohammad

Juliet Gikonyo

AWPS 90 Kenya: Exports Prospects and Problems September 2005 Francis Ng

Alexander Yeats

AWPS 91 Uganda: How Good a Trade Policy Benchmark for

Sub-Saharan-Africa

September 2005 Lawrence E. Hinkle

Albero H. Aragon Ranga Krishnamani

Elke Kreuzwieser

AWPS 92 Community Driven Development in South Africa,

1990-2004

October 2005 David Everatt Lulu

Gwagwa

AWPS 93 The Rise of Ghana’’s Pineapple Industry from

Successful take off to Sustainable Expansion

November 2005 Morgane Danielou

Christophe Ravry

AWPS 94 South Africa: Sources and Constraints of Long-Term

Growth, 1970-2000

December 2005 Johannes Fedderke

60



AWPS 95 South Africa’’s Export Performance: Determinants

of Export supply

December 2005 Lawrence Edwards

Phil Alves

AWPS 96 Industry Concentration in South African

Manufacturing: Trends and Consequences, 1972-96

December 2005 Gábor Szalontai

Johannes Fedderke

AWPS 97 The Urban Transition in Sub-Saharan Africa:

Implications for Economic Growth and Poverty

Reduction

December 2005 Christine Kessides

AWPS 98 Measuring Intergovernmental Fiscal Performance in

South Africa

Issues in Municipal Grant Monitoring

May 2006 Navin Girishankar

David DeGroot

T.V. Pillay

AWPS 99 Nutrition and Its determinants in Southern Ethiopia -

Findings from the Child Growth

Promotion Baseline Survey

July 2006 Jesper Kuhl

Luc Christiaensen

AWPS 100 The Impact of Morbidity and Mortality on Municipal

Human Resources and Service Delivery

September 2006 Zara Sarzin

AWPS 101 Rice Markets in Madagascar in Disarray:

Policy Options for Increased Efficiency and Price

Stabilization

September 2006 Bart Minten

Paul Dorosh

Marie-Hélène Dabat,

Olivier Jenn-Treyer,

John Magnay and

Ziva Razafintsalama

AWPS 102 Riz et Pauvrete a Madagascar Septembre 2006 Bart Minten

AWPS 103 ECOWAS- Fiscal Revenue Implications of the

Prospective Economic Partnership Agreement with

the EU

April 2007 Simplice G. Zouhon-

Bi

Lynge Nielsen

AWPS 104(a) Development of the Cities of Mali

Challenges and Priorities

June 2007 Catherine Farvacque-

V. Alicia Casalis

Mahine Diop

Christian Eghoff

AWPS 104(b) Developpement des villes Maliennes

Enjeux et Priorites

June 2007 Catherine Farvacque-

V. Alicia Casalis

Mahine Diop

Christian Eghoff

AWPS 105 Assessing Labor Market Conditions In Madagascar,

2001-2005

June 2007 David Stifel

Faly H.

Rakotomanana

Elena Celada

AWPS 106 An Evaluation of the Welfare Impact of Higher

Energy Prices in Madagascar

June 2007 Noro Andriamihaja

Giovanni Vecchi

AWPS 107 The Impact of The Real Exchange Rate on

Manufacturing Exports in Benin

November 2007 Mireille Linjouom

AWPS 108 Building Sector concerns into Macroeconomic

Financial Programming: Lessons from Senegal and

December 2007 Antonio Estache

Rafael Munoz

61



Uganda

AWPS 109 An Accelerating Sustainable, Efficient and Equitable

Land Reform: Case Study of the Qedusizi/Besters

Cluster Project

December 2007 Hans P. Binswanger

Roland Henderson

Zweli Mbhele

Kay Muir-Leresche

AWPS 110 Development of the Cites of Ghana

– Challenges, Priorities and Tools

January 2008 Catherine Farvacque-

Vitkovic

Madhu Raghunath

Christian Eghoff

Charles Boakye

AWPS 111 Growth, Inequality and Poverty in Madagascar,

2001-2005

April 2008 Nicolas Amendola

Giovanni Vecchi

AWPS 112 Labor Markets, the Non-Farm Economy and

Household Livelihood Strategies in Rural

Madagascar

April 2008 David Stifel

AWPS 113 Profile of Zambia’s Smallholders: Where and Who

are the Potential Beneficiaries of

AgriculturalCommercialization?

June 2008 Paul B. Siegel

62

WB21847 C:\Documents and Settings\WB21847\My Documents\Working Paper Series\AWPS#113\Zambia Smallholder June 3.08.pw.Final.doc

06/03/2008 12:51:00 PM

Profile of Zambia’s Smallholders: Where and Who are...

Documents

Transcript of Profile of Zambia’s Smallholders: Where and Who are...