PHASE ONE PROGRESS REPORT - Association of African ...

PHASE ONE PROGRESS REPORT

TITLE OF PROJECT
An assessment of the Sustainability of Agricultural Practices and
Technologies in improving rural livelihoods and farm production levels in semi-arid

regions of Mozambique and Zimbabwe

REFERENCE NUMBER
MRCI No. 98

PERIOD COVERED

December 2008 - February 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3
2.0: Reconnaissance Visits to Possible Research Sites....................................................... 3
2.0.1: MOZAMBIQUE....................................................................................................... 4

2.0.1.1: MANICA PROVINCE .................................................................................. 4
20.1.1.1: Background: - Gondola District................................................................... 4
2.0.1.1.2: Agricultural knowledge and technologies .................................................. 6
2.0.1.1.3: Problems faced by Farmers in Chicacaule and Tuzuri ............................. 8
2.0.1.1.4: Livelihoods ................................................................................................. 8
2.0.1.1.5: Gender Issues............................................................................................ 10
2.0.1.1.6: Social Networks........................................................................................ 10
2.0.1.1.7: Government efforts to improve agriculture in the communities.............. 10
2.0.1.1.8: Extension Services.................................................................................... 11
2.0.1.1.9: Marketing of Produce ............................................................................... 11
2.0.1.2: SOFALA PROVINCE................................................................................. 11
2.0.1.2.1: Background: - Gorongosa District............................................................ 11
2.0.1.2.2: Livelihoods ............................................................................................... 12
2.0.2: ZIMBABWE........................................................................................................... 13
2.0.2.1: MASVINGO PROVINCE............................................................................... 13
2.0.2.1:1: Background: - Chivi District .................................................................... 13
2.0.2.2: MATABELELAND NORTH PROVINCE..................................................... 14
2.0.2.2:1: Background: - Tsholotsho District............................................................ 14
2.0.2.2.2: Livelihoods ............................................................................................... 16
2.0.2.2.3: Challenges................................................................................................. 16
2.0.2.3: MATABELELAND SOUTH PROVINCE ..................................................... 16
2.0.2.3:1: Background: - Umzingwane District ........................................................ 16
2.0.2.3.2: Livelihoods ............................................................................................... 19
2.0.2.3.3: Common Crops Grown in the District...................................................... 20
2.0.2.3.4: Challenges................................................................................................. 20
2.0.2.3.5: Projects in the Community ....................................................................... 20
3.0: PHASE 2 OF THE PROJECT – FIELDWORK ....................................................... 21
4.0: SUMMARY............................................................................................................... 24
4.1: Sources of livelihoods............................................................................................ 24
4.2: Local Resources that could transform Livelihoods ............................................... 24
4.3: Crops Grown.......................................................................................................... 25
4.4: Challenges faced by the Farmers ........................................................................... 25
4.5: What could be done to overcome these challenges and enhance livelihoods........ 26
4.6: Interventions by Governments to help Smallholder farmers ................................. 26
4.7: Non-Governmental Organizations in Agriculture food production....................... 27
5.0: CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................... 27

2

1.0: INTRODUCTION

Climate variability, poor soils and increasing resource pressures are undermining people's
efforts towards sustainable livelihoods in semi-arid regions of Southern Africa
particularly in Mozambique and Zimbabwe. Food insecurity mainly as a result of these
factors leading to sub-optimal production levels continues to haunt communal farmers in
both countries. The provinces of Sofala, Manica & Tete in Mozambique are more
vulnerable due to their geographical location and protracted effects of 17 years of civil
war. Provinces of Matabeleland North and South and Masvingo in Zimbabwe are
generally semi-arid and smallholder farmers in these areas like their counterparts in
Mozambique are also food insecure. Despite these difficulties and unreasonably low
returns, agriculture continues to be a source of livelihood for more than 80% of rural
peasants in Mozambique and Zimbabwe.

Slow development in rural areas denies the rural population in both countries subjecting
them to limited formal employment opportunities. The informal sector activities
comprising mainly of gold panning, charcoal production, wood carving, fishing,
vegetable vending, and cross border trade characterize most livelihoods patterns among
the rural population. Income and other returns from these activities are so marginal that
they cannot uplift livelihoods out of the entrenched poverty cycles in which the rural
population are entrapped.

This research uses participatory social survey techniques to gather relevant data, to assess
the sustainability of the existing subsistence agriculture in 6 selected districts and how it
can be improved to ensure enhanced food security and poverty reduction. This study
attempts to understand the role of government rural development policy and specific
development challenges as perceived by the rural communities in both countries. The
study seeks solutions and mitigatory measures to alleviate existing challenges, using
locally available resources as an alternative to external interventions solving local
agricultural and development challenges.

In this first quarterly report we discuss the activities of phase one of this project from
December 2008 until February 2009 as outlined in the inception phase report of
September 2008 and Work plans for the next phase of the project. The report outlines the
current situation of smallholder agriculture, existing opportunities and challenges as well
potential projects that can be implemented in various communities as suggested by
community members with whom discussions were held. The report starts by doing an
individual country analysis as well as an inter-country comparison on similarities and
differences in smallholder agriculture in Mozambique and Zimbabwe.

2.0: Reconnaissance Visits to Possible Research Sites

These reconnaissance visits were done from December 2008 until January 2009 with an
objective of familiarizing with issues on the ground in as far as smallholder agriculture is
concerned. Observations, discussions with various stakeholders and transect walks

3

though the different areas provided valuable data that is being used to prepare the data
collection instruments to be used in phase 2 of the project. During these visits, provincial
and district AGRITEX officers provided a link between the members of the Research
Teams and the extension workers who became the entry points into the communities. The
Research Teams sought to introduce the project to the district administrators, the local
authority officials and other stakeholders in all communities selected for this study.

Researchers also sought to get an overview rather than in-depth knowledge about the
state of smallholder rural agriculture as the later would be achieved during the second
phase of the project though individual interviews with the smallholder farmer households,
key informants and focus groups. A team of student Research Assistants will be recruited
from various universities in the two countries to facilitate during this fieldwork planned
for April/May 2009. A good understanding of livelihoods patterns, resource endowments,
challenges facing farmers and social networks enhancing rural livelihoods through
promotion of better and more sustainable best practices in the development of rural
agriculture has been the outcome of this exploratory phase of the research.

2.0.1: MOZAMBIQUE

This study focuses on smallholder agriculture in both Mozambique and Zimbabwe. In
Mozambique the study takes place in the provinces of Manica, Sofala and Tete. These are
the provinces with disadvantaged districts and communities where poverty characterizes
the majority of farmers. Farmers’ households hardly harvest enough food to last them
until the next season. The study cascades to one district, one posto de administrativo and
one localidade in each of the three provinces. In Mozambique these districts are Gondola
and Gorongosa in Manica and Sofala, while the posto de administrativo are Matshinho
and Nhamuse for Manica and Sofala respectively. Although in Gondola the localidades
of Chicacaule, Tuzuri and Pindanganga were visited, only one will be chosen for the
second phase of the project. The district, posto de administrativo and localidades in Tete
province are yet to be selected.

Table 1: Research Areas in Mozambique Localidade
Province District Posto Administrativo Chicacaule
Manica Gondola Matshinho Tuzuri
Pindanganga

Sofala Gorongosa Nhamuse Nhamuse

Tete TBA TBA TBA

Source: Primary Data from the preliminary research visits

2.0.1.1: MANICA PROVINCE

20.1.1.1: Background: - Gondola District

Gondola is one of the 10 districts in Manica province and is located to the east of
Chimoio, the provincial capital. The 9 districts are Guro, Tambara, Macossa, Barue, and

4

Manica to the North and Sussundenga, Mossurize and Machaze to the South. Gondola
and Chimoio are central districts in this province (see figure 1).

In Gondola district, the visits were facilitated by the Director of Agricultural Services in
the area, Mr. Luciano. Three areas (localidades), Chicacaule, Tuzuri and Pindanganga
were visited. Chicacaule and Tuzuri localidades fall under Matsinho Posto de
Administrativo (See figure 2). In Chicacaule the team held discussions with extension
workers and five local farmers where the Director introduced the Research Team to the
extension workers and a few local farmers.

Figure 1: Agro ecological regions in Manica Province

City of Gondola District in
Chimoio is relation to the
the capital neighboring districts
of Manica in Manica province
province

Source: Gondola District Agricultural Office

Observations revealed that crops in most localities in Gondola district have been invaded
by the army worm and the extension workers and farmers were busy spraying the fields
in an attempt to destroy these pests. The district office was distributing the spraying
equipment and the pesticides to the farmers as it is the role of government through the
Department of agriculture to control outbreaks of this nature. Although the army worm is

5

not really a perennial problem in most of Mozambique, the 2008/09 agricultural season
has been affected after the last outbreak was experienced in 1998.
Figure 2: District Map of Gondola

Chicacaule and Tuzuri are
found in Matsinho Posto de
Administrativo

Source: Gondola District Agricultural Office
Figure 2 shows various posto de administrativos in Gondola district and these are
Matsinho, Amatongas, Inchope, Macate, Cafumbe and Zembe. The City of Chimoio is
also found in Gondola district although has own political structures, houses the Provincial
agricultural offices although agriculturally it falls under Gondola.
2.0.1.1.2: Agricultural knowledge and technologies
The Director informed us that extension work in Mozambique only started in 1992 and
before that farmers relied heavily on their traditional farming methods using indigenous
knowledge systems. The long standing conflict between the ruling party FRELIMO and
RENAMO ended in 1992 following protracted negotiations in Rome the first democratic
elections in that country. The period following the elections presented opportunities for
government to embark on economic development programmes without fear of sabotage

6

that had characterized events in that country during the 17 years of civil war since 1975
when Mozambique gained independence from Portugal their colonial master. Agriculture
was seen as the anvil of development in Mozambique from which the majority of the
population derives their livelihoods, given the limited opportunities in the informal
sector1.

Farmers in Chicacaule noted that the extension workers are involved in the following
activities in the area: -

- Planting and spacing of different types of crops
- Dissemination of information about irrigation schemes
- Dissemination of knowledge on improved crop varieties
- Weed control in the fields
- Raising livestock (treatment of diseases, dipping, etc)
- Environmental conservation (reforestation, etc)
- Soil conservation methods and techniques
- Building of fish ponds
- Facilitated delivery and use of tractors and cassava processing equipment

It was stated that government through the district office encourages farmers to come up
with investment projects and US$280 000 has been provided by government for each
district per year and is disbursed through the posto de administrativo to beneficiaries.
Each farmer or group of farmers who can develop bankable projects can benefit from this
fund. The president of the association approaches the posto de administrative with the
various proposals from the members. Farmers are encouraged to come up with project
proposals that fit into the whole framework of Chicacaule development plan. The
president explains the proposed project to the officer in charge of the posto de
administrativo so that the latter can explain at higher levels what exactly the project
entails. The posto de administrativo forwards the project applications to the Director of
Agriculture with an explanation on how they will use the money and how they intend to
repay the loans.

Farmers are required to deposit about 15% of the amount before transfer of their loan.
The Director said that farmers in Gondola have demonstrated very good repayment rates
especially when they work in groups, because they monitor and encourage each other to
repay so that in future they can qualify for even higher amounts.

Although access to credit was a problem affecting farmers in both Chicacaule and Tuzuri
and despite this government financial provision to help the smallholder farmers, in 2008
out of the 7 million allocated for Gondola district, 1.3million was not utilized and had to
be returned. This demonstrated that farmers have difficulties in drafting project proposals
and this is not unusual given the low literacy rates in Mozambique suggesting that
extension workers have to do more to help farmers in this regard.

1 There are no major industries in Mozambique to provide employment for the millions that are
unemployed. Labour is also cheap in Mozambique given the low level of skills and education that
characterizes the majority of the 20,530,714 people in this country (Preliminary Census Results, 2007)

7

2.0.1.1.3: Problems faced by Farmers in Chicacaule and Tuzuri

Pests and crop diseases – Although very rare, there was an army worm problem
during the period of the visit and this was a major issue that farmers were
preoccupied with. There is also a problem of lack of adequate equipment for
spraying although the government is assisting by providing some of the
equipment and chemicals.

Low and unreliable rainfall pattern – Chicacaule and Tuzuri are both relatively
dry areas with rainfall averaging 500mm or less per annum thus considered a
semi-arid area. Water sources are far from the fields presenting challenges to
adopting irrigation as an alternative to rain fed agriculture. Drought was more
prevalent in Chicacaule than Tuzuri.

Floods, irregular rainfall patterns as a major problem. Sometimes rains delay and
when they eventually start there is too much rain or even floods that do not allow
crops to grow well, most crops are destroyed.

Methods of farming – Slash and burn agriculture practiced which is basically
highly labour intensive but low productivity and yields. Very little use of animal
draught power, as very few people own any cattle. Farmers in the localidades of
Chicacaule and Tuzuri have been promised a tractor in the coming season through
a government-financing scheme but this will still not be adequate for the needs of
the whole community.

Lack of implements and other farming equipment - Besides farmers in this
area also lack basic farming implements like ploughs, hoes, etc and have to rely
on the goodwill of their better off neighbors from whom they borrow.

Poor soils - soils no longer that fertile as the area was not affected directly by the
war, thus a lot of communities settled in the area which led to over-crowding and
intensive use of the land, depleting the soil nutrients over time.

Transport – particularly in Chicacaule and the situation improves as one move
from Tuzuri to Pindanganga - The chief in Tuzuri actually said that there are no
transport problems at all implying that only residents of Chicacaule are more
affected by the transport problem than any other farmers in Matsinho.

Access to credit (Tuzuri, Chicacaule)

Poverty - (Chief Tuzuri in Tuzuri localidade)

2.0.1.1.4: Livelihoods

The farmers expressed concern that most of the farmers in Chicacaule do not own
livestock and the government through the ministry has started introducing cattle to

8

farmers but the impact of this programme is yet to be seen. This is a long term
programme whose outcomes will take a very long time to be realized. In Tuzuri people
have livestock although there are problems with stock and poultry thieves. Those that
have cattle and other type of livestock will sell a few animals during the lean periods to
meet their needs for food and other household requirements.

- Home gardens where farmers grow vegetables and other cash crops are an
important source of livelihood for the farmers in both Tuzuri and Chicacaule.
Farmers grow crops in home gardens for own consumption and for sale locally
and in markets in the City of Chimoio.

- When farmers sell their produce locally they do not get a good price because the
middlemen take factor out high transport expenses. Farmers will therefore either
walk, cycle or and would rarely use hired cars to transport their produce to the
market.

- Poor farmers in the area also provide labour for richer farmers and are usually
paid in kind.

- Charcoal is another major source of livelihood for some farmers but deforestation
discourages many farmers to be involved in this activity. There are no trees
nearby and people have to walk up to 30 kilometers to the nearest forest.

- Since unemployment is very high in Chimoio or Mozambique in general there
are not many people in formal employment and hence the issue of remittances
flowing into the area did not arise.

The chief in Tuzuri stated that lives have generally improved in the last 10 years and so
have harvests. According to Mr. Peter, livelihoods in Pindanganga have improved due to
improvements in yields brought about by an increase in the size of plot holdings by
individual farmers. Home gardens have also led to an improvement in nutrition, health
and economic status of individuals.

The community does not do much else as they have no other resources to fall back on.
The surrounding forest area has largely been disseminated so they cannot fall back on
Charcoal production like the other communities in other localidades.

During periods of drought most seek employment from the other better off members of
the community or in Chimoio, but formal employment is hard to come by and
remuneration is low.

Some farmers have small plots where they undertake market gardening growing crops
such as sunflower and vegetables which they market to the community as well as to the
nearby city of Chimoio.

What the community would like to see done to improve their livelihoods

9

Provision of drought power to assist in their farming activities e.g. tractors, cattle
etc. Community has enough land but constrained to fully utilize the land.
Assistance in the development of fish ponds to develop fish farming
More extension workers as they provide an invaluable service but there are often
not available when one needs their assistance.

2.0.1.1.5: Gender Issues

Although only male farmers were involved in the discussion, it was acknowledged that
women to contribute more to farm work than men and will generally spend more time in
the fields than their male counter parts. Men will also prefer to go and do piece jobs to
sustain their families especially during lean periods and as a result will not have time to
work on their own plots. Although children also work in the fields they spend less time
than their parents but do contribute much to farm labour in the household.

2.0.1.1.6: Social Networks

In Tuzuri, men have formed cattle growers association while women were said to be in
the process of forming similar associations where they focus on common challenges
affecting mainly women in the area.

During the second day of our visit to Gondola we visited Amatongas where we met and
were able to talk to the acting ‘Chef de Posto’, who represented the local chief who was
said to be away. The ACdP happened to also be a local school headmaster but his
knowledge of what happens in the area of farming in general in the district was limited.
However he preferred that we travel to the community and have one on one discussions
with a well-known local farmer, ‘Mr. Peter’ who lives in Pindanganga, about 20km of the
main Chimoio-Beira highway.

2.0.1.1.7: Government efforts to improve agriculture in the communities

Government financing programme of US$ 280 000 per year per district shared
among the different post-admnistrativos in line with their project plans for the
year. Money given as credit from the central government to the districts.
To control funds utilization in Chicacaule, community formed a group of 20
people who advice the post-administrativo on the needs of the community and
help assess application for funding from the community members.
Community farmers apply for funding, by completing project proposal forms and
submitting them for evaluation to the chief of the localidade who after making
their assessment with the community committee, submit the recommended
projects to the district office for possible funding.
Financed projects are given a grace period of one year then repayments are
supposed to be made over five years. So far repayments have been poor as
farmers cite viability problems as reasons for poor payback record.

10

2.0.1.1.8: Extension Services

Extension services only started in Manica Province in 1992 and technologies that
extension workers have tried to transfer to the farmers revolves around.

o Spacing
o Use of improved crop varieties
o Use of irrigation systems (basic)
o Conservation farming
o Reforestation
o Vaccination projects for livestock
o Need for dipping of livestock
o Pest control

- Extension workers in the area were said to have taught farmers certain skills and
knowledge, for example how to plant, spacing, use of farm implements and
equipment like operating an irrigation pump.

- There shortage of labour for many farmers probably because of the increased
sizes of plots. Well to do farmers like Mr. Peter have to occasionally hire some
people to work for him on the farm because he does not have enough labour.

- We learnt from the Provincial Agricultural officer that out of 14 extension
workers required for all the different localidades only, 8 such communities had
extension workers on the ground otherwise the rest were vacant.

2.0.1.1.9: Marketing of Produce

Previously was a bit difficult as the farmers had to organize their own transport to
ferry the produce to the market. However since last year, Decker a maize milling
company has been sending buyers to the communities to buy directly from there.
Interior areas further from Chimoio are still facing problems due to poor roads,
which limit accessibility to the buyers.
Prices for maize have firmed over the last year due to the high demand from
milling companies in the province particularly Decker Milling Company.
To try and increase market bargaining power the community has formed
associations such as chicken breeding association, farmers association,
community women associations etc.

2.0.1.2: SOFALA PROVINCE

2.0.1.2.1: Background: - Gorongosa District

Gorongosa is the district that was visited in Sofala Province and through the district
Agricultural office we were allowed to visit the Posto de Administrativo, Nhamuse.

11

Gorongosa is divided into three major areas, Nhamuse (Canda), Vanduzi (Cavalo) and
Gorongosa (municipal). Gorongosa was formerly described as the bread basket of Sofala
and Manica provinces but lost this status during the civil war. Attempts are being made
through various players in the agricultural sector to help Gorongosa regain its status in
food production. Casa Banana was said to be the most disadvantaged Posto De
Administrativo in Gorongosa district.
2.0.1.2.2: Livelihoods
Farming is the main source of livelihood in Gorongosa district. The traditional slash and
burn type of agriculture is common in the district as many smallholder farmers like those
in other areas visited do not own cattle. The negative impacts of slash and burn
agriculture are well known.
The main crops grown in Gorongosa are:-

• Maize (milho)
• Sorghum (mapiro)
• Rice (arroz)
• Beans (feijao)
• Potatoes (Batata)
• Sunflower
• Cotton
The cereals are mainly for own household consumption but sunflower and cotton are cash
crops which together with potatoes which are widely grown in the district are very
important sources of money income for the smallholder farmers. The main types of
livestock found in most households comprise mainly pigs, goats and chickens.
Charcoal is also another source of livelihood for some people in Gorongosa.

12

2.0.2: ZIMBABWE

Table 2: Research Sites visited in Zimbabwe

Province District Locality
Matabeleland North Tsholotsho Sipepa
Matabeleland South Umzingwange Esikhoveni
Masvingo Chivi Chivi
Source: Primary Data

2.0.2.1: MASVINGO PROVINCE

2.0.2.1:1: Background: - Chivi District

Chivi district is divided into three, North, Central and South (see map) and is bordered
with Masvingo to the east and Mwenezi to the south. The population of Chivi is
estimated at 155 442 and covers and area of 3 627 square kilometers. The district is
divided into 32 wards in total. Chivi falls under agro ecological region 4 and 5, largely
semi-arid and drought prone. The majority of farmers in this district face hunger on an
annual basis.

Figure 3: - Masvingo Province :- District Map

Source: Chivi District office
A variety of technical innovations in agricultural development focusing on smallholder
farmers improvement of production levels and water resources improvement have been

13

introduced by a number of NGOs in Chivi and farmers have generally shown keen
interest in adopting some of the technologies. These have been reported to be sustainable
until about the 1990s but the situation has changed since 2000 especially in those parts of
the country that have generally been seen to be anti-government like Chivi District.

On our visit to Masvingo Provincial AGRITEX office, discussions were held with the
Provincial agronomist, Mr. A.T. Chipatiso. Ward 21 was said to be the most
disadvantaged in Chivi district and that is where most NGOs are carrying out
interventions. Organizations working in this ward include World Vision and CARE
among others. The Department of Agricultural Research and Extension is promoting
Conservation Agriculture in the district.

2.0.2.2: MATABELELAND NORTH PROVINCE

2.0.2.2:1: Background: - Tsholotsho District
Tsholotsho also popularly known as Zhwane or Tjolotjo, is a rural district located in
Matabeleland North Province about 120km Northwest of Bulawayo. Lupane, Hwange
and Plumtree and Umguza are the surrounding districts (See Figure 5). The total surface
area covered by this district is about 7 844 square kilometers and has an estimated
population of 120 000 of mainly the Ndebele, Kalanga and San people of Zimbabwe.
Although Ndebele is widely spoken, Kalanga and San languages are also other dialects
found in this district.

Farming is the main economic activity in Tsholotsho despite soils that are unsuitable for
agriculture and this is not unique with this district as it is common in all agro ecological
regions 4 & 5 in Zimbabwe. Although ranching would be ideal livelihood activity in
Tsholotsho this would require a lot of investment in water provision and prevention of
livestock diseases.

AGRITEX officer in Tsholotsho said that the agricultural wards in the area are divided
into 4 Zones, Tsholotsho Central, West, South and North. Tsholotsho central comprises
of wards, 12, 13, 11, 22 and 20, West comprises of wards 21, 8, 10, 15 and 16.
Tsholotsho south comprises of wards 7, 14, 17, 18, 19 and north comprises wards 1, 2, 3,
4, 6 and 9. Small grains are suitable for South and West zones, maize and small grains in
North and the Central zone is for maize.

The soils in Tsholotsho are mainly Kalahari sands 70% not suitable for cropping and
there are just patches of red soils in some areas. There are also fertile black clay soils
found mainly along the Gwayi River flood plain which is very prone to flooding. The rest
are red clay soils are found along the belt stretching from Mapulubusi up to Nqgoya
communities.

Tsholotsho’s Kalahari sands are known to be good for hardwoods including Teak,
Umkusu, etc. Wildlife resources including the big five are all found in Tsholotsho given
its proximity to the world renowned Hwange National Park.

14

Figure4: Matabeleland North Province: District Map

The whole of Tsholotsho consists of communal area except Ward 20 which is A1
commercial farming and is the chief producer of maize, about 75%. Most of the farmers
have animal traction and hence its more easy for them to practice conventional
agriculture. In wards 8 - 22 farmers are arranged into groups of 6 in a ward and there are
100 such groups in the ward involving 600 farmers altogether and technology is
disseminated through the group rather than to the individual farmers. Land holding per
individual farmer is about 4 hectares on average. Recently Plan International was said to
have distributed 2088 goats in the district to improve livelihood through goat breeding
and multiplication.
There are a number of NGOs disseminating agricultural development technologies
working with agricultural extension workers in the districts. These include Plan
International, ORAP; Commutech and Lead Trust on demo plots. According to the
district agricultural extension officer, all the wards in Tsholotsho are serviced by
extension workers. ORAP is also involved in input distribution, nutrition gardens and
rehabilitation of different types of water sources like boreholes, pans and dams. For

15

example Lead Trust is involved in distribution of seed in Dibutibu, Ward 4 and also in
Mlevu, ward 3, Jimila ward 6 and Sipepa ward 5.

Plan is also involved in Master Farmer training. There are also some seed fairs that are
held in the area to encourage farmers to do seed multiplication. Generally farmers were
said to be very receptive to the training and knowledge they are getting but were
constrained by limited resources in fully implementing what they would have learnt.

2.0.2.2.2: Livelihoods

In Tsholotsho livelihoods were said to revolve mainly around

- Farming
- Vending of locally grown vegetables
- Food Aid
- Working for others – weeding and fencing
- Remittances – mainly in the Central, South and Western Wards, mainly from

relatives working in South Africa, Hwange and Victoria Falls

2.0.2.2.3: Challenges

Although most farmers in the area own livestock there are still some smallholder farmers
who do not have cattle. There are therefore a number of challenges that were identified
by the extension officer and these included:-

- draft power
- shortage of inputs including seed
- unreliable rainfall
- water logging
- shortage of labour
- animals of prey including elephants destroying crops in some areas

2.0.2.3: MATABELELAND SOUTH PROVINCE

2.0.2.3:1: Background: - Umzingwane District

Umzingwane District is one of the 6 Districts that make up Matabeleland South Province
of Zimbabwe. The population of Umzingwane district is estimated at 58 569 people and
the district covers a surface area of 2 820 square kilometers. Umzingwane District falls
under region 4 and is divided into 20 wards which agriculturally are classified as shown
in Table 1. The average land holding per communal farmer was said to be about 2
hectares and from this some farmers can harvest up to 2 tonnes or 40 x 50kg bags.

Table 3: Classification of Agricultural Wards in Umzingwane District

16

Name of Number of Classification of Name of Specific areas

District Ward Agricultural Practice in the

District

Umzingwane 1 - 12 Communal farming, ward 1 Sigola, Esiphezini,

largely peri-urban Duncan, Mbilamboyyi,

Bezha, Kumbudzi, Dula

13 Old Resettlement Irisvale

14 A1 (Villagized)

15 Small-scale commercial

15 Urban Habane Township

17 Small-scale commercial mixed

(A1 & A2)

18 Small-scale commercial mainly Worringham, Gumtree,

plots Springvale farm, Claremont

19 A2 - Along Harare Road, Fort

Rixon, Ntabende,

Ntabazinduna, Godlwayo,

etc

20 A1 Portbury irrigation,

Inyankuni Block, Nyama,

Swaith, Mbalabala

Source: Umzingwang District Agricultural Extension Office

The facilitator of our visit to Umzingwane district was the Assistant District Agricultural
extension officer Mr B Mtshede who was standing in for Mr J Ncube the District
Agricultural Extension Officer. Although most of the views expressed here were by the
ADAEO, we also incorporated some views from the Extension worker, Mr Ngwenya
whom we also visited as the local resident Extensionist in Esikhoveni communal lands.

There was a general acknowledgement from the start that the current low standards of
living have been precipitated by the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme of the
early 1990s and the de-industrialization of the Zimbabwean economy since the 1980s
which forced more people to turn to farming in the communal areas where they came
from. Most of those retrenchees had neither an interest in farming or knowledge and skill
on how it should be done.

In an attempt to explain farmers’ perceptions by ward, the facilitator said farmers in
Ward 2 are very active and willing to participate in programmes introduced by both
AREX and NGOs but face similar constraints like their counterparts throughout the
district. This leads to farms lying idle for years not as a crop rotation or soil conservation
strategy but lack of implements and inputs.

The grids that normally prevent animals from roaming around freely and interfering with
crops have also not been maintained for years. Although the farmers in this ward have
animals there is no proper paddocking with a view to conserve the pastures and also the
agricultural land available.

The picture is similar from Ward 3 to 7 with small variations where there are some NGO
interventions that promote agricultural production. It is the role of government to do

17

much more than rely on NGOs to invest in agriculture because they cannot bring about
real changes. Currently there is not much that the government is doing physically on the
ground because the department does not have the required resources.
Figure 5: Matabeleland South Province: District Map

Source: Umzingwane District Agricultural Extension Office
Ward 8, which is the area along the banks of Mbilamboyi River is the ward that is food
sufficient compared to other wards in the districts. Those farmers in the upper lying areas
are the ones who may not have enough food compared to those living mainly along the
river and on the flood plains. Due to the location of this ward, in the valleys and away
from the main business centers, there is no extension worker in this area.
Transport is a problem throughout the districts and this negatively affects the farmers
especially on how to send their produce to the market. In the old resettlement ward,
irisvale, farmers mainly complain of lack of inputs and transport to get these inputs
whenever they are available in other neighboring wards. There is generally no reliable
public transport in the district to help send the produce to more thriving agricultural
produce markets outside the district. The local agricultural markets are not fully
functional and farmers stand to lose if they rely on these.
In ward 14 which comprises the new resettlement schemes former commercial farmland
was villagized to bring in the traditional administrative structures into land use patterns in
these areas. Sometimes the leadership structures alone become a constraint on how

18

farmers go about their normal day to day farming business. According to the facilitator
the full potential of what the new resettlement schemes can do to transform agriculture in
the district as in other parts of the country is yet to be realized. Villagization has made it
difficult for farmers to access loans from Agribank and more so, they have no title to the
land that they purportedly own because all land belongs to the state. There are also no
tractors or back up services for such tractors should by chance one be available.

Table 4: NGO Working in the District

Name of NGO Intervention Ward Activities
AAH
UAN 9, 10, 11,12 Food Aid
CADEC
ORAP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 HIV & AIDS

Helpage 3,4,5,8 Water and Sanitation
Operation Joseph
ZIMPRO 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12, Food Aid, Agriculture

WVI 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20

4, 5 Elderly

4, 9

11, 12 Food Aid, Supplementary

feeding in schools

1,2,3,4, 5,6, 7 Food Aid (pulled out to

Insiza District in 2009)

Source: Discussions with Facilitator
2.0.2.3.2: Livelihoods

- farming – crops and livestock
- gold panning – mainly along the rivers, disused mines, Springvale farm and AfDis

complex, new discoveries
- formal employment (part-time farmers, part-time farm employment in

neighbouring commercial farms where workers are paid in kind rather than cash)
- informal trading – both in urban and communal areas
- fishing – Mtshabezi and Ncema dams
- curios – for those living along the main Bulawayo-Beitbridge Highway, Ward 8

because of the tourist attractions in this ward
- backyard light industry work, bush mechanics, plumbers
- Remittances – from the diaspora, mainly South Africa (Extension worker)
- Food AID – (ORAP)

Gold panning is a very common source of livelihood in this district and is said to be
paying well for those who are lucky to get the gold. This was corroborated by the
extension worker, Mr. Ngwenya, in a discussion we had with him later on at his
homestead in Esikhoveni communal lands. For this reason a lot of young to middle aged
people are not seeing farming as the most important source of livelihood anymore. Gold

19

panning is better despite the risks involved. The negative environmental effects of gold
panning can be seen everywhere this activity has taken place.2

2.0.2.3.3: Common Crops Grown in the District
- Maize
- Macia (farmers do not like) DC75
- Sugar Beans
- Cow Peas (umaqutha)
- Groundnuts (amazambane)
- Runner Beans (indumba zesintu)

2.0.2.3.4: Challenges

- There is a shortage of resident extension workers to work directly with the
farmers. Those extension workers currently on the ground cannot cover all areas.
There is a new 4 X 4 months in college certificate programme that has been
introduced to speed up the training of extension workers in order to help the
communal farmers. The Trainees get certified after 16 months at the local
Esigodini Agricultural College.

- Extension workers will tend to work with those farmers living close to where the
extension worker lives, so farmers farther away are disadvantaged. The situation
can only be improved when extension workers get motorbikes or vehicles to reach
out to those outlying farmers. In the past extension workers have been given
Mountain bikes but due to lack of maintenance and spare parts most of these
bicycles have broken down and have not been repaired.

- Extension workers have been asked to produce licences for riding motorbikes and
come and collect bikes in Harare, under what was codenamed the Maguta
programme, but only one extension worker in the had such a licence and is the
only one with a motor bike, but is also facing problems of how to maintain the
bike as the CMED department is also facing problems.

- Stock-theft – this is increasingly becoming a major problem in the area and now
that people spend most of their time panning for gold, if they are not lucky to get
something, they even go on to steal crops in the fields, ‘hunger knows no bounds
on how to get food’3

2.0.2.3.5: Projects in the Community

- Ostrich Project
- Chicken Project

2 One woman in Ward 1 was said to have allowed gold panners to pan for gold on her plot and the plot was
completely destroyed depriving her of the best land for cultivating crops that she ever owned and is now
destitute.
3 During our visit to Esikhoveni so that we could introduce the project and get to know the extension
worker, we heard that the local shop had been raided at gunpoint the previous night for the third time in
about 6 months. Investigations are continuing and no arrests have ever been made on the previous
incidences.

20

3.0: PHASE 2 OF THE PROJECT – FIELDWORK

This will be the major part of the project and it is proposed that this should take place in
April 2009 and the activities in Mozambique and Zimbabwe are expected to be done at
the same time as stipulated in the inception phase report.

This will start with the pilot testing of the research instruments and this exercise should
take place in both countries. Pilot testing is planned to last two days, on the first day the
testing will concentrate on the key informant and other identified stakeholders while the
second day is devoted to individual farmers and their households.

Table 5: Major project activities, accomplished and planned

Major Activity Brief description Remarks/Comments

1 Reconnaisance A reconnaissance visit to the research areas Accomplished during the
survey visits with a view to build rapport with the various months of December 2008
community leaders and heads of ministries and January 2009
and government departments working in
these areas.

2 Assembling the After the development of the second draft Partly accomplished and
Research Team data collection instruments, the Researchers Research assistants will be
and the Research Assistants will conduct a recruited shortly so that they
3 Fieldwork pilot test of the questionnaires – in two areas can participate in most
that will be selected and identified4. subsequent stages of this
project
Field work for at least 10 days in each of the Planned for soon after receipt
study areas by the Research Team and of the second disbursement of
research assistants for the purposes of the research grant
collecting data.

4 Data entry, analysis Data entry will start simultaneously with the Planned
and report writing commencement of data collection and
expected to be concluded at least two weeks
after field work is finalized.

5 Stakeholders After production of the final report, a Planned
workshop and workshop will be held at the Catholic
conclusion of the University of Mozambique, in Beira and the
project National University of Science and
Technology in Bulawayo to disseminate the
results of the research. Invited guests at this
workshop will include government officials,
lecturers, personnel from non-governmental
organizations, community leaders, farmers,
students and other stakeholders

4 Due to differences in agricultural practices and language in the different countries one pilot study will be
done in each of the countries to test the appropriateness of the research instrument before implementation
in the main study.

21

Table 3 shows the detailed activities, their expected outputs, outcomes and possible
verifiable indicators as outlined in the inception phase report. However there are some
modifications on the periods initially planned for some of the activities and this has been
necessitated by the period that the funding became available to launch the project.
The next project activity requires more financial resources and hence will have to wait for
the disbursement of the second project grant.

22

Table 6: Logframe showing both ac

Activities Starting date and Budg
(US$
Duration
2165
1

(a) Initiation of the project December 2008-

(b) Development of research instrument January 2009
(c) Consultation of stakeholders5 and (2 months)

communities – unveiling the research

idea

(d) Identification of other important

stakeholders

(e) Sampling frame and Sampling

2 (a) Polishing up the research questionnaire February – March 2009 1700

(b) Recruitment of 10 Research Assistants6

(c) Pilot testing the research instrument (2 months)

(d) Training research assistants

3 (a) Field work April – July 2009 5920
(3 months)
(b) Collection of Data

(c) Data Entry

(d) Data Cleaning

(e) Data Analysis and interpretation

(f) Report writing

(g) Produce First Draft

(h) Second Draft

(i) Final Report

4 (a) Dissemination of Results and conclusion August – November 4110

of Project 2009

5 These stakeholders include non-governmental organizations, governmen

done, agricultural research institutions carrying out intervention projects i
6 These will be recruited from students in their final year at the Catho

university of Science and Technology, and Eduardo Mondlane University

ccomplished and planned activities

get Expected Expected Expected Objectively verifiable
$) Input Output Outcomes performance indicators

50.00 Ideas Research Successful stakeholder Reconnaissance survey report
Personnel instruments meetings
Financial Communities knowledge about
resources this project and its objectives
Equipment
Knowledge of stakeholders
working in various communities

00.00 Ideas Research Training of RA All parties involved in the
00.00 Knowledge Instruments accomplished research are fully aware of what
Financial the project is about and ready to
resources Draft project Research instruments go to the field
Personnel reports finalized
Data files
Personnel Deep understanding of Draft reports
Financial the project and also
resources deeper relations Initiation of identified
Transport between researcher and community development
Equipment communities projects

Final draft sent to the publishers

05.00 Financial Project Workshops Project Publication
resources Report Publication Community projects
Personnel implemented

nt ministries and departments, community leaders in the areas where fieldwork will be
in these areas, etc.
holic University of Mozambique’s Faculty of Economics and Management, National
y.

4.0: SUMMARY

There are a lot of similarities on the current state of farmers in both countries in terms of
livelihoods strategies, challenges and problems faced, economic status as well as social
networks. What is also clear is that all these 5 different districts in both countries are
economically challenged and invariably suffer from food insecurity. There is so much
physical evidence that these farmers in both countries do not harvest enough food to last
them until the next harvest thus there is need for food aid from various NGOs found in
almost all the districts in both countries. This section summarizes major similarities and
highlights a few differences that were observed during our visits.

4.1: Sources of livelihoods

The Table below summarizes livelihood sources in both countries. From these discussions
some of the responses my be misleading for example fishing is only mentioned in
Zimbabwe but it would not be unreasonable to assume that this is a more livelihood
activity in Mozambique than in Zimbabwe.

Table 7: A comparison of farmers sources of livelihood in both countries

Source of Livelihood Country

Mozambique Districts Zimbabwe Districts

Farming Yes All Yes All

Charcoal production Yes Man, Sof None N/A

Working for richer local farmers Yes All Yes All

Formal Employment No N/A Yes All

Home gardens Yes Gondola Yes Umzingwane

Vegetable Vending Yes Gondola Yes Umzingwane

Food AID Yes Manica Yes All

Remittances No N/A Yes All but mostly

in Tsholotsho

Gold panning No N/A Yes Umzingwane

&Tsholotsho

Fishing No N/A Yes Umzingwane

Other informal trading No N/A Yes Umzingwane

Source: Discussions with Informants

Working for richer local farmers is another livelihood strategy that is common in all poor
communal areas. Home gardens as a source of income through the sale of vegetables
grown on these gardens is becoming a major livelihood option for most smallholder
farmers although this is usually affected by limited amount of rainfall across all areas.

4.2: Local Resources that could transform Livelihoods

- water sources like Pungwe river in Pindanganga and Mtshabezi River in
Umzingwane for tourism

- natural forests for in Tsholotsho and Pindanganga for timber harvesting
- honey production closely associated with the existence of natural forests
- harvesting and processing of natural products like amarula in Pindanganga

- Sand in Tsholotsho could be sustainable utilized for the benefit of the community
unlike is the case now whereby it is just stolen

- Wildlife in Tsholotsho could also be sustainably harvested for community benefit

4.3: Crops Grown

Although there are a few variations the crops grown in both countries and in almost all the
districts are similar. For example maize is grown across all the different areas in both
countries. Rice, cotton and sunflower were only mentioned in Mozambique. While rice is
not commonly grown in Zimbabwe, the situation is different in Mozambique because rice
is a staple crop. Sorghum and other small grain varieties like millet was mentioned inn
both countries although the informants went further to say that farmers do not like
growing these crops despite the advice they are getting from the extension workers.

Table 8: Types of Crops Grown Mozambique Zimbabwe
Name of Crop Yes Yes
Maize Yes Yes
Sorghum Yes Yes
Millet No Yes
Runner Beans Yes Yes
Cow Peas No Yes
Groundnuts No Yes
Sugar Beans Yes Yes
Rice Yes No
Sunflower Yes Yes
Vegetables Yes No
Potatoes

Source: Discussions with Informants
4.4: Challenges faced by the Farmers

Farmers in both countries do face major challenges in going about their daily activities in
agriculture and the following table gives summaries of these challenges.

Table 9: Challenges faced by Farmers in Both Countries

Names of Countries

Zimbabwe Mozambique

1 Draft Power not major challenge Draft Power

2 Pests Pest not major problem

3 Mainly Slash and Burn Conventional type of agriculture

4 Low rainfall Low rainfall

5 Lack of farm implements Lack of farm implements

6 Poverty is even more extreme Poverty among households

7 Poor soils Poor soils

25

8 Transport to the market Transport to the market
9 Shortage of inputs (seed, fertilizer) Shortage of inputs (seed, fertilizer)
10 Floods Floods and water logging
11 Not mentioned Shortage of farm labour
12 Not mentioned Animals of prey destroying crops
13 Inadequate extension services Inadequate extension services
Source: Discussions with Informants

4.5: What could be done to overcome these challenges and enhance livelihoods

- An enhanced provision of implements including draft power to poor farmers
- Reduce reliance on farming by finding options other livelihood options like fish

farming
- In Mozambique there should be more efforts in increasing access to extension

services as these are very much in short supply
- Improvements in the transport system so that farmers could travel easily to source

inputs as well as sell their output

4.6: Interventions by Governments to help Smallholder farmers

There is a more conceited intervention to help smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe than in
Mozambique and this could be explained by the current state of agriculture and economic
situation in Zimbabwe. The Mozambican government acknowledges the need to develop
the smallholder agricultural sector hence has come up with the following scheme for the
farmers.

• A government financing programme of US$280 000 per district per year given as
credit from the central government to be loaned to the farmers

• Only qualifying farmers will get the credit but experience so far has shown that
repayment rates are very poor despite a one year grace period that is allowed
before one can make repayments.

• Government has also purchased at least one tractor per Posto de Administrativo for
use by local farmers who however should provide their own fuel and also pay the
driver.

• On the other hand in Zimbabwe the Government is actively involved in ensuring
that farmers get seed and fertilizers although sometimes these inputs are delayed.

• There has also been an enhanced effort by government to supply smallholder
farmers with farm implements such as tractors, ploughs, planters, etc.

• There are efforts in both countries to provide extension services for the
smallholder farmers but the situation for Mozambican farmers seems to be more
desperate than that for their Zimbabwean counterparts.

• Government Colleges have been encouraged to come up with shorter training
programmes for extension workers, e.g. the 16 months programme at Esigodini
and other similar agricultural colleges in the country.

26

• There are also attempts to improve mobility of the extension workers such as
under the Maguta Programme that sought to make motor cycles available to those
extension workers with licences.

4.7: Non-Governmental Organizations in Agriculture food production

In almost all the districts in both countries there are NGOs mainly involved in drought
relief rather than in rural and agricultural development. In Mozambique there was no
mention of any NGO that is investing in the development of agriculture but in Zimbabwe
ORAP, Commutech, ICRISAT were said to be involved in various areas of agricultural
development.

1. ORAP
o Seed distribution
o seed multiplication
o conservation farming
o water and sanitation (rehabilitation of water sources)

2. Lead Trust
o demonstration plots
o promotion of agricultural technologies like conservation agriculture
o agricultural input distribution

3. Plan International
o promoting Conservation Agriculture
o master farmer training programmes for smallholder farmers

4. Commutech
o water and sanitation
o agricultural input distribution

5. ICRISAT
o Research
o Development of local agricultural markets
o Technology transfer through a number or smallholder farmer training
programmes.

5.0: CONCLUSION

This report should help in facilitating the construction of effective research instruments as
the outputs of this process, to deliver plausible answers to the topic of research. The report
will also be used during various phases of the research as a point of reference in
understanding the perspectives of the farmers themselves, their households and
development practitioners in various districts in the two countries. Finally as this report
discusses issues and observations of the first phase of this research project, it is a working
document and should be regarded as such. For example, it is not intended to be used in
policy formulation in its current raw state. Researchers will always come back to it for
clarification of issues, ideas and also for use in the development of the actual project
report.

27