Research on economic returns for investing in smallholder farmers case study of Iringa,Chamwino district councils explaining how central,local government and other stakeholders including private sector are investing in smallholder farmers. Furthermore, the report explain how much has been invested both physical and technical,what is working and what does not work and reasons behind. Read more in the report.

1. ECONOMIC RETURNS FOR INVESTING IN SMALL SCALE FARMERS
CASES OF IRINGA, KILOSA AND CHAMWINO COUNCILS
FINAL RESEARCH REPORT1
JUNE 2014
1
Undertaken by Dr. Honest Prosper Ngowi and Mrs. Bahati Matimba of ANO Consulting Ltd
1

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Item Page
number
1 Introduction 3
2 Scope of the assignment 3
3 Methodology 4
4 Study Findings 4
5 General Findings 4
6 Case Studies Findings 7
7 The Case Study of Iringa Municipal Council 7
8 The Case of Chamwino District Council 19
9 The Case of Kilosa District Council 27
10 Conclusions 34
11 Recommendations 34
1. INTRODUCTION
This is a research report on the returns of investments in small holder farmers in Tanzania. The
report is based on three case studies. These are case studies from Iringa, Kilosa and Chamwino
District Councils. The study was conducted between May and June 2014. The study was guided
b y terms of reference (ToR) provided by the client (Action Aid Tanzania – AAT). The report
2

3. presents the three case studies separately in order to provide district-specific insights. Based on
the three case studies, the report gives recommendations accordingly.
2. SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT
The following were the questions that were expected to be answered in the study:
1. Assess how the government both central and local governments are investing in
smallholder farmers, to what extent the governments have invested to smallholder farmers,
what is working and why and what is not working and why? What are the gaps, what has
been the priority focus of investment to smallholder farmers for the identified case studies?
2. To what extent other stakeholders including private sectors are investing in smallholder
farmers, how much has been invested both financial and technical support, what is working
and what does not work and the reasons behind?
3. How smallholder farmers are receiving the support from the government and other private
sectors, what kinds of support provided?
4. Assess how farmers receive extension services, inputs and any other support necessary in
their development agendas?
5. Assess the outcome of the investment from smallholder farmers, is there any increase in
production?, to what extent?, how these outcomes have contributed to improvement in
smallholder livelihoods?
6. How much the government eg local government have received from smallholder farmers as
returns from the investment --- collected government revenue from farmers and others
3. METHODOLOGY
The study that informs this report is based on both secondary and primary data. Secondary
data were collected through documentary review while primary data were collected through
field interviews. District Executive Officers (DEDs) of the three districts were presented with
introduction letters. They then directed the researchers to the office of the District Agricultural
and Livestock Development Officers (DALDO) that provided most of the responses in the three
3

4. districts. In Iringa, a number of other respondents than the districts officials were interviewed
too.
4. STUDY FINDINGS
In this section, the findings from the study that informs this report are presented. Findings from
the literature are presented to give a general overview on some of the key issues in the study.
The findings from the literature are followed by findings from each of the three case studies.
4.1. GENERAL FINDINGS
A number of studies have been conducted on small scale farmers in general and those in
Tanzania in particular. Among the study of great relevancy in the context of this study is that of
Vorley, Cortula and Chan (2012)2
. Among the key issues of relevancy in the context of this
report include the findings that more investment is required in agriculture in general and for
small scale farmers in particular in order to solve such challenges as rural poverty, food
insecurity, stewardship of natural resources, and climate resilience.
Althogh governments have increased commitments to public investment in agriculture, these
have failed to materialize. Instead, attention has been paid to creating a facilitating
environment for private investment in agriculture. It is also found in the Vorley et al (ibid) that
attracting investment should be a means to an end. Among other things, quality of the
investment is critical. Another important finding is that in Tanzania, women are reported to
produce about 70% of all food crops. From interviews with stakeholders and documentary
review in this and other studies that the authors have been involved in3
, the following were the
general findings on the key researh questions:
2
Tipping The Balance: Policies to shape agricultural investments and markets in favour of small-
scale farmers
3
Such as a study on Economic Profile of Kigoma Region in 2013 for the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism;
A Study on Value Added Tax (VAT) on Fertilizer for the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives in 2013 and in data
collection for the Vorley, Cortula and Chan (2012) publication
4

5. 4.1.1. The way the government is investing in smallholder farmers
Generally both the central and local governments are investing in smallholder framers in
various ways. These include through investing in agricultural infrastructure including but not
limited to rural roads, markets, irrigation, inputs supplies as well as provision of extension
services. Generally, investment in smallholder farmers is inadequate. For example, inputs such
as seeds and fertilizer are inadequate in quantity and quality as well as in delivery time.
Interventions such as farmers schools are working well. Despite the many investments that the
government has made on small scale farmers, there are several gaps that exist. These include
but are not limited to access to financial services, access to markets as well as agro-processing.
4.1.2. Investments by other stakeholders in smallholder farmers
Apart from the central and local governments, there are other stakeholders that are investing
in small scale farmers. These include but are not limited to Non Governmental Organizations
(NGOs) such as Agricultural Non State Actors Forum (ANSAF), Muungano wa Vikundi vya
Wakulima Tanzania (MVIWATA), Oxfam, Action Aid and many others. Other stakeholders
include such organizations as the USAID, Techno Serve, MUVI etc. Investments by such
stakeholders have included but not limited to financial and technical support including training.
Some NGOs have also supported smallholder farmers indirectly through lobbying and advocacy
for pro-smallholder farmers policy, legal and regulatory framework. Generally, provision of
demand-driven as opposed to supply-driven support works well for small scale farmers
supported by such stakeholders.
4.1.3. The way smallholder farmers are receiving the support
Generally, smallholder farmers are receiving the support positively. They receive the support
from the government and other stakeholders both directly and indirectly. For example,
extension services from the government are directly provided through the office of DALDO.
Government input support to smallholder farmers is provided indirectly through private sector
agents (input suppliers/agro-dealers). Support from NGOs is also both direct and indirect. In as
far as inputs are concerned for example, farmers have been receiving the support mainly via
5

6. the private sector through voucher system. There have been complaints on the quantity that is
provided, late delivery and quality.
4.1.4. Outcome of the investment from smallholder farmers
Generally, the investments by the various stakeholders have given various kinds of outcome.
Generally, the outcome has been positive in terms of farmers improvement of farming
practices. As a result, there have been increases in areas cultivated, production volumes, access
to finance, access to markets and improved livelihoods for smallholder farmers.
4.1.5. Returns to the government from smallholder farmers
As a results of various forms of invetments on smallholder farmers, there have been different
kinds and levels of returns to the government. It is understood that the government does not
invest on smallholder farmers so that it (the government) gets monetary profit. The
government invests on smallholder farmers as a public good. The aim is to ehance the farmers’
capability so that they can undertake their agricultural activities better, increase production
and productivity, reduce poverty and improve their livelihoods. Indirectly though, the govern,
especially local governments, are likely to get some direct and indirect returns for their
investments on smallholder farmers. Among other things, as a result of better perfomance due
to government investments, some LGAs are able to collect more crop cess from the increased
agricultural produce and related economic activities such agro-processing and trade.
4.2. CASE STUDIES FINDINGS
Apart from the general findings above, the researchers conducted specific case studies in Iringa,
Kilosa and Chamwino district councils. Findings from each of the three case studies are
presented in what follows.
4.2.1. THE CASE STUDY OF IRINGA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
6

7. The study in Iringa involved responses from the Iringa District Council (IRD), MUVI, Tanzania
Agricultural Productivity Programme (TAPP), RUDI and Iringa Mercy Organization (IMO)
4.2.1.1. Interventions by MUVI
Introduction of MUVI Programme
Rural Micro, Small & Medium Enterprise (RMSMES) is a programme commonly known as
Muunganisho wa Ujasiriamali Vijijini (MUVI), it was initiated to support the Government in
poverty reduction strategy, which broadly aims at transforming Tanzania’s agriculture based
economy into export & market led, competitive semi industrial but still largely agriculture based
economy.
See details at: http://www.sido.go.tz/UI/muvi.aspx
MUVI interventions in Iringa
MUVI has supported about 13,000 small holder farmers in Iringa region. These include
sunflower and tomato farmers (about 4,500 for each crop). It also invests in millet in the dry
areas of the region. It has also invested in training on improved production techniques,
harvesting, post-harvesting, processing, and marketing for small scale farmers. It has moved
from production to marketing support of small scale farmers. This is because of the observation
that marketing is a problem for tomato and millet small scale farmers. MUVI has been linking
farmers with breweries to do millet contract farming. This was however still in negotiation
between the partners at the time of this study. MUVI has found out that finding markets for
small scale farmers is good. This is because they have problems with good markets. If the
market problem is solved for small scale farmers, they will then have motivation to produce
more.
Not all interventions work
MUVI has invested a lot in small scale farmers but this does not always work. For some of the
supported small scale farmers and agro-processor, however, MUVI interventions have not
worked. Some beneficiaries are not growing, not willing to restructure their enterprises, lack
good entrepreneurial attributes and focus as they are doing too many things at a once. Also,
7

8. some lack professionalism and systems such as financial management systems and not using
banking services due to largely cash economy.
The following do work
From its experience in Iringa, MUVI is of the view that training for small scale farmers is
generally good when properly done. For example, the Small Industries Organisation (SIDO) has
trained some small scale farmers on agro-processing including tomato juice processing. This has
helped a lot in value addition and storage of perishable crops thereby giving incentives for more
production.
MUVI has also found out that there are many other interventions that work well for small
holder farmers. These include branding, having business plans, good business name as well as
having/being a member of small scale farmers associations. Farmers’ associations are seen by
MUVI to be very instrumental for organized small holders. It has also experienced that the hub
and spoke model (big farmer that buys from the small ones) is also good and works well for
small scale farmers. MUVI has also experienced that good will/trust between associations and
input suppliers work out well for small scale farmers. For examples, some small scale farmers
were able to get fertilizer worth 90,000,000 Tanzanian Shillings (Tshs) from YARA (fertilizer
supplier) on guarantee basis. Guarantee of small scale farmers by from Local Government
Authorities (LGAs) has worked in Njombe. Through such guarantee, farmers associations have
received fertilizer worth about 200,000,000 Tshs from YARA on credit without collateral. MUVI
has helped in facilitating such guarantees for over three years in Iringa
Other issues that work well for small scale farmers include capacity building on such areas as
governance for farmers association. Also good quality inputs such as fertilizer supplied on
time and adequate quantity works well for small holder farmers
MUVI has also experienced that private sector intervention (MUVI involving various
implementing partners such as Business Services Providers) to provide agriculture interventions
8

9. is goods and sustainable. This is because the compared to the public sector, private sector is
more flexible, faster and efficient. According to MUVI, pure public sector intervention is likely
to fail in interventions that need speed. MUVI has also experienced that investment in markets
infrastructure (collection points) work well for small holder farmers.
Although it can be expensive, MUVI is of experience that participatory approaches in making
decisions that affect small scale farmers (for example on where to build market infrastructure)
is very important.
In line with the private sector efficiency argument, MUVI points out that delivery of
interventions to small scale farmers through the government can be more costly, less efficient
and less speedy than doing so through the private sector. However, when the private sector
delivers agricultural interventions for smallholder farmers, it has to mainstream in the public
sector for sustainability and exit strategy.
Access to finance for smallholder farmers is important for improved performance. The National
Microfinance Bank (NMB) in partnership with MUVI is including training of small holder farmers
in financial matters. MUVI has worked on organizing small holder farmers into Village
Community Bank (VICOBA). Also community banks like Mufindi Community Bank (MUCOBA)
have helped in working with farmers including in training on various issues such as business
plans, innovation for financial institutions, accessing low interest loan such as from Tanzania
Investment Bank (TIB) agricultural window. This has worked well for Njombe farmers.
Small holder farmers owning shares in financial institutions such as banks helps farmers to
access finance more easily and on better terms. This has been the case in Njombe Community
Bank (NJOCOBA) model. When farmers groups open account in the bank, they automatically
become the bank’s shareholders. According to MUVI, being away from urban areas is not good
for financial institutions. Therefore rural smallholder farmers who are the majority do not enjoy
as much financial services as those near urban areas.
Investing in high value crops is better for smallholder farmers. In Iringa for example, tomato is
more high value crop than sunflower. Good investment can give up to 4,000,000 Tshs in
9

10. revenue per acre and profit of over 1,000,000 Tshs. Sunflower yields a profit of only about
300,000 Tshs per acre on same period.
Good policies in favour of small holder farmers matter for improved production and
productivity. MUVI has connected various farmers to specific organizations that lobby and
advocate for specific kind of agricultural products. For example, tomato farmers in Iringa were
linked to Tanzania Horticultural Association (TAHA ), sunflowers farmers linked to TEHOSA while
processors were linked to Tanzania Sunflower Processors Association (TASUPA) in collaboration
with SNV. These specific associations/organizations aim at addressing policy matters that
individual farmers or small associations cannot handle.
Training by agro-dealers has proved to work well for smallholder farmers. For example, there
has been training on use of pesticides by Syngenta which is a company dealing with inputs
supplies. Also provision of simple and user-friendly training manual on good agricultural
practices for smallholder farmers helps them. Another thing that works well in smallholder
farmers’ intervention is evaluation of interventions in order to learn lessons, avoiding making
same mistakes and re-inverting the wheel.
Smallholder farmers participation in trade shows/fairs/exhibition such as Nane Nane trade
fair, exchange visits as well as having demonstration plots help small holder farmers to learn
from peers and those doing better. For good output, it is also good to invest in soil testing as it
helps smallholder farmers to know kinds of crops to be grown in various areas.
MUVI has also experienced that having inputs subsidy helps. It has experienced that there is
low productivity without subsidy and high productivity with subsidy. However, inputs subsidy is
very political and inefficient in Tanzania. It has been characterized by late delivery of seeds and
fertilizer, wrong fertilizer packaging and formulation without considering the fertilizer needs for
particular types of soil. For example, Minjingu takes time to function while smallholder farmers
do not have time to wait for the fertilizer to function. There is also the problem of delay in
government payment of agro-dealers giving input credit. These agro-dealers have borrowed
from banks but had not been paid on time by the government. Therefore, they cannot pay back
10

11. loan and may get problem with bank and their enterprises may collapse. There is a need to
learn from Malawi’s best example of how inputs subsidy works. Malawi has managed
transparency and huge government involvement in the supply chain rather than private sector
in the grass root. Malawi chiefs have more say on the grassroots not like in Tanzania where
Village Executive Officers (VEOs) are the ones determining who is poor in order to be eligible for
inputs subsidy. According to MUVI, inputs credit is more sustainable and therefore better
option than total subsidy.
Attaining huge volumes is problematic
For most small scale farmers in Iringa, getting huge volumes to supply to buyers is a big
challenge. According to MUVI, there is an investor (from Europe) wanting 25 tones of solar-
dried tomato (for export) monthly. However, the investor cannot get the volume from small
scale farmers.
4.2.2. The Case of Tanzania Agriculture Productivity Program (TAPP) by USAID
About TAPP
USAID-TAPP, launched in October 2009, is a five-year program supported by the American
people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The program
is increasing smallholder incomes, improving nutrition, and expanding markets through
agricultural innovation and commercialization.
See details at http://www.tanzania-agric.org/
TAPP investment on smallholder farmers in Iringa District Council
11

12. TAPP (www.tanzania-agric.org ) invests a lot on small scale farmers in Tanzania including in
Iringa District Council. It is raising sales, incomes and food security of about 19,000 smallholder
farmers. It works in conjunction with local partners to:
i) Transfer good agricultural practices that increase crop volume, quality and variety
ii) Reduce logistics costs and increases availability of inputs and financial products
iii) Commercialize smallholder supply chains
iv) Create new buyer linkages and expand access to local, regional and export markets
v) Introduce improved nutrition and disease prevention practices.
Areas of investment
Among its investments on smallholder farmers include training and support on drip irrigation;
Integrated pest management; crop rotation; calenderizing, sack garden, fertilizing, trellising,
mulching, raised beds, live barriers and planting spacing among others. In its investments on
smallholder farmers, TAPP gives full package training – from land preparation to marketing;
provides inputs – not for free but on cost-sharing: 75% covered by TAPP, 25% covered by
farmer groups. Inputs provides include high-breed seeds, fertilizer etc.
It also invests in providing linkage to finance. Through its intervention is has managed to
enable smallholder farmers access loans from NMB, MUCOBA and some SACCOS. TAPP gives
the finance through these institutions on commercial basis. The interest rate is 2.5%.
Returns of the investment by TAPP
TAPP respondents indicated that there have been good returns from the resources invested in
smallholder farmers. These returns include but are not limited to good education provided
farmers; introduction and adoption of faster- growing crops due to technology used from land
preparation, irrigation and fertigation (fertilization); greater yield than others not receiving
TAPP or other similar interventions. For example, tomato commonly gives about 400 baskets
but TAPP farmers get up to 1000 baskets for the same land area. For paprika, TAPP farmers
12

13. harvest about 24 tones per acre while normal tomato without the intervention gives only 5
tones. As a result of the intervention, there has been experienced larger and longer frequency
of harvesting crops such as tomato. Also, farmers produce high quality crops than normal due
to the training.
4.2.3. The Case of Iringa Mercy Organization (IMO)
IMO is a TAPP partner. It promotes education on nutrition for smallholder farmers so that they
can improve their incomes and health conditions. It started this intervention in February
2014. Therefore, by the time this report was written (June 2014), IMO was just about four
months old.
The way IMO invests on small holder farmers
IMO has a demonstration plot of about ¼ of an acre for vegetables (carrots, cabbage, paprica
etc). It provides all the inputs (seeds, manure/fertilizer, trays, pesticides etc) needed for
demonstration. The demonstration is done for free. This plot is used to demonstrate all the
best agricultural practices for a group of 50 farmers. When the group has received the practical
training each individual in the group is supposed to implement the training in his/her own
home garden using the skills learnt from IMO. At the home garden, they are advised to use best
seeds as the ones from the demonstration plot. They are advised to use locally available
manure – from chicken, cows, goats etc.
The individual smallholder farmers are trained in groups of 50. They are then advised to scale
up their cultivation from home gardens to large commercial gardens. They are advised to plant
at least five different kinds of vegetables using the technology learnt from IMO including but
not limited to proper seeds, seedlings, soil, spacing, fertilization, weeding, watering, harvesting
etc. IMO makes close follow up in forms of supportive supervision, mentoring and monitoring
and evaluation (M&E). The individuals opting to scale up from home gardens to large scale
farming/gardening are also required to remain in groups where they meet at least once a week
to take care of the group garden at the same time as they keep their own individual gardens.
13

14. IMO Investment
IMO invests its staff time, office space, demonstration plot space (1/4 acre for a group of 50
people), tools such as trays for seedlings, seeds, manure, fertilizer etc to train, mentor, monitor
and evaluate/follow up the individual farmers in their home gardens and big gardens/farms for
those who decide to scale up. It also invests time in searching for markets and linking them to
farmers.
Results of the investments
Since the intervention began on February 2014, IMO has seen very good results on part of the
smallholder farmers. There has been good response and uptake of the intervention by many
smallholder farmers. The model has spread very fast. There have been best cases where some
farmers have graduated from the demonstration plots and home gardens to large scale
commercial gardening.
According to IMO “Mr. Yona from Kilolo is among our best performing farmers. He learnt from
the demonstration plot, practiced home gardening and belongs to Ubena group. He has also
moved further to produce vegetables on large scale in his own large (about one acre) private
garden on commercial basis in a very short period of time of less than three month. He is an
example of those adapting and taking up the technology very fast”
Those who have done well in their home gardens, have improved their nutrition and health.
This in turn has many direct and indirect benefits including reducing costs associated with bad
health and advantages of god health such as more efficient and effective participation in
economic activities. Some are selling vegetables from the home gardens thereby increasing
their incomes and reducing poverty. Those not selling the vegetables from the home gardens
but just consuming are able to save the cost of buying the vegetables. The cost is not only in
terms of money but also in terms of time that would be used to go to and from the market to
buy vegetables.
14

15. Also, the IMO trainees have left the old farming practices and embraced the new ones that give
better results in terms of increased outputs, productivity, higher quality etc. They now practice
better farming at all stages from farm preparations, seedlings preparations (done on special
trays hang on high ground instead of being placed on the ground), better planting time, better
spacing, watering/irrigation, fertilization, weeding, pruning, protection of vegetables through
living barriers such as maize and millets on the sides of the vegetable4
. All these have resulted
to better yields, incomes and less poverty among the beneficiary smallholder farmers.
Another good return for the investment made by IMO is the multiplier effect of its intervention.
There are many people who were not part of the demonstration plots and home gardening
interventions but have learnt and copied from those who were part of these interventions. For
example, some friends, relatives and neighbours of those practicing home gardening after the
demonstration plots training are copying the good gardening practices.
Although it is difficult to quantify these benefits and assign them a monetary value, it is clear
that the investments undertaken by IMO are yielding good returns and give good value for
money. The intervention began only in February 2014 while this case study was documented in
the last week of May 2014. IMO would be a good case study to follow up in the future so as to
measure/evaluate the returns of the investment over time. Challenges include dangers of
missing baseline data if IMO did not have them at the beginning of its intervention in Iringa.
4.2.4. Investments by Iringa Municipal Council
The main focus in the investments that Iringa Municipal Council (IMC) undertakes for
smallholder farmers is irrigation in the whole council because it is semi dry area. Only three out
of six wards have adequate rains. Isimani, Pawaga and Idodi have no enough rain while Kalenga,
Kiponzelo and Mlolo wards get enough. There are many big rivers such as Ruaha Ndogo. IMC
has invested in improving traditional irrigation schemes (30 of them all together but only 18 of
4
Insects will then attach the maize and millets before reaching the vegetables which are more delicate and higher
value than maize and millets
15

16. them have been well improved). Aim in the Big Results Now (BRN) context is to improve 11
irrigation schemes within two years from 2014/15.
Investment in value chain development
IMC has facilitated farmers’ groups (about 4) to do value addition in rice so that they sell
processed rice from Pawaga and Idodi and processed sunflower from Isimani, Kalemga and
Mlolo. IMC has invested in building go-downs, improved and installed processing machines – on
sharing cost with groups. It has also given technical support. Some groups existed and others
were formed and strengthened by the IMC. It has also invested in introducing and supporting
ware house receipt system (WRS). It has also supported farmers to learn on WRS from Chimala
and Mbarali.
Results/impacts of the investment
As a result of this investment, there has been increased sale of processed products that give
farmers higher prices. The investment in WRS has enabled farmers to access credit from various
financial institutions using their crops as collateral. The WRS has enabled smallholder farmers
to sale their crops when prices are good instead of succumbing to buyers’ prices. According to
IMC, there has been more output (rice) in Pagawa. This has increased food security, increased
incomes, improved livelihoods including better houses. This has also resulted in better incomes
for IMC through crop cess collected by private sector on behalf of the council.
Investment in farmers training
IMC has also invested in farmers training. This has taken the form of farmer class, farmers
training of trainers (ToT) known in Kiswahili as wakulima wagani kazi. The farmers have been
trained at Igurusi College in Mbeya. It has also invested in extension services at district, ward
and village levels.
16

17. Investments in markets
IMC has build about 11 markets in which smallholder farmers can sale their produce. Some of
these markets are working well while some are not working due to various challenges.
Investment in rural roads
IMC has invested in district and feeder roads that facilitate smallholder farmers to undertake
their activities. This is done by the Works Department of the council. These roads do help small
holders to transport farm inputs and outputs and traders to reach them.
Investment in dams
IMC has invested in dams for irrigation purposes. This is done through rain water harvesting for
irrigation purposes as well as development of underground water schemes. Among the places
where this has been done include Tanangozi and Igingilanyi where underground water sources
have been developed using solar pumps for drip irrigation by smallholder farmers.
4.2.5. Investment by Rural Urban Development Initiative (RUDI5
RUDI focuses on training farmers on value addition. In Iringa among other things, it has give one
machine in Idodi for rice processing for better prices and profits for smallholder farmers. RUDI
invests in smallholder farmers in various ways. Among other things, it organizes farmers in
groups where farmers are sensitized to do collective marketing. It also invests in improving
godowns and WRS. It links framers to finance and helps them to identify long and short term
Income Generating Activities (IGAs) such as animal husbandry and trade. The aim is to add
incomes of farmers instead of over dependence on maize and rice. It also supports Village
Community Banks (VICOBA) formation. The aim is to solve problems of access to affordable
finance for smallholder farmers.
RUDI also invests in gender training including roles distribution in agriculture so that women get
relief from extra work in farms. RUDI also tries to organize youths in groups and facilitates them
by giving them machines to reduce/reverse rural - urban migration that has negative results in
5
See its profile at http://www.tnnc.go.tz/ngodetails.php?applicationid=597
17

18. agricultural labour availability in rural Tanzania in general and Iringa region including IMC in
particular.
RUDI also invests in training and supporting collective marketing, better storage, better quality
and sorting of crops in grades. It also facilitates common and bigger voice for farmers;
facilitates and trains on various elements of entrepreneurship including market research and
record keeping for agro-business so as to know costs, prices, profit margins and therefore
recommended minimum sales prices that will give profit. RUDI invests on training on good
governance and organization leadership of farmers groups. It also invests on farmers through
training on developing groups visions so that they know what they want and how to achieve the
same. Its training includes market information access too.
Results of the investment
RUDI has seen substantial positive impacts of its investments on smallholder farmers in Iringa.
Its various capacity building interventions such as training have resulted into much stronger,
vibrant, dynamic, professionally managed and operated farmers’ groups and associations. As a
result of the interventions, farmers have improved their agricultural practices at from farms
preparations, planting, weeding, fertilizing, harvesting, storage as well as marketing. This in
turn, has led into improved livelihood of smallholder farmers.
4.2.6. THE CASE OF CHAMWINO DISTRICT COUNCIL
Chamwino District Council (CDC) is located in Dodoma region. The case study in CDC was mainly
informed by the council’s DALDO office. In what follows, the findings from CDC are presented
based on the key research questions.
4.2.6.1. The way central and local governments are investing in smallholder farmers
18

19. Both the central and local governments are investing in smallholder farmers through supporting
their priority agricultural investments based on the District Agricultural Development Plans
(DADPs) on a cost-sharing basis. The beneficiaries contribute additional labour and materials in
varying proportions, depending on the nature of the investment. The government is
responsible in providing funds for farmers’ priority interventions. To enable and facilitate
project completion, the government provides guidelines for funding those farmers’
interventions.
4.2.6.2. The extent to which the governments have invested in smallholder farmers
Both the central and local governments have invested in smallholder farmers in the following
ways:
i) Agricultural infrastructures investments as can be seen in irrigation facilities in
Chamwino DC
ii) Agricultural extension services in which a total of 78 extension staff have been
employed in six years of ASDP-I. These staff are working closely with smallholder
farmers
iii) Agricultural capacity building through improved supervision, monitoring and evaluation
(M&E) of agricultural projects being implemented by smallholder farmers
The table below provides an example of the way CDC has partly budgeted for agricultural sector
hereby investing on smallholder farmers.
Table 1: Selected Items in Chamwino District Council Budget
PLANNED ACTIVITY APROVED
BUDGET
AMOUNT
RECIVED
ACTUAL
EXPENDITURE
PHYSICAL
ACHIEVEMENT
FINANCIAL
SOURCES
REMARKS
To support constrruction of 1
cattle dip at Chiboli village by
June 2009
9,685,000 9,685,000 9,600,000 Cattle dip
construction
completed
DADG Funds were sent to committee
account for implementation.
To support rehabilitation of
Iringa Mvumi primary market
Market by June 2009
10,020,715 10,020,715 10,020,000 Animal collection
pen rehabilitation
completed
DADG AI Equipments Purchased
19

20. To support acquisition of 15 tons
of sorghum seeds for farmers in
a whole district
15,500,000 15,500,000 15,500,000 15,000 kg of macia
seeds procured and
distributed to 6000
households in 72
villages
DADG
To facilitate establishment of 1
artificial insemination centre at
Mvumi Mission village by June
2009
9,058,000 9,058,000 4,700,000 2 Nitrogen cans, 4
Pistolets,20
sheath,250 doses
of Semen, 10
packets of Gloves
purchased;
rehabilitation of A.I
center ongoing
DADG Rehabilitation work ongoing
To support rehabilitation of 1
irrigation scheme at Mpwayungu
village by June 2009.
6,937,000 6,937,000 6,937,000 Rehabilitation of
bunds was done
DADG Contracted work
To support establishment of one
acre of grape vine nursery and
100 ha. On drip irrigation
technique at Chinangali grape
vine block farm by June 2009.
100,000,000 100,000,000 85,620,000 Grape nursery with
500,000 seedlings,
pump test and
installation,
construction of
tank completed
DADG Contracted work
To support acquisition of 23
motorcycles for village and ward
extension officers by June 2009
38,400,000 38,400,000 38,400,000 Twenty (23)
motorcycles has
been purchased
and distributed to
23 ward extension
officers
DADG Contracted work
To support acquisition of 15
powertillers for farmers by June
2009
63,137,000 63,137,000 63,137,000 Fifteen (15) JD
power tillers has
been purchased
and given to
farmers on 50%
cost sharing
arrangements
DADG Contracted work
To support mobilization activities
for establishment of new
irrigation shemes at Manda,
Chifukulo, Majeleko and Mvumi
makulu.
6,000,000 6,000,000 5,600,000 Studies done at
Manda and Mvumi
Makulu,
DADG Mvumi Makulu irrigation
scheme passed for
implementation.
To conduct Monitoring and
evaluation of all investment
Projects by June 2009.
(Investment servicing costs)
14,131,000 14,131,000 14,131,000 M&E conducted in
all quarters,
involved village
project committes
Basic-ACBG
20

21. To facilitate the participatory
planing process (O&OD planing
tool) from the village, ward and
district levells according to
DADPs guidelines by June 2009.
12,400,000 12,400,000 12,400,000 Extended
participatory
planning was
conducted in all 28
wards,
Top up A-CBG DADP compiled from WADPS
To facilitate 2 days training to
village project commitees on
DADP project monitoring and
evaluation by June 2009
12,974,000 12,974,000 9,000,000 Member from 12
Project
implementation
committees were
trained,
Top up A-CBG Training has improved PC
planning, monitoring and
evaluation skills.
To suport a 3 days training to 100
farmers at Chinangali
II,Makang'wa and Mvumi
Makulu villages on grapevine
production by June 2009
10,670,000 10,670,000 10,670,000 100 farmers at
Chinangali II grape
farm were trained
on grape
agronomic
practices
Top up A-CBG ARI Makutupora were
involved in the training of
farmers.
To facilitate 12 DSMSs
(agriculture and livestock) to
attend a 5 weeks training on
Introduction to computer
application and Planrep software
by June 2009.
4,542,000 4,542,000 4,500,000 Training conducted
at UCC-Dodoma
branch. Planning
and reporting skills
to 15 DSMS
improved
Basic-ACBG
To support training for 3 staff
on undergraduate courses at the
recognised Government
institution for three years by
June, 2009
8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 Tuition fee and
book allowances
for 3 extension
staff were paid to
respective
universities
Top up A-CBG Tuition fees paid to
IRDP,SUA,SJUT
To support Post graduate
courses to 1 staff at the
recognized government
institutions by June 2009
15,000,000 15,000,000 13,150,000 Tuition fee and
research funds for
2 extension staff
were paid to
respective
universities
Top up A-CBG Tuition and research funds
paid to SUA
To facilitate 4 days training to 22
extension staff on extension
program planing by June 2009.
4,499,000 4,499,000 4,400,000 Improved
extension program
planning to ward
extension officers
AEBG
To support 120 farmers to
acquire cashewnut seeds and
train them on cashewnut
production by June 2009
11,066,000 11,066,000 11,066,000 Three tons of
cashew nut seeds
procured and
planted in 120
acres
Top up A-CBG
To support acquisition of 1 4WD
pickup double cabin for DALDOs
office by June 2009.
45,000,000 45,000,000 45,000,000 1 4W Nissan pick-
up doble cabin
procured.Improved
Top up A-CBG
21

22. project monitoring
To support rehabilitation of one
building for exhibition ,
establishment of 15 demo plots
for crops,10 demo plots for
pastures, 4 animal sheds and
facilitate farmers to participate
at Nzuguni Nanenane ground by
June 2009
20,685,967 20,685,967 20,600,000 15 demonstration
plots established,4
animal sheds
constructed and 80
farmers were
facilitated to
display their
innovations
AEBG 120 farmers were faciltated to
attend and display their crop
and livestock innovations
To support a 1 month training on
Artificial insemination at NAIC
Arusha for 2 livestock officers by
by June 2009.
6,560,000 6,560,000 6,560,000 2 staff trained and
equipment for AI
procured
Top up A-CBG A.I services are provided to
semi-intensive farmers at
Mvumi mission
To support construction of 1
Ward agricultural resource
center at Haneti by June 2009
18,503,750 18,503,750 18,503,750 The WRC is at
completion stage
AEBG Contracted work
To support control of migratory
pests by conducting a 5 days
survey, 5 days community
sensitization, acquisition of 1500
ltrs of pestcides, 500 bullet and
28 knapsack sprayers at 28 wards
by June 2009.
6,500,000 6,500,000 6,325,000 Armyworm and
quelea outbreak
controlled in the
district
A-EGB
To support acquisition of blowers
and agricultural chemicals for
spraying on cashew nuts trees in
the district by June 2009.
6,396,000 6,396,000 6,396,000 1blower and other
implements for
cashewnut spraying
procured
A-EGB
To facilitate vaccination
campaign against CBPP and
Newcastle disease by June 2009
15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 CBPP and rabbies
controlled in 22
villages
AEBG 9,784 cattle and 492 dogs
vaccinated
To support rehabilitation of
Mpwayungu irrigation scheme
100,000,000 100,000,000 97,500,000 Rehabilitation of
1,500 meters of
main canal
completed
DIDF Contracted work.
Rehabilitation to start during
dry season
GRAND TOTAL 570,665,432 570,665,432 542,715,750
Source: Field data, Chamwino District Council, June 2014
4.2.6.3. What is working and why
According to the findings in CDC, there are a number of interventions that work well for
smallholder farmers in the council. These are outlined below.
i) Agricultural infrastructure: Irrigation schemes
22

23. Investment in irrigation schemes work well for smallholder farmers. This is because the income
impacts of such investment are likely to be high in the future. Beneficiaries have acquired
productive assets that are likely to increase their incomes significantly. With irrigation schemes
in place, smallholder farmers are able to plant varieties of crops the year round.
ii) Agricultural Extension services
Investment in agricultural extension services works well for smallholder farmers. This is because
responsive extension services provided have enabled farmers to use improved crop and
livestock inputs thus increasing production and productivity.
iii) Private sector involvement in smallholder Agriculture
Involvement of the private sector in general and such banks as CRDB in funding smallholder
farmers is good. In CDC for example, CRDB has funded smallholder farmers through a
cooperative at Chinangali II. The investment has made grape drip irrigation at Chinangali to be
one of the best Public Private Partnership (PPP) practices in ASDP-1.
4.2.6.4. What is not working and why
There has been a number of investments on smallholder farmers that have not worked well in
Chamwino. According to the findings in CDC, among the intervention that has not worked well
is the input subsidy intervention. It was argued in the field that although the Central
government targets smallholder farmers, most often input vouchers are used by large scale and
rich farmers because of inability of intended farmers to contribute to the unsubsidized costs of
the vouchers. In some cases, the targeted smallholder farmers end up selling their inputs
especially fertilizer to those with cash. This makes the aim of investing in smallholder farmers
through inputs subsidy a failure.
4.2.6.5. Existing gaps
23

24. Although there have been a number of interventions aiming at investing in smallholder farmers
in CDC, there are still some gaps that exist. These gaps show what s remaining to be done in
efforts to invest in smallholder farmers. According to respondents, the following are the
existing gaps in Chamwino:
a. Investment in value addition of agricultural products
b. Investments in soft components such as marketing skills, packaging, grading,
labeling and adherence to standards.
c. Investments in linkages of various actors in various nodes of agricultural value
chain including smallholder farmers, inputs suppliers, transporters, processors,
traders and consumers
4.2.6.6. Priority focus of investment
There are a number of priority areas of investments in smallholder farmers in Chamwino. These
areas include investment in irrigation infrastructure. A total of ASDP funds received for this
purpose in the period 2007/208 to 2013/2014 is Tshs 4,193,942,122/=. Out of this, a total of
Tshs 2,566,649,543 (61%) was spent in Construction and upgrading of irrigation schemes.
Reasons for this priority include the following:
a. Availability of underground water suitable for irrigation
b. Presence of Irrigation facilities such as dams that were constructed through
other programmes
c. Technical support from zonal irrigation office
4.2.6.7. The way smallholder farmers receive support
There are various mechanisms through which smallholder farmers receive support. These
include the following:
24

25. i) Support from the government through priority interventions incorporated in the
District Agricultural Development Programmed (DADPs)
ii) Support from the private sector through farmer’s groups/cooperatives such as
SACCOs receiving loans for agricultural production, for example Chinangali SACCOS
received 1.5 billion Tsh for grape farming investment
iii) Extension services are provided through farmer groups mainly using Farmer Field
school extension approach
iv) Inputs are provided through private input dealers operating in their localities in the
municipality. This is done through inputs voucher system involving village, ward and
district voucher committees.
v) Farm implements are provided through government input trust fund where farmers
obtain loans for farm machinery and implement
The kind of support that is provided include financial support, capacity building in forms of
training on agronomy and husbandry and extension services
4.2.6.8. Outcomes of the investment from small holder farmers:
There have been a number of outcomes of the investments that have been made on
smallholder farmers in Chamwino. According to the field findings, notable outcomes include the
following:
i) One important achievement is that projects are owned and managed by farmers
themselves. This is an important aspect for making the projects sustainable. Farmers
through their SACCOS/irrigators organizations meet and plan for their farms without
undue interference from the Council staff and other stake holders.
ii) Chinangali II Grape project has improved farmers’ capacity in grape production due to
involvement in land preparation, nursery management, transplanting of seedlings, pest
and disease control, rotational irrigation management and other vineyard care
practices.
25

26. iii) There is a spillover effect as such interventions as Farmer Field School (FSS) have been
copied by other farmers in and outside the district.
iv) Various interventions have succeeded by impressing youths to remain in the villages.
For example, grape production in Chinangali creates an assurance of about 6 to 15 tons
of the crop per acre per year and guarantees stable income for the period of about 50
years.
4.2.6.9. Amounts that the council has received as crop cess
Partly as a result of investment in smallholder farmers, Chamwino DC has seen various kinds of
returns for the investments. Apart from the direct benefits enjoyed by the smallholder farmers
themselves, the council has enjoyed indirect returns in forms of crop cess collected from
various agricultural produce. The council has a contract with a private company that collects
revenue on behalf of the council through PPP arrangements. The company pays a total of
15,400,000/= per month as crop cess. Therefore, CDC receives a total of Tshs 184,800,000/= as
crop cess per annum.
4.2.7. THE CASE OF KILOSA DISTRICT COUNCIL
Similar to Iringa and Chamwino District Council, Kilosa District Council (KDC) undertakes various
kinds of investments for smallholder framers in the council. In what follows, study findings from
KDC are presented. Similar to IDC and CDC, the case study is mainly informed by responses
from the office of the DALDO.
4.2.7.1. The way the government is investing in small holders farmers
Kilosa district council through extension officers, involves smallholder farmers to propose
agricultural projects which ultimately will improve production. This is done in the context of
participatory approach approaches to development in general and Opportunities and Obstacles
to Development (O&OD) in particular. However, projects in which the council invests in differ
26

27. from one area to another depending on the nature and resources available in that particular
locality.
Having agreed with the proposed agricultural project the district council’s professionals
shoulder the responsibility of writing technical project proposals and send the same to the
central government and other stakeholders asking for financial support to facilitate the
implementation of the proposed projects.
The district council is obliged not only to supervise the initiated projects but also to provide
technical advice to the smallholder farmers so as to run projects effectively. Moreover, it is
mandatory requirement for the district council to prepare reports on the running projects and
send the said reports to the central government at the regional level.
4.2.7.2. The extent to which the government has invested in smallholder farmers
In Kilosa district council, the government has succeeded to construct about 52 channels for
irrigation schemes, to provide 50 small tractors (power tillers) through smallholder farmers
groups, one tractor for Mvumi ward, processing machines for sunflower, rice and maize and
provision of technical support e.g the use of quality declared seeds through “shamba darasa”
4.2.7.3. What is working and why
The investment in irrigation channels is partly working well. However only 12 channels out of 52
channels (23%) are working properly. These are working well because they are improved ones,
as their construction projects had sufficient funds to meet the budget. Therefore, improved
infrastructure with adequate funding are likely to work well compared to unimproved ones
with inadequate funding. The government, both central and local, must therefore set aside
adequate funds for investment in agricultural infrastructure.
4.2.7.4. What is not working and why
27

28. Investments with no adequate funds are not working. In Kilosa for example, about 40 irrigation
channel schemes are traditional ones hence perform below standard. There is a blockage of
channels by sand resulting from the 2014 heavy rainfall. The rationale for the ineffectiveness of
the said channels is insufficient funds to meet the budget for construction project.
4.2.8.5. Existing gaps
There are a number of gaps in investments on smallholder farmers in KDC. For example, all the
52 irrigation channels schemes should have been modern ones. However, only 12 channels are
improved ones and therefore, the remaining 40 channels should be improved to meet the
required standard. There is an urgent need for construction of roads to reach those irrigation
schemes easily.
4.2.8.6. Priority focus of investment in smallholder farmers in KDC
According to respondents, the priority focus of investment in smallholder farmers in KDC is on
rice fields, though other crops like maize and onions perform better in some seasons.
4.2.8.7. The extent to which other stakeholders are investing in smallholder farmers in KDC
Apart from the central and local governments, there are other stakeholders that are investing
in smallholder farmes in KDC. Some of these other stakeholders are outlined in what follows.
i) Investments by WOPATA
WOPATA is an organization which has invested a lot in Kilosa District council specifically in the
construction of business centre (mnada) at Rudewa and Kimaba wards. It has also invested in
provision of education on the modern rice farming and the establishment of “Bank Mazao”
ii) Investment by Tanzania Social Action Fund (TASAF)
28

29. TASAF is another organization which has invested to smallholder farmers in Kilosa. It has
invested in rural roads construction and repair, irrigation schemes and training of farmers.
Normally, TASAF approach is a participatory one. It funds some of the costs in the investments
and beneficiaries (smallholder farmers in this case) contribute their part. The main form of
beneficiaries’ contribution is in-kind contribution including provision of labour and materials
such as stones, sand and others in case of construction investments.
iii) Investment by BRACK
BRACK is a microfinance institution (MFI). It has invested in smallholder farmers by provision of
loans and training. This provision of loans is a critical investment because access to finance is
among the major constraints that smallholder farmers face. Financial institutions tend to shy
away from financing agricultural investments due to such risks as drought as most agricultural
activities are rain-fed.
Other risks that financial institutions escape is the relatively long period it takes for agricultural
investments to pay back due to long gestation period compared to trading activities of buying
and selling goods. Financial institutions also tend to avoid extending loans to the agricultural
sector due to fears of post-harvest losses. If there will be interventions that reduce these risks,
for example investment in irrigation, agricultural insurance as well as reducing post-harvest
losses, financial institutions would most likely be more willing and able to extend credit to
agricultural undertakings especially in the production part.
iv) Investment by MKUHUMI
MKUHUMI is another organization which provides training to the farmers on how to exercise
farming without affecting environment.
v) Investment by Tanzania Horticulture Association (TAHA)
TAHA has invested in training and marketing to the smallholder farmers in Kilosa district.
29

30. vi) Investment by Swiss Contact
Swiss Contact in Tanzania provides training in modern farming to young persons of the age
between 16 years and 20 years.
4.2.8.8. The way smallholder farmers receive support
The government provides subsides to the smallholder farmers. The inputs subsidy is provided
through voucher system to the targeted households. The inputs are supplied by private sector.
Support in form of extension services is provided direct to smallholder farmers in their farms, in
demonstration plots as well as by individual farmers visiting or calling extension officers for
guidance in case of need.
Where disaster arises the government provides both technical and financial supports to the
smallholder farmers. For example, in this 2014 the government is about to curb the destructive
birds namely “Kwerea Kwerea” in Mangole, Kimaba, KIlangali and Maganze divisions. Also in
Tindiga, Mabwerebwere and Msowelo wards.
4.2.8.9. The way farmers receive extension services, inputs and any other support
necessary in their development agendas
The extensions officers provide training to the small group of smallholder farmers representing
their fellow smallholder farmers. Having been trained, the representatives of the smallholder
farmers step into the shoes of extension officers to train their fellow smallholder farmers. This
is a training of trainers (ToT) or cascading approach of provision of extension services. It is a
good approach due to the scarcity of extension officers relative to the demand for them.
Also the agricultural inputs are given to those smallholder farmers who have been identified
and qualified by the district council authorities. However the inputs are subject to cost sharing
between smallholder farmers and government. Some farmers do not afford their part of cost-
sharing and resort to sell their vouchers/parts of inputs to those able to foot the costs. This is
30

31. done even at a through-away price thereby distorting the good intention and logic behind the
subsidy intervention.
4.2.9.0. Outcome of the investment from smallholders farmers
The investment to the smallholder farmers has brought about the increase in production to the
smallholder farmers of Kilosa District. For example in Peapea, Batuwa and Mbuyuni villages in
Rudewa ward, there is improvement in maize production from 4 – 5 bags of maize to 16 – 17 of
maize per acre.
In kilangali division production of rice has increased from 15 – 16 bags of rice to 36 bags of rice
per acre. There is also improvement in livelihood due to the fact that most of the households in
Kilosa district are living in bricks and iron roofed houses. Also there has been increase in assets
owned by smallholder farmers. These include but are not limited to mobile phones, bicycles,
motorcycles and even houses. All these indicators show that investments in smallholder
farmers are generally giving good outcomes.
4.2.9.1. Amount that the local government has received from smallholder farmers as
returns from the investment
Kilosa DC has received substantial amount of revenue from crop cess as shown in the table
below.
Table 2: Kilosa District Council Itemized Revenue Chart For 2010 – 2013
OWN SOURCE 2010-211
REVENUE DESCRIPTION BUDGET (In Tsh)
ACTUAL (In
Tshs)
DIFFERENCE (In
Tshs) %
Local
Taxes
Produce cess
50708 Farm Produce Levy 131,768,224.00 170,260,600.00 (38,492,376.00) 129.21
31

32. 50713 Produce Cess 10,000,000.00 9,700,900.00 299,100.00 97.01
51082
Other Food Produce
Cess 12,240,000.00 167,600.00 12,072,400.00 1.37
51085 Sugarcane Cess 1,350,628,385.00 1,375,636,601.20 (25,008,216.20) 101.85
51086 Onion Cess 30,000,000.00 9,167,000.00 20,833,000.00 30.56
Total 1,534,636,609.00 1,564,932,701.20 (30,296,092.20) 101.97
OWN SOURCE 2011-212
Produce Cess
050708 Farm Produce Levy 496,523,600.00 518,763,832.02 (22,240,232.02) 104.48
050713 Produce Cess 5,000,000.00 4,403,518.69 596,481.31 88.07
051082
Other Food Produce
Cess 165,723,300.00 77,464,000.00 88,259,300.00 46.74
051084 Tobacco Cess 7,150,000.00 9,374,424.41 (2,224,424.41) 131.11
051086 Onion Cess 139,000,000.00 1,659,000.00 137,341,000.00 1.19
051085 Sugarcane Cess 450,000,000.00 1,410,467,115.75 (960,467,115.75) 313.44
Total 1,263,396,900.00 2,022,131,890.87 (758,734,990.87) 160.06
OWN SOURCE 2012-213
110810 Rice Crop cess 333,000,000.00 14,527,900.00 318,472,100.00 4.36
110807 Maize Crop cess 318,584,000.00 18,670,192.4
2
299,913,807.58 5.86
110808 Other export crop
cess
426,853,700.00 918,455,947.11 -491,602,247.11 215.17
110815 Other produce cess 312,954,900.00 186,513,333.11 126,441,566.89 59.60
Total 1,391,392,600.00 1,138,167,372.64 253,225,227.36 81.80
Source: Field data, Kilosa District Council June 2014
As can be seen in the table above, Kilosa District Council receives substantial amount of
revenues from crop cess. In the context of this study, the council has all the reasons to invest
substantially in smallholder farmers because there are substantial revenues from the activities
32

33. undertaken by smallholder farmers. For the council to invest in smallholder farmers is widening
its revenue base.
5. CONCLUSIONS
From the study findings in the three districts, it is evident that there are a number of
investments from various stakeholders that have been made on smallholder farmers. The
investments are by the government (central and local), private sector and civil society
organizations. These investments are in forms of various types of capacity building,
construction of agricultural infrastructure, provision of various kinds of inputs including seeds
and fertilizer.
There have been good results on part of the smallholder farmers as a result of these
investments. Generally, there has been better agricultural practices that have given better
outputs and more incomes resulting into improved livelihoods for smallholder farmers. For the
district councils, there has been an increase in revenues emanating from crop cess. Therefore,
investment in smallholder farmers is a good undertaking in the bid to help smallholder farmers
improve their undertakings thereby increasing possibilities of them escaping poverty.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings, it is recommended that all stakeholders including but not limited to the
central and local government, private sector, civil society organizations and individuals should
keep on investing on smallholder farmers. Such investments should be participatory and
demand-driven not supply-driven so that they address the felt-needs of specific farmers.
33