Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The University of Dodoma
University of Dodoma Institutional Repository http://repository.udom.ac.tz
Social Sciences Master Dissertations
2020
Contribution of vanilla (planifolia)
production to livelihood outcomes
among smallholder farmers in Bukoba
rural district, Tanzania
Muzanila, Irene Gerald
The University of Dodoma
Muzanila, I. G. (2020). Contribution of vanilla (planifolia) production to livelihood outcomes
among smallholder farmers in Bukoba rural district, Tanzania (Master's dissertation).The
University of Dodoma, Dodoma.
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12661/2892
Downloaded from UDOM Institutional Repository at The University of Dodoma, an open access institutional repository.
CONTRIBUTION OF VANILLA (Planifolia)
PRODUCTION TO LIVELIHOOD OUTCOMES AMONG
SMALLHOLDER FARMERS IN BUKOBA RURAL
DISTRICT, TANZANIA
IRENE GERALD MUZANILA
MASTER OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
THE UNIVERSITY OF DODOMA
OCTOBER, 2020
CONTRIBUTION OF VANILLA (Planifolia) PRODUCTION TO
LIVELIHOOD OUTCOMES AMONG SMALLHOLDER
FARMERS IN BUKOBA RURAL DISTRICT, TANZANIA
BY
IRENE GERALD MUZANILA
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
THE UNIVERSITY OF DODOMA
OCTOBER, 2020
i
DECLARATION
AND
COPYRIGHT
I, Irene Gerald Muzanila declare that this dissertation is my own original work and
that it has not been presented and will not be presented to any other University for a
similar or any other degree award.
Signature
No part of this dissertation may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission of the
author or the University of Dodoma. If transformed for publication in any other
format shall be acknowledged that, this work has been submitted for degree award at
the University of Dodoma
ii
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned certifies that she has read and hereby recommends for acceptance
by the University of Dodoma dissertation entitled “Contribution of Vanilla
(planifolia) Production among Smallholder Farmers in Bukoba District,
Tanzania” in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts
in Development Studies of the University of Dodoma.
DR.EMILIANA A. ASSENGA
Signature Date
(Supervisor)
iii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents (Mr and Mrs Gerald Muzanila), my
husband Mr. John Shio and my siblings (Gerinus, Agrein and Jovian) who have been
my greatest support throughout my studies.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank the Almighty God for his blessings
throughout the period of my study. I express my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor
Dr.Emiliana A. Assenga for her personal efforts and advice throughout my study. I
would like to sincerely extend my sincere thanks to my sponsor Kolping Society of
Tanzania (KST) for their financial support granted to me throughout my Master‟s
degree. Special thanks go to the DED of Bukoba Rural District for allowing me to
conduct my research in the District. Also, I extend a word of thanks to Mr. Charles
Jasson Kamando, the general manager of MAYAWA organization in Kagera Region
for his tireless assistance during my research work. My special appreciation goes out
to all respondents who sacrificed their valuable time to extend their cooperation
without whom this research work would have been impossible to achieve. Last but
not least, my special thanks go to my colleagues and friends who helped me in one
way or another at different stages of my study. Their assistance and contributions are
highly acknowledged.
v
ABSTRACT
Vanilla (Planifolia) has the potential of improving smallholder farmer‟s livelihoods.
However, despite its potential, studies on the contribution of vanilla production to
livelihood outcomes among smallholder farmers are inconclusive. The purpose of
this study was to assess the contribution of vanilla production to livelihood outcomes
among vanilla smallholder farmers in Bukoba Rural District. The specific objectives
of this study were first, to determine income earned per year from farming and non-
farming activities among vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers, second, to
determine levels of livelihood outcomes based on assets ownership among
smallholder farmers and thirdly, to compare livelihood outcomes among vanilla and
non-vanilla smallholder farmers. The study was conducted in Bukoba Rural District
and adopted a cross-sectional research design involving 100 respondents where 50
were vanilla smallholder farmers and 50 non-vanilla smallholder farmers
respectively. This was done for comparison purposes. Descriptive statistical analysis
was used to compute income from farming and non-farming activities carried out
among smallholder farmers. The wealth index was used to analyse levels of
livelihood outcomes based on asset ownership. Independent t-test was used to
compare livelihood outcomes between vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers
basing on income and monetary asset value. It was found that vanilla smallholder
farmers earned high income compared to non-vanilla smallholder farmers. Majority
(62%) of the vanilla smallholder farmers were earning between 1,500,001-2,500,000
TZS while (28%) of non-vanilla smallholder farmers were earning the same amount.
The study found that vanilla smallholder farmers had better livelihood outcomes in
terms of higher income, better housing conditions and asset ownership compared to
their counterparts. The Independent t-test revealed that there was significant
difference in livelihood outcomes (P≤ 0.000) between vanilla and non-vanilla
smallholder farmers. The study recommends that smallholder farmers should be
sensitized to engage in vanilla production because it stands a better chance of
improving livelihood outcomes of smallholder farmers unlike other traditional crops
produced in the study area.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT ......................................................................... i
CERTIFICATION ....................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................ iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................ iv
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ vi
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................ xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
1.0 Overview ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background of the Study ........................................................................................ 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................... 3
1.3 Objectives ............................................................................................................... 3
1.3.1 The Main Objective............................................................................................. 3
1.3.2 Specific Objectives.............................................................................................. 4
1.4 Research Questions ................................................................................................ 4
1.5 Research Hypothesis .............................................................................................. 4
1.6 Significance of the Study ....................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER TWO ....................................................................................................... 6
LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 6
2.0 Overview ................................................................................................................ 6
2.1 Operational Definitions of Key Terms and Concepts ............................................ 6
2.1.1 Livelihood ........................................................................................................... 6
2.1.2 Livelihood Outcomes .......................................................................................... 7
2.1.3 Livelihood Strategies .......................................................................................... 7
2.1.4 Sustainable Livelihoods ...................................................................................... 8
2.1.5 The Livelihood Framework ................................................................................ 9
vii
2.1.5.1 Human Capital ............................................................................................... 10
2.1.5.2 Financial Capital ............................................................................................ 10
2.1.5.3 Physical Capital .............................................................................................. 11
2.1.5.4 Social Capital ................................................................................................. 11
2.1.5.5 Natural Capital ............................................................................................... 12
2.1.6 Smallholder Famers .......................................................................................... 13
2.1.7 Non-farm Activities and Household Income .................................................... 14
2.1.8 Farming Activities and Household Income ...................................................... 14
2.2 Vanilla Production ............................................................................................... 15
2.2.1 Vanilla Production in the World ....................................................................... 16
2.2.2 Vanilla Production in Africa ............................................................................. 17
2.2.3 Vanilla Production in Tanzania ......................................................................... 18
2.2.4 Challenges Facing Vanilla Production in Tanzania .......................................... 19
2.2.4.1 Climate Conditions ........................................................................................ 19
2.2.4.2 Poor Crop Quality, Grades and Market Standards ......................................... 20
2.2.4.3 Lack of Value Addition in Vanilla Crop ........................................................ 20
2.2.4.4 Lack of Extension Services ............................................................................ 20
2.2.4.5 Global Vanilla Price Volatility....................................................................... 21
2.2.4.6 Theft of Vanilla Beans ................................................................................... 22
2.2.4.7 Lack of By-law to Protect Vanilla Crop ........................................................ 22
2.3 Vanilla Production and Rural Household Livelihood Outcomes ......................... 22
2.3.1 Source of Employment ...................................................................................... 22
2.3.2 Source of Income .............................................................................................. 23
2.3.3 Source of Food Security .................................................................................... 23
2.4 Theoretical Review .............................................................................................. 24
2.5 Empirical Literature Review ................................................................................ 25
2.6 Knowledge Gap .................................................................................................... 25
2.7 Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................ 25
CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................. 28
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 28
3.0 Overview .............................................................................................................. 28
3.1 Location of the Study Area .................................................................................. 28
viii
3.2 Research Design ................................................................................................... 28
3.2.1 Target Population .............................................................................................. 29
3.3 Sampling Techniques ........................................................................................... 29
3.3.1 Sampling Frame ................................................................................................ 29
3.3.2 Sampling Unit ................................................................................................... 29
3.3.3 Sampling Procedure .......................................................................................... 29
3.3.4 Sample Size ....................................................................................................... 30
3.4 Data Collection Methods and Research Instruments/Tools ................................. 31
3.4.1 Data Collection Methods .................................................................................. 31
3.4.2 Survey Method ................................................................................................. 31
3.4.3 Interview ........................................................................................................... 31
3.4.4 Documentary Review ........................................................................................ 32
3.5 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 32
3.5.1 Qualitative Data Analysis ................................................................................. 32
3.5.2 Quantitative Data Analysis ............................................................................... 32
3.6 Validity of the Study ............................................................................................ 33
3.6.1 Reliability of the Study ..................................................................................... 33
3.7 Ethical Considerations ......................................................................................... 34
3.8 Limitations of the Study ....................................................................................... 34
CHAPTER FOUR .................................................................................................... 35
RESULTS/ FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................... 35
4.0 Overview .............................................................................................................. 35
4.1 Socio Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents ..................................... 35
4.1.1 Age of the Respondents .................................................................................... 35
4.1.2 Sex of the Respondents ..................................................................................... 37
4.1.3 Education Level of the Respondents ................................................................. 37
4.1.4 Marital Status of the Respondents .................................................................... 38
4.1.5 Main Occupation of the Respondents ............................................................... 38
4.1.6 Household size .................................................................................................. 39
4.2 Farming Activities between Vanilla and Non-vanilla SHFs ................................ 39
4.2.1 Crops Produced by Vanilla and Non-vanilla SHFs........................................... 39
4.2.2 Experience in Years of Crop Production .......................................................... 40
ix
4.2.3 Main Source of Finance for Crop Production ................................................... 41
4.2.4 Total Farm Size under Cultivation .................................................................... 41
4.2.5 Vanilla Production ............................................................................................ 42
4.2.5.1 Total farm size under vanilla cultivation ....................................................... 42
4.2.5.2 Annual vanilla yields from vanilla smallholder farmers ................................ 43
4.2.5.3 Annual Income Earned from Vanilla Production........................................... 44
4.2.5.4 Challenges facing Vanilla Smallholder Farmers............................................ 44
4.2.5.5 Non-farming Activities .................................................................................. 47
4.3 Income Earned per year from Non-farming Activities by Vanilla and Non-
vanilla SHFs ........................................................................................................ 48
4.4 Income earned per year from farming and non-farming activities between vanilla
and non-vanilla SHFs .......................................................................................... 49
4.5 Levels of Livelihood Outcomes Based on Asset Ownership between Vanilla and
Non-vanilla Smallholder farmers ........................................................................ 50
4.6 Housing Conditions .............................................................................................. 51
4.7 Asset Ownership between Vanilla and Non-vanilla Smallholder Farmers .......... 53
4.8 Comparison of Livelihood Outcomes between Vanilla and Non-vanilla
Smallholder Farmers ........................................................................................... 55
4.8.1Monetary Asset Value and Income Comparison between Vanilla and Non-
vanilla SHFs ........................................................................................................ 55
CHAPTER FIVE ...................................................................................................... 56
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 56
5.0 Overview .............................................................................................................. 56
5.1 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 56
5.3 Suggestions for Further Studies ........................................................................... 57
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 58
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 75
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: The Total Number of the Selected Households ......................................... 30
Table 2: Socio Economic and Demographic Characteristics................................... 36
Table 3: Crops Produced and Experience in Years of Crop Production ................. 40
Table 4: Main Source of Finance for Production and Total Farm size under
Production .................................................................................................. 42
Table 5: Farm size Under Vanilla, Amount of Vanilla Produce (kg), Income
Earned per Year and Challenges Facing Vanilla Smallholder
Farmers ...................................................................................................... 46
Table 6: Distribution of Non-farming Activities among Vanilla and Non-
vanilla Smallholder Farmers in Percentage ............................................... 48
Table 7: Distribution of Income Earned per year from Non-farming Activities
between Vanilla and Non-vanilla Smallholder Farmers............................ 49
Table8: Distribution of Income earned per year from Farming and Non-
Farming activities between Vanilla and Non-Vanilla Smallholder
Farmers in Percentage ............................................................................... 50
Table 9: Wealth Index on Assets owned by Vanilla and Non-vanilla
Smallholder Farmers in Percentage ........................................................... 51
Table 10: Distribution of House Conditions among Vanilla and Non-vanilla
Smallholder Farmers in Percentage ........................................................... 53
Table 11: Distribution of Asset Ownership between Vanilla and Non-Vanilla
Smallholder Farmers in Percentage ........................................................... 54
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework Showing the Contribution of Vanilla
Production to Livelihood Outcomes among Smallholder Farmers in
Bukoba Rural District, Kagera Region, Tanzania ................................... 27
xii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix I: Questionnaire on the Contribution of Vanilla Production to
Livelihood Outcomes among Smallholder Farmers in Bukoba
Rural District, Tanzania...................................................................... 75
Appendix II: Interview Guide for key informants ................................................... 83
Appendix III: Documentary review checklist ........................................................... 85
Appendix IV: Independent sample t-test for household monetary asset values
among vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers (n=100) ............ 86
Appendix V: Independent sample t-test for household income among vanilla
and non-vanilla smallholder farmers (n=100) .................................... 87
Appendix VI: Introduction Letter from the University of Dodoma .......................... 88
Appendix VII: Permission Letter from Bukoba District Council ............................... 89
xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
DAO District Agricultural Officer
DFID Department for International Development
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GDP Gross Domestic Product
ILO International Labour Organization
Kg Kilogramme
MAYAWA Maendeleo ya Wakulima
NBS National Bureau of Statistics
NFAs Non-farm Agricultural Activities
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SHFs Smallholder Framers
TZS Tanzanian Shillings
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
URT United Republic of Tanzania
URT United Republic of Tanzania
US United States
WCED World Commission on Environment and Development
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Overview
This is a study on the contribution of vanilla production to livelihood outcomes
among smallholder farmers in Bukoba Rural District. Vanilla (planifolia) like other
spices grown in Tanzania has a very great potential in improving livelihoods of
smallholder farmers. However, studies of vanilla production are inconclusive.
Therefore, the purpose of the study was to assess the contribution of vanilla
production to livelihood outcomes among smallholder farmers in the study area.
1.1 Background of the Study
Vanilla (Planifolia) production plays a potential role in livelihood improvement
(Bennett & Franzel, 2009) as reflected in income, food security, wellbeing and
health. However, the contribution of vanilla production to livelihood outcomes of
smallholder farmers is less known. Livelihood outcomes from vanilla production are
derived from sale of cured vanilla beans, extracts, pastes, powders, and seedlings
(Kalyanaraman et al., 2012). Vanilla is one of the most expensive spice traded
internationally and consumers have increased their demand for its products.
In the United States (US), more than 95% of the vanilla consumed is processed into
extracts sold to manufacturers for flavouring (Kalyanaraman et al., 2012). The US is
the main vanilla importer, comprising of 40% of the total world‟s vanilla production
annually. In Germany, vanilla is mainly used as a flavour in foods, drinks and
perfumes as well as in industry for example in tire and paint manufacturing.
Germany re-exports 84% of its imported vanilla bean stock to other European
nations which are: France, Switzerland as well as Denmark (Kalyanaraman et al.,
2012). In addition, the average importing price per kg of vanilla has been fairly
steady from 2007 to 2010, equalling US$26 in 2007, 2008, and 2010. In 2011,
Germany became the third country in terms of vanilla importation having 13% of the
world‟s total vanilla imports.
In Africa, Madagascar is the main exporter of vanilla comprising of 50% to 80% of
the world‟s vanilla produce over the last 10 years (Doe, 2013). Madagascar vanilla is
considered the world‟s gold standard for quality. The country has a globally high
2
status and market demand for its high valuable vanilla. The country produces reliably
65–85 per cent of total world vanilla stock. In Madagascar, vanilla is a high-value
crop and its production is carried out on as little as 0.5 hectare piece of land size,
with average annual net income of $1,500–5,800 for green vanilla, and $3,000–
9,990 for dried vanilla per hectare over a six-year period (Doe, 2013). Income
produced from vanilla helps Malagasy farmers safeguard income as well as food
security during food scarcity months from January to May when staple crops are not
produced thus quickening their livelihood transformation from staple to crops of
high-value (Doe, 2013).
In East Africa, the production of vanilla is mostly carried out in the Lake Victoria
basin and around Mountain Rwenzori (Busungu, 2009). Uganda is the major vanilla
producer in East Africa followed by Tanzania and Kenya (Fehr, 2010). Agriculture is
vital to the Tanzanian economy, accounting for 25.8% of GDP and 80% of
employment besides providing raw materials to industries and market for the
industrial products (Joseph, 2018). The agricultural sector is dominated by
smallholder farmers who produce cash crops like coffee, tea and vanilla to mention a
few in order to sustain their livelihood (Mwatawala et al., 2016). Vanilla like any
other cash crop has the potential to contribute to livelihood outcomes of smallholder
farmers in some regions and districts. The regions like Arusha, Kilimanjaro and
Morogoro comprise of 1,500 smallholder farmers who have benefitted from
increased access to regional and international premium vanilla markets. In 2012,
smallholder farmers received subsidies for vanilla vine cuttings as well as training in
good agricultural practices to boost their production capacity as part of a supply
chain programme (Farm Radio International, 2018).
In Kilimanjaro region, in 2017 at least 1,600 farmers embraced cultivation of vanilla
and that 1,600 more were expected to rope in soon. Currently, the vanilla crop
fetches TZS 60,000 per kilogramme in the region compared to TZS 3,500 to TZS
4,000 earned for a kilogramme of coffee which takes three years to mature (Joseph,
2018). The large price differences offered per kilogramme between vanilla and
coffee has resulted to farmers abandoning the production of coffee and shifted to
vanilla production in some districts for example in Bukoba Rural District.
3
In Bukoba Rural District, engagement in vanilla production has enabled smallholder
farmers build new modern houses, buy house assets, buy food for families, send
children to school and invest in other economic activities such as livestock keeping
as well as non-farm activities to contribute towards income generation (Farm Radio
International, 2018).While smallholder farmers in Bukoba Rural District have been
producing vanilla after abandoning the coffee production, little is known about the
contribution of vanilla production to livelihood outcomes of these farmers.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
In Kagera Region, particularly Bukoba Rural District, about 3,500 smallholder
farmers engage in vanilla production with a view to improving their livelihood. The
introduction of vanilla in the district stood as the alternative cash crop to the
traditional coffee which has been cultivated by farmers for many decades.
According to Busungu (2009) and Katega et al. (2014) coffee has been replaced by
vanilla in the district since smallholder farmers have diversified cash crops with an
intention of raising income in order to meet food demand at the household level. This
diversification includes growing other cash crops such as vanilla and tomatoes.
Katega et al. (2014) found that out of 82 sampled households, (42.7%) grew vanilla
while 8.5% grew tomatoes.
Vanilla smallholder farmers groups have increased from 202 in 2014 to 274 in 2017
(Joseph, 2018). A well-protected vanilla tree produces between 5-12 kilogrammes of
green beans per season. The proper management of at least 20 vanilla trees enables a
smallholder farmer earn up to 35 million TZS a year. Despite the fact that
smallholder farmers have been shifting from coffee production to vanilla production,
little is known on the contribution of vanilla production to livelihood outcomes of the
smallholder farmers in Bukoba District.
1.3 Objectives
1.3.1 The Main Objective
The main objective of this study was to assess the contribution of vanilla (Planifolia)
production to livelihood outcomes among smallholder farmers in Bukoba Rural
District, Tanzania.
4
1.3.2 Specific Objectives
i. To determine income earned per year from farming and non-farming
activities among smallholder farmers in Bukoba Rural District.
ii. To determine levels of livelihood outcomes based on assets ownership among
smallholder farmers in Bukoba Rural District.
iii. To compare livelihood outcomes between vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder
farmers.
1.4 Research Questions
i. What is the average income earned per year from farming activities and non-
farming activities among smallholder farmers in Bukoba Rural District?
ii. What are the levels of livelihood outcomes among smallholder farmers based
on asset ownership among smallholder farmers in the study area?
iii. What is the comparison of livelihood outcomes between vanilla and non-
vanilla smallholder farmers?
1.5 Research Hypothesis
The study was guided by two hypotheses:-
i. Ho: There is no significant difference in livelihood outcomes between vanilla
and non-vanilla smallholder farmers.
ii. Ha: There is a significant difference in livelihood outcomes between vanilla
and non-vanilla smallholder farmers.
1.6 Significance of the Study
Studies have been conducted on vanilla. For example, Busungu (2009) researched on
genetic diversity of vanilla using molecular techniques. Garu (2017) researched on
organic spices farming in West District Zanzibar and its contribution to livelihood
outcome of smallholder farmers whereby vanilla was among the studied spices.
Other spices were cloves, cinnamon and black pepper. Studies on vanilla are
inconclusive. However, little has been explored on the contribution of vanilla on
livelihood outcomes of smallholder farmers. Therefore, this study intends to assess
the contribution of vanilla production to livelihood outcome of smallholder farmers
in Bukoba District, Tanzania.
5
The study is in line with Sustainable Millennium Development Goals (SDGs) goal
number one which states that priority actions on poverty eradication include
improving access to sustainable livelihoods.
The study intends to give valuable information to vanilla‟s smallholder farmers,
policy makers and development practitioners involved and interested in the vanilla
production and general agricultural sector.
6
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Overview
Literature review is defined by Amin (2005) as an organized document analysis
which involves information that is related to the research problem. This chapter
presents reviewed literature in order to provide supplement information on the
contribution of vanilla production to livelihood outcomes of smallholder farmers.
This chapter is divided into several sections. The first section begins with overview,
followed by definition of key terms and concepts, the third section includes the
theory used in relation to this study, the fourth section provides review of empirical
studies, the fourth section provides the conceptual framework and the fifth section
gives research questions.
2.1 Operational Definitions of Key Terms and Concepts
2.1.1 Livelihood
Levine (2014) points out that overall, little attention has been given to recognize
livelihoods of people. Attention behind the term livelihoods comes to reality when
governments, the civil society and external organizations try to give assistance to
people whose means of earning a living are endangered, damaged or ruined
(International Recovery Platform, 2010). Various authors have defined livelihood
using different definitions.
Scoones (1998) defines a livelihood as the actions and means carried out by an
individual to help in to securing needs of life. Livelihood comprises of five capital
resources: social capital, natural capital, human capital, physical capital and financial
capital. It is through access to these resources that merge to define the living gained
by a household (Ellis, 2000).World Commission on Environment and Development
[WCED], (1987) defined livelihood as ample stocks and flows of food and cash to
meet basic requirements. According to Chambers and Conway (1992) a „livelihood
comprises of capabilities and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is
suitable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks maintain or
enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base”.
7
However, when it comes to an individual or a household, a livelihood encompasses
the capability of that individual to attain basic life necessities. These are shelter,
water, clothing and food. Therefore, a livelihood is denoted as activities involved by
an individual or a household to attain a living which are very important for the
survival of a household. According to Kapinga (2015) livelihoods are a very vital
part of the existence of human, such that there is need for livelihoods that support
and sustain the household to enhance the survival of a population. According to
Mphande (2016) rural livelihoods mostly involve engagement of a household in
agriculture with the population diversifying into non-farming activities so as to attain
a livelihood that is sustainable in order to improve household income.
2.1.2 Livelihood Outcomes
Different authors have come up with different meanings referring to the term
livelihood outcomes which range from objectives, strategies and activities. Zakaria
(2009) defines livelihood outcomes as objectives carried out by an individual in
attaining livelihood strategies and these include income, improved well-being,
reduced vulnerability as well as sustainability of natural resource use. According to
this study, livelihood outcomes refer to: increase in income, assets ownership and
improved housing conditions. According to Paulo (2007) the above mentioned
livelihood outcomes are a direct indicator followed by an individual in attaining
production activities. Livelihoods are attainments that an individual or a household
achieves from engaging in different activities that enable individuals‟ access to
various assets. Therefore, it is through these assets that provides a household with
livelihood outcomes. In addition, Department for International Development [DFID]
(2000) points out those different livelihoods are achieved from different assets
because different individuals are endowed differently with relation to asset
acquisition. According to Levine (2014) livelihood outcomes are concerned with the
way people‟s economic and non-economic goals are interrelated. Thus, livelihood
outcomes are used as an indicator of measuring a household‟s wellbeing.
2.1.3 Livelihood Strategies
The view concerning livelihood strategies has become vibrant in development. The
livelihood strategies are activities carried out by an individual so as to accomplish
livelihood goals (Ellis, 2000). The strategies undertaken by an individual involve
8
investment, production as well as productive choices. In rural livelihoods, livelihood
strategies carried out include farming and non-farming activities. This means that
livelihood strategies among rural livelihoods are dynamic depending on the
environmental background at present. In the presence of the livelihoods assets which
include land, finance and household labour among others, rural households are able
to earn a living from diverse allocation of these assets. A household may get income
from farming activities and in cases of income surplus, it may refer to engagement in
non-farm activity for extra income generation for the family to meet their necessities.
On the other side, Brown et al. (2006) pointed out that, diversification of a household
can be caused by diminishing returns in certain activities or lack of markets that
constrains delivery of goods and services of a household needs for own consumption.
This means that households choose to involve in other livelihood generating
activities in order to achieve the best livelihood standards and wellbeing of their
families. Ellis (1998) further asserts that, a livelihood strategy not only encompasses
income generating activities but many other choices like cultural and social choices
that merge to form the primary occupation of a household.
2.1.4 Sustainable Livelihoods
According to Krantz (2001) the notion behind sustainable livelihoods was first
presented by the Brundtland Commission on Environment and Development as a
means of associating socioeconomic and ecological considerations in an organized,
policy-relevant structure. Khosla (1999) defined sustainable livelihoods as
remunerative, satisfying and meaningful job which allows every member of the
community to nurture and rejuvenate the resource base for the future and for the
benefit of all. Furthermore, livelihoods are considered as sustainable if they manage
to cope and recover against shocks and trends without depressing the present and
future natural resource base (Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], 2009). From
this perspective, livelihoods are said to be sustainable when resources used by
individuals or a community are properly utilized for present needs and the future
generation needs. These resources include water, land and trees to mention a few.
Activities carried out by individuals through utilizing these resources must be
sustained for the future. Livelihood activities can be considered as ecologically
unsustainable if they have an adverse effect on the claims and access desired by
9
others (Krantz, 2001). At the local level, that is rural level, activities that may
contribute to environmental unsustainability may involve deforestation, bush burning
and other poor agricultural practices that may be a burden to the users in the future.
On the other hand, livelihoods are sustainable when they cope with shocks and trends
that affect the survival of human individuals and households at large. There are many
reasons that may make a household vulnerable to shocks, stresses and trends. These
may involve changes in seasonality of crop production, rise in population of a
household or community, decline in resources used, floods and other natural
epidemics. According to Krantz (2001) livelihood stresses may form as a result of
declining labour work available, drop in wages, decline in yields, acidity or erosion,
decline in mutual property resources as well as decline in farm size. Therefore, in
order for livelihoods to be sustainable, they must be able to resist from the above
mentioned stresses and shocks or ones that can bounce back from these shocks.
Krantz (2001) points out two dimensions that can help reduce shocks and
vulnerability and these are through public action and private action. Public action
involves activities such as reduction of external stress and shocks through flood
prevention and off-season public work to provide employment. Private action
involves involvement of a household to add a portfolio of assets so as to effectively
respond with minimum loss (Kratz, 2001).
2.1.5 The Livelihood Framework
The Livelihood Framework is concerned with how individuals and households earn a
living whether in rural or urban areas specifically on the productive aspects of
livelihood (FAO & ILO, 2009). The livelihood framework looks into knowing the
way households achieve their livelihood through revealing the most important assets
which are used to develop livelihood strategies. These assets serve as a basis of
power to perform and finally bring changes to the society (DFID, 2002). The
livelihood framework includes five assets which are: natural capital, physical capital,
human capital, financial capital and social capital. These livelihood assets are
explained \broadly here under.
10
2.1.5.1 Human Capital
Human capital involves skills, knowledge (labour capacity), good health and ability
to work, and pursue livelihood strategies and achieve livelihood objectives (DFID,
1999). It involves creativity, capabilities and the uniqueness of a person to perform in
order to produce social and economic value. According to Duncombe (2006) human
capital represents labour that the rural people possess which allows them to pursue
their livelihood strategies which results to attainment of livelihood outcomes. The
skills that an individual possesses, allows them to make favourable decisions in
adaptation of these strategies. This is because the centre of production, distribution
and consumption is occupied by human beings. When the members of a household
are well endowed with knowledge and skills, they can help to increase the
livelihoods of farmers because they have the ability to choose and minimize any
vulnerability with relation to household wellbeing.
Human health is yet another component under human capital. Good health among
members of the household is a very important component in providing labour to the
household. Physical and emotional wellbeing is vital for performance of any activity
in a household or in a community at large. However, when a household is made up of
individuals who cannot perform (provide their labour) due to ill-health, it decreases
the ability of a household to perform and generate income. According to Narayan
(2000) health impairment leads to severe drain on the household‟s resources which in
turn affect the economic stability of the household.
2.1.5.2 Financial Capital
Financial capitals are assets concerned with financial sources to help an individual or
a household earn their necessities. Financial capital assets include: loans and
investment, available cash, bank deposits, livestock and savings (Cahn, 2006:
Mbwambo, 2015). In addition to the financial capital, Duncombe (2006) also
includes gifts, microcredit and other transfers of monetary value that occur within the
household‟s social circles. Financial capital is viewed as the most useful economic
aspect because it can be transferred and substituted in achieving a livelihood
(Mbwambo, 2015). An individual‟s ability to access financial sources provides them
with the ability to engage themselves in livelihood activities. The form of financial
capital within a household may include the household‟s own savings which do not
11
entail reliance on others as well as credit providing institutions. The two forms of
capital are vital for a household whereby, in case of absence of own savings, a
household can resort to acquisition of credit to engage in performing livelihood
activities. Credit can be provided individually or through social groups in a
community.
2.1.5.3 Physical Capital
Mbwambo (2015) defines physical assets as basic infrastructure and production
equipment and means enabling the pursuit of various livelihood strategies. In order
for a household to accomplish livelihood strategies, it requires physical tools such as
agricultural technology like fertilizers and pesticides. Assets can be owned privately
which may include own houses, cars, machines and other household items like
television, mobile phones, agricultural equipment among others. Other physical
capital can also be state owned for public use. These involve hospitals, roads and
telecommunication. The availability of these essential physical assets like roads and
technology in the production areas especially in rural areas provides households with
access to services that help improve their livelihoods. People are able to engage in
productivity if services like extension services are available. This is because; these
services help them be informed and keep with the right track concerning production
issues. Information about best seed varieties, fertilizers, good harvesting practices
and market information motivates household to engage in crop productivity since
that is their main source of attaining their livelihoods. According to DFID (1999)
poor infrastructure in the community can hinder access to education, health services
and household income generation. For example, poor roads and communication in
the community can hinder access to deliver services by the government or hinder
access distribution of essential needs like fertilizers and other agriculture inputs to
the community which may lead to affecting the rate of productivity and hence
hindering the wellbeing and livelihoods of the households.
2.1.5.4 Social Capital
Social capital has become one of the popular terms that is used to solve problems
relating to development to some extent (Stirrat, 2014). It is a means of understanding
the lives of the poor people and transforming them as one single joint. Putnam and
Nanetti (1993) define social capital as features of social organization such as trust,
12
norms and networks that can improve the efficiency of the society. They involve
networks, membership of groups, relationship of trust and access to wider institutions
(Mbwambo, 2015). Stirrat (2014) adds that social relationships which are formal and
informal assist in sharing experiences as well as knowledge among individuals of a
community. Social relationships among members of the community provide mutual
understanding and easy access and flow of communication and information from
different angles of the area compared to information passed to an individual. This is
because; through communal information, individuals are able to air out their opinions
and views collectively to come up with one major objective/ alternative that can be
useful or beneficial to the community wellbeing as a whole. According to Ngaga et
al. (2005) a wider level of networks among individuals provides households to make
national and international networks that help in gathering information concerning
training, research and markets opportunities for their produce. On the same regard,
Kapinga (2015) adds that social capital produces a direct effect upon other types of
capital assets over economic relations improvement. According to Kapinga (2015)
social capital can help in increasing people‟s incomes and rates of saving. Social
capital can help to reduce the burdens related to shared community resources.
In the case of Tanzania, networks provided by the government in form of extension
services to the smallholder farmers help open the farmers‟ knowledge on awareness
of current issues in the agricultural context. In addition, social capital helps to
improve an individual‟s ability to acquisition of income and credit through saving
(Kapinga, 2015). The partnership that is developed among members of the
community allows them to get access to important information on community
wellbeing and improvement of their livelihoods.
2.1.5.5 Natural Capital
Natural capital means the natural assets within the environment such as land, water,
forests, air quality and biodiversity which have economic value. It is from these
assets where the household sustains their life through human activity. Natural capital
includes natural assets that households involve themselves in collection of resources
for sustenance and generation of income where rural households combine a number
of livelihood activities such as agricultural crop production and collection of forest
product to meet subsistence needs (Raphael et al., 2014). Slater and Twyman (2003)
13
pointed out that poor people use a broad range of natural capital in order to
contribute to their livelihoods both as direct source and for fungibility.
Natural capital can contribute to livelihoods of a household in form of production,
consumption, and trading through selling products like flowers and vegetables and
can create employment opportunities in form of labouring for production (Slater and
Twyman, 2003). For rural communities, natural capital in form of land is the most
used in provision of livelihoods as they depend on farm productivity for their
livelihoods. Land that has not been deteriorated avails the household with the ability
to improve crop productivity from one generation to another.
Natural capital can as well act as immediate coping strategy in times of shocks or
shortages at a household. For example, in times of food shortages, a household may
decide itself to selling a piece of land to buy food for the family for their survival.
Also, in terms of income shortages, natural capital can help facilitate generation of
environmental income (Salehi et al., 2010) which may be monetary and non-
monetary. Therefore, according to DFID (2001) natural assets are very vital to those
who derive their livelihoods from the natural resource-based activities.
2.1.6 Smallholder Famers
Smallholder farmers are those who produce for their own subsistence, but most deal
with markets, buying in inputs and selling produce though in small amounts whereas
some hire in labour, rent and buy land, and obtain formal finance from markets
(Wiggins and Keats 2014). In Tanzania, smallholder farmers use hand hoes and farm
areas ranging from 1 to 5 acres of land (Kalimang‟asi et al., 2014).
Smallholder farmers contribute largely to the agricultural sector whereby most of
them produce food crops which are used as raw materials in local industries but also
mainly for home consumption (Tanzania Invest, 2019). Apart from crop production,
smallholder farmers keep livestock to supplement their livelihoods where some of
which are kept to provide manure for the crops cultivated and some use the yields of
their livestock for home consumption for the well-being of their families.
14
2.1.7 Non-farm Activities and Household Income
These are activities a household engages in apart from agriculture. Non-farm
activities among smallholder farmers contribute to a large extent to the increase in
income of the household. Majority of smallholder dwellers depend on farming
activities as their central source of income. However, problems of income
inconsistency make households search for alternative means to generate income. In
addition, crops that are mainly produced are for home consumption and little is left
for sale. The low ability of farm activities characterized by seasonality to deliver a
sustainable livelihood for people in rural areas of Tanzania has resulted in the growth
of non-farm activities (URT, 2004). Non-farm activities have turned to be very vital
element of livelihood strategies among rural households. (Nasrin & Wahid 2015)
.The importance of non-farm activities to rural households is both in economic and
social forms. Income earned through non-farm activities can be used in the expansion
of agricultural fields through buying farming tools and inputs. Msinde et al. (2018)
pointed out that off-farm employment and income fall within a wide range of income
generating activities. According to Reuben and Van den berg (2001) income
generating activities can be categorized in three groups which are: (i) Farm wage
labour which consists of income generated from casual labour on other people‟s
farms. (ii) Non-farm wage employment which consists of employment activities
include salaried work and (iii) Non-farm self-employment which entails activities
from self-employment such as: tailoring, petty trade, brick making, transport and
service sector, masonry, charcoal burning and other trading activities. Due to low
income levels, households search for alternative sources of income generation. On-
farm activities have a significant potential to rural poverty reduction (Birthal et
al.2014) thus leading to income growth and increasing farmers‟ capability to invest
productively. Therefore, this shows how rural non-farming activities are of great
importance to the economies of rural households through alleviation of poverty
(Davis, 2003).
2.1.8 Farming Activities and Household Income
Most Sub Saharan African countries have an economy that is dependent on
agriculture. Agriculture is very important for contributing to the national as well as
household wellbeing. According to URT (2004) agriculture is the pillar of the
15
country‟s economy and the principle sector in Tanzania and will occupy that position
for the rest of the coming decades. Indeed, this has been witnessed from one
generation to another. It is approximated that the agricultural sector contributes to
50% to the nation‟s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) where food crops contribute to
about 35% and about 95-97% of the food in the country is locally produced (URT,
2004). Most of the population in rural areas are engaged in some form of farming
activity to support their families with income and food so as to meet the needs and
necessities of a household. Additionally, livelihood outcomes of a household are
derived from agricultural activities. More than three-thirds of the labour force in
Tanzania is involved in farming which is a livelihood basis to about 80 per cent of
the country‟s‟ total population (Sarris et al., 2006). According to Ndambiri et al.,
(2012) livelihood outcomes from rural areas originate from farm households‟
economic ways of life which lead to the households‟ increased ability to more land to
be used in cultivation. Farm activities in rural areas include growing of crops such as
food and cash crops which are sold in order to generate income for the household. In
rural areas of Tanzania, food crops grown include maize, coffee, cassava, millet to
mention a few. On the other hand, cash crops grown include coffee, tea, cloves,
vanilla and other spices. Income from the farming activities can be achieved through
increase in the real prices producers receive for their products (increase in domestic
and international prices), increase in physical and human capital of farmers and
increased productivity and efficiency of resource use by individual farmers (Sarris et
al., 2006).
2.2 Vanilla Production
According to Exley (2010) Vanilla (Planifolia) originated from Mexico and Central
America and naturally grows in the tropical and subtropical. It is a tropical climbing
vine of the orchid family with a very pleasant flavour which grows with the support
of tree shades. It is a main natural flavour widely used in many industries such as
food, beverages, soda, pharmaceutics, cosmetics tobacco and traditional crafts (De
La Cruz, 2009). Usually, a vanilla plant begins its first yields after 3 years from
planting and carries on yielding up to 12 to 14 years (Jagdish, 2016). Vanilla requires
a temperature range of 21 to 32° C with an evenly distributed annual precipitation of
1,500 mm or more and 80% relatively humidity and altitudes of 0 to 600 m above sea
16
level (De La Cruz, 2009). Vanilla production is labour intensive which starts from its
cultivation, harvesting as well as curing of the beans and therefore, not suitable for
large-scale plantations (Cadot et al., 2008) and that is why most of the vanilla
production is done within small-scale farms.
There are more than 40 species of vanilla available. According to Poinderxter (2019)
different varieties of vanilla have different flavours that pair better with different
dishes or are favourable for a specific use. Below are some of the common vanilla
species based on their origins and characteristics:
Madagacar – Madagascar Bourbon vanilla bean is a tropical flavouring
vanilla with a sweet characteristic favourably used for baking and
manufacturing other favourite comfort foods
Mexican – Mexican vanilla bean has a smooth and classic vanilla flavour
with an added kick of spice excellent choice for chocolate dishes, cinnamon-
based dishes and barbecue sauces.
Indonesian – Indonsian vanilla flavour has a milder earthy flavour with an
added touch of smoke normally used for baking or pairing with chocolate.
Tahitian – This has a fruity flavour with a hint of cherry flavour undertone
used for ice cream, fruity dishes and beverages.
Indian – Indian vanilla is known for having a bolder flavour and mostly
preferred for being paired with chocolate.
Tonga – Tonga vanilla has less spice but more of a woody flavour to it. It is
great when paired with dishes which highlight raisings and figs.
2.2.1 Vanilla Production in the World
Until the 19th
Century, Mexico was the leading producer of vanilla worldwide mainly
because of its strict pollination process (Burton, 2018). Vanilla flowers (orchids) in
Mexico are pollinated by the indigenous Melipone bees found only in Mexico and
this method limited reliable commercial operations leading to other parts of the
world resorting to manual pollination method (Exley, 2010). The principal source of
vanilla planifolia today is Madagascar, The Comoros, Indonesia and Mayotte Islands
with Madagascar contributing to about 66% of world export (Burton, 2018). The
vanilla crop in Madagascar is estimated to be in the range of 1600 MT to 1800 MT in
17
2019. Indonesia was once the second largest producer with less than 200 MT in
production. Famously known for exporting cuts and lower grade vanilla, but its
beans have been smuggled to Papua Guinea for export in the recent years (Gourmet,
2019).
According to Gourmet (2019) India was known for quality vanilla with new
plantation every year and flavour companies encouraging and participating in the
growth. By 2004-2005, 200 MT were exported and it was 300MT by 2008-09. Due
to price fluctuation, vanilla farmers became less interested in the crop and hence less
production. However, interest has revived in the recent years and new vines are
being planted with production forecast to be 50MT in 2019.
It is approximated that only 2,000 tonnes of vanilla beans are able to be produced
worldwide yet the demand is in excess of 15,000 tonnes. The rest of the vanilla
demand that is not able to be produced by farmers is met by synthetic vanillin from
ligning and guaiacol that is chemically produced (Rana et al., 2013). Thus, vanilla
being among the most expensive cash crops in the world after saffron, farmers have
been encouraged to increase production of this crop so as to help diversify their
incomes. Vanilla expensiveness is brought about by its intensive cultivation methods
which also contributes to being volatile in the world market (Burton, 2008). The
vanilla labour intensiveness in production favours countries with lowest labour costs
because of the long-term labour cost advantage.
2.2.2 Vanilla Production in Africa
Since 2016 to the present, Madagascar has become the leading world‟s vanilla
producing country with an output of 2,926 tonnes across Asia and Africa. In
Madagascar, most of the vanilla is grown on trees in natural woodlands (Exley,
2010). According to Busungu (2009) vanilla flavour is acquired from cured, dried,
full size but not fully ripe fruits (beans).
Uganda is the second highest vanilla producing country in Africa after Madagascar
and the world‟s fourth-biggest vanilla exporter (Ojambo & Hill, 2018). In Uganda,
Mukono District is the leading vanilla producer where most vanilla beans produced
are exported and also used locally in preparation of beverages. Uganda beans were of
18
very good quality in the last decade, but rising vanilla prices led to accelerated curing
of immature beans, which has adversely affected the quality of Uganda beans over
the last few years. Production is forecast at 50-70 MT (SGourmet, 2019).
Vanilla is produced along the shores of Lake Victoria among smallholder farmers.
Komarek (2010) identifies three reasons that have made vanilla a potential crop to
improve farmers‟ welfare. The first is that, unlike other exporting nations, Uganda
is characterized by two dry seasons and thus the benefits of two annual vanilla
produce are realised. He also adds that the presence of labour-abundant households
favour pollination of vanilla flowers since they require manual pollination. Vanilla is
a favourable crop due to the fact that it does not require severe capital to establish
(Komarek, 2010).
In September 2016, the Comoro government set up the National Office of Vanilla in
the capital Moroni for the economic promotion of the vanilla industry from
production, processing and marketing (United Nations Development Programmes
[UNDP], 2017). This also included skills building for producers and improved
conditions for workers and with the introduction of the first cooperative in the islands
that focused on vanilla, more people are now involved in the crop and vanilla
production has now become key to the economy. Approximately, 70 per cent of the
Comoros‟ working population in rural areas is actively engaged in the production of
vanilla (James, 2018).
2.2.3 Vanilla Production in Tanzania
Vanilla is one of the spices produced in Tanzania. The main producers of vanilla in
Tanzania are Kagera and Kilimanjaro regions while, the least producer of vanilla is
Morogoro region (International Trade Centre, 2014). From 2002 to 2004, good
vanilla prices globally stimulated more investment in vanilla production and
established Vanilla as an additional cash crop to coffee which stood out as the only
cash crop in the regions (Busungu, 2009). Vanilla is produced under conventional
plantations and intercropped with other crops like bananas and coffee which provide
shade to the vanilla plant. In addition, International Trade Centre (2014) further
reported that vanilla is one of the spices belonging to two families which are non-
self-supporting and perennial in nature. For the case of vanilla being a non-self -
19
supporting crop, it requires support of trees like jatropha and banana trees which are
essential for provision of shade. The support and shade provided is very vital because
it offers shelter from excess sun and strong winds (Abebe et al., 2016).
In Kagera Region, Bukoba District is the main producer of vanilla with the district
offering favourable climatic conditions for vanilla crop production. The origin of
vanilla produced in Bukoba is from Uganda which was introduced through Christian
missionaries who were believed to have come from Madagascar (Maendeleo ya
Wakulima [MAYAWA], 2001). According to Busungu (2009) vanilla is locally
referred to green gold “mkombozi” in Bukoba District due to high monetary value it
possesses compared to other crops grown in the area such as bananas, sweet potatoes,
coffee and others. In addition, Ngaga et al. (2006) reported that Bukoba district has
been the major supplier of vanilla planting resources to the rest of new vanilla
production areas which include Morogoro and Moshi Districts.
2.2.4 Challenges Facing Vanilla Production in Tanzania
In Tanzania, vanilla smallholder farmers face many challenges. Among the
challenges they face include climate conditions, poor crops quality, grades and
market standards, lack of value addition, lack of extension services, price volatility,
theft of vanilla beans and lack of by-laws to protect vanilla crop.
2.2.4.1 Climate Conditions
Dependence on rain fed agriculture in Tanzania has been a huge challenge to most of
the smallholder farmers the majority of whom do subsistence crop production.
Climate change has resulted into variation in the amount and distribution of rainfall.
According to Gabagambi (2013) irrigation is necessary if farmers are to meet
worthwhile economic volumes of their produce. Potential market opportunities
available for products like vanilla are subjected to vagaries of weather which makes
it difficult to access supermarkets for their produce (Gabagambi, 2013).
Supermarkets are a very important outlet for fresh produce in Tanzania. However,
the unreliable supply of produce due to weather changes disappoints consumers
something which makes it difficult for small-scale farmers to meet their demand.
According to Herman et al. (2012) decisions depending on uniformity, consistency
and packaging are made by the consumers‟ purchasing decisions. Thus, this shows
20
how climate conditions affect production, the quality of the crops harvested but also
the final consumer.
2.2.4.2 Poor Crop Quality, Grades and Market Standards
Vanilla yields require good grading and standards that can meet both local and
international market values. The quality of crops produced is normally low due to
different reasons like lack of resources and knowledge to ascertain consumer
standards but also, in smallholder farmers setting, institutions for defining grades and
market standards are poor (Herman et al., 2013). Grading institutions help farmers in
terms of inspection of their yields, sorting to determine good quality in order to meet
the market values of the crop. Different crops in Tanzania like coffee and cotton go
through grading processes through various grading institutions to help farmers
determine the best quality, shape and size of the crops they produce. According to
MAYAWA (2013) unlike other food and cash crops, there is lack of official
authority to coordinate production and marketing development of spices like vanilla
in Tanzania.
2.2.4.3 Lack of Value Addition in Vanilla Crop
Vanilla crop is mainly harvested in fresh form from the farmers and sold directly to
the buyers. Vanilla farmers lack knowledge on the importance of adding value to
their crops and therefore this affects farmers in terms of earning additional income.
Vanilla farmers in Kilimanjaro and Morogoro Regions were discouraged by the
prospects of growing vanilla due to the fact that the crop was sold in fresh form as a
raw material thus fetching low prices (Bluebiz, 2019). Vanilla is commonly
domestically consumed in form of its essence either in liquid form or powdered form
after being processed. Gabagambi (2013) points out that commonly, farmers sell
their harvest in raw form (no value added) which generally results to losses of fresh
produce of the crops and low sales. On the other hand, lack of value addition
excludes farmers from reaching and competing with external markets.
2.2.4.4 Lack of Extension Services
According to Mulisa (2018) one of the challenges facing vanilla smallholder farmers
in Bukoba District is lack of skilled agricultural extension officers with background
on vanilla. Newly promoted high value crops like vanilla and other spices grown in
21
Tanzania, lack specialized extension service providers from the government
(Damien, 2013). Extension areas in Tanzania are vast resulting in extension coverage
being minimal due to inadequacy of personnel and hence insufficient service
delivery. Further, Daniel (2013) pointed out that in most cases, extension personnel
are not adequately equipped to provide quality service and common challenges they
normally face include lack of reliable means of transport to reach the farmers, limited
financial support to carry out demonstrations and field experiments on new
technologies, sub-optimal housing, lack of working facilities and low salaries. As a
result, extension officers are not motivated to perform their duties well, and
consequently, manifest in poor performance of farmers in production (Daniel, 2013).
2.2.4.5 Global Vanilla Price Volatility
The global vanilla market prices are unstable. Instability in prices affects global
vanilla producers but mostly smallholder farmers. The expanding production of
vanilla in other countries since 2000s has resulted to dropping of world vanilla prices
which has led to farmers giving up vanilla production (Neef et al., 2012).
According to Doe (2013) vanilla prices were as high as US$ 300/kg for cured vanilla
in 2001-2002. In 2003-2004, prices dropped to US$75/kg and then dropped to
US$25/kg in 2005. He adds that, by 2012, the prices went as low as US$7.5/kg and
prices were still considered low at US$12/kg in 2012 which was still reflected close
to or below the production costs (Doe, 2013). Global prices of vanilla have currently
peaked to US$600/kg which has motivated farmers to engage in production again.
These variations in vanilla prices have led to adopting and readopting of vanilla
production among smallholder farmers since their involvement in production
depends on the prices of the world market.
Mgamba (2004) pointed out that there was a sharp fall in vanilla prices on the
international market among farmers in Kagera Region between April and July where
the prices dropped from US $44 to US $6.5 per kilogramme. These variations in
vanilla prices have led to adopting and readopting of vanilla production among
smallholder farmers since their involvement in production depends on the prices of
the world market. According to Neef et al. (2012) some farmers in Bukoba District
resorted to uprooting the vanilla crop from their farms due to fluctuations in vanilla
22
prices. This means that vanilla farmers have no influence on the pricing of vanilla.
Thus vanilla prices are determined by the global market. When global prices are
high, vanilla farmers gain more. However, when global prices are low, the farmers
face losses in terms of time and farming inputs incurred.
2.2.4.6 Theft of Vanilla Beans
Vanilla has been pointed out as one of the crops that have great value potentials
worldwide. Farmers in Tanzania face an increase in theft cases with increase in
vanilla production. There is call for severe security from planting to harvesting
process as people steal vanilla beans as well as seedlings (Kessy, 2005). The value of
vanilla not only stems from the beans which are harvested but also from the vines.
This leads to decrease in the yields of the crop harvested but also leads to losses to
farmers who invest much of their time waiting for 2 to 3 years for the crop to
generate the beans.
2.2.4.7 Lack of By-law to Protect Vanilla Crop
Mulisa (2018) pointed out that among the challenges facing vanilla is lack of by-laws
to protect the crop. Lack of official authority to coordinate and protect production
and marketing development of spices in Tanzania has led to the decline in the
production of vanilla (MAYAWA, 2013). By-laws in relation to crop protection help
to develop a competitive, efficient and profitable agricultural industry that
contributes to livelihood improvement of smallholder farmers as well as a wide
economic growth to enhance poverty alleviation.
2.3 Vanilla Production and Rural Household Livelihood Outcomes
2.3.1 Source of Employment
Smallholder agriculture is one of the key economic occupations in the world and a
major source of employment for 70% of the world‟s poor living in rural areas (FAO,
2017). In Madagascar and Comoro, the major component of the labour force is found
in the agricultural sector (De La Cruz, 2009). This is because; agriculture plays a
significant role in the employment sector especially to small-scale farmers
worldwide. Smallholder farmers in rural areas derive their livelihoods from the
agricultural sector and the labour force is always provided by the members of the
families. According to De La Cruz (2009) vanilla production in Madagascar has
23
provided employment opportunities to 20,000 growers and 5,000 producers. This is
due to the fact that majority of the population in rural areas work in the agricultural
sector for a living. In addition, during the postharvest period and pollination over two
to six months, women in Malagasy Region of Madagascar are involved in drying,
curing, smoothing, sorting and packaging process which all require handwork.
Vanilla production is labour intensive in nature and therefore, since women are
mostly the providers of labour in most households in rural areas, their engagement in
the production of vanilla is inevitable. This implies that vanilla production has
provided employment with benefits exceeding family to the community at large as
pointed out by Doe (2014). Likewise, Comoro being one of the active exporters of
vanilla, more than 70% of the population works in rural areas and is active in the
production of vanilla (De La Cruz, 2009). In Bukoba district, vanilla has been a great
means of employment to poor farmers and is locally used by small entrepreneurs as
an essence in beverages, sweets, cakes, yoghurt and local gin traditionally known as
“enkonyagi”.
2.3.2 Source of Income
Vanilla production provides income for farmers and thus improving their livelihoods.
Income from vanilla is derived from selling vanilla as pods as well as vanilla vines.
A vanilla grower can generate up to TZS 2500 from a two-metre vine .Farmers
cultivating on small plots of land are able to increase their income security while still
growing staple and other perennial crops because the spice (vanilla) can cohabit well
when intercropped with other crops and trees (Doe, 2013). Vanilla production has a
great value for money and has become an alternative crop to bananas and coffee
which most have been affected by the wilt disease in Kagera Region. Garu, (2015)
reported that spice farming where vanilla was one of the spices studied, on average,
a spice farmer got about 425, 856 TZS from spice farming. He concluded that, spice
farming contributes about 23% of the income of the households of farmers.
2.3.3 Source of Food Security
Vanilla production is a source of food security to smallholder farmers. Income
derived from vanilla sales is used to purchase food for the households. According to
Doe (2013) income that is generated from vanilla helps farmers from the beginning
to the mid of the year when other staple foods are not produced. This means that
24
vanilla is a high value crop which helps smallholder farmers meet their day to day
necessary needs in form of purchasing food during food shortages.
2.4 Theoretical Review
The Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) (DFID, 2001) was used to guide this
study. The sustainable livelihood approach provides guidance in understanding ways
to which vanilla production contributes to livelihood outcomes. It is one of the means
used to provide understanding of the poor households‟ livelihood (Samsudin &
Kamarudin, 2013). The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach is multidimensional,
integrated and rational to poverty eradication unlike other methods (Samsudin &
Kamarudin, 2013).This explains that the approach is a combination of different
concepts in relation to eradication of poverty compared to other approaches which
are very general. Krantz (2001) pointed out that SLA is based on three basic common
features which are: people centred whereby it focuses on the livelihoods of the poor
in the reduction of poverty, it discards the standard procedure of conventional
approaches of taking poverty as an entry point like agricultural issues and people
involving in improving livelihood desires of the present without undermining the
future generation ability to meet their needs (Chambers & Conway, 1991). The
approach displays factors that limit or enhance livelihood outcomes opportunities
and displays how they relate with each other (Serrat, 2017).
The livelihoods of individuals are realized through the following key components as
incorporated by the SLA: ecological system of vulnerability and resilience which
involves individuals realization of livelihood to react to shocks and how well they
can recover from those shocks, utilization of capital assets, transforming structures
and institutions which help to clarify relationship between assets and activities at
individual and household level, livelihood strategies and finally livelihood outcomes
(Mchopa & Jeckoniah , 2018). Therefore, from the understanding generated by the
SLA perspective and its components and elements, this study aimed at understanding
ways in which vanilla production contributes to smallholder farmers livelihood
outcomes by facilitating on how smallholder farmers determine and adopt
livelihood strategies with relation to realizing livelihood outcomes.
25
2.5 Empirical Literature Review
In Madagascar, Doe (2013) found that over a 13 to 15 year period, vanilla delivers a
permanent economic asset of a minimum of 10 annual harvests per plant. About
70,000 families in Madagascar are dependent on vanilla vanilla production as their
most importatnt source of income. De La Cruz (2009) states that in 2000, the
production line of vanilla in employed about 20,000 growers and 5,000 producers.
Therefore, this indicates the extent of the crop in contributing to employment
opportunities to farmers.
In Uganda, vanilla is granted as the country‟s green gold. According to the study
carried by Komarek (2010) on crop diversification decisions with a case of vanilla in
Uganda, vanilla production has an important welfare benefit containing high profit
margin in the country. In the study of Kessy (2005) on economic rural income
dynamics in Kagera region, it was reported that, vanilla production was one of the
crop identified to be adopted by farmers for income generation. Kessy (2005) found
out that one kilogramme of vanilla was sold at about TZS 15,000. Several related
studies have studied on the role of other agricultural crops productivity to livelihood
outcomes of smallholder farmers for example, a study by Mchopa and Jeckoniah
(2018) on the impact of sunflower production on livelihood outcomes, Kintingu
(2013) on the contribution of grapes farming to livelihoods of grapes growers in
Dodoma and Hivu (2013) on the impact of smallholder cocoa production on rural
livelihoods.
2.6 Knowledge Gap
Though there is existence of literature on the role of other crops production to
livelihood outcomes among smallholder farmers, little is known on the contribution
of vanilla crop on livelihood outcomes of smallholder farmers. Therefore, this study
aimed to bring out the role of vanilla production to livelihood outcomes of
smallholder farmers in Bukoba Rural District.
2.7 Conceptual Framework
This study is anchored on the Sustainable Livelihood Framework (DFID, 1999)
which states that, any community livelihood comprises of capabilities, assets and
activities required for means of living (DFID, 2000). Livelihood is said to be
26
sustainable when it copes with and recovers from shocks and maintains its
capabilities as well as assets now and in the future without undermining the natural
resource base.
The conceptual framework (Fig. 2.1) shows how vanilla production could have a
direct influence on household livelihood outcomes. The background variables
(education, sex, age, education, farm size and marital status) as well as livelihood
assets (human capital, financial capital, physical capital, social capital, and natural
capital) are interrelated. For example, the age of an individual determines the
financial ability of the household to participate in livelihood strategies (farm and
non-farm) in order to achieve desired family ends and thus livelihood outcomes
which in this study are: increased income, asset ownership and improved housing
conditions.
In this study, vanilla production aids smallholder farmers to achieve different
livelihood strategies which results into the attainment of household ends which are
the increase in income, increase in asset acquisition as well as better housing
conditions. However, inefficiency in achieving livelihood outcomes may arise due to
other factors which are out of control of the household which are: shocks, trends and
seasonality but the household ability to resilience from these shocks can result into
achieving household livelihood outcomes.
27
.
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework Showing the Contribution of Vanilla
Production to Livelihood Outcomes among Smallholder Farmers in
Bukoba Rural District, Kagera Region, Tanzania
Source: Modified from DFID, (1999).
RESILIENCE
VULNERABILI
TY CONTEXT
. Shocks
. Trends
. Seasonality
LIVELIHOOD
ASSETS
. Human capital
. Physical capital
. Financial capital
. Social capital
.Natural capital
BACKGROUND
VARIABLES
. Sex
. Age
. Marital status
. Education level
. Farm size
LIVELIHOOD
OUTCOMES
. Increased
income
. Assets
ownership
. Improved
housing
conditions
Livelihood
strategies
. Farm
activities
. Non-farm
activities
28
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 Overview
This chapter presents the methodology that was used in the study. First and foremost,
this section begins with an overview, followed by information concerning the study
area, research design, research approach, target population and sampling frame.
Further, the chapter covers sampling techniques, sample size, data collection
methods, data analysis, validity and reliability of the study, ethical considerations
and limitations of the study.
3.1 Location of the Study Area
This study was conducted in Bukoba Rural District. The District is among eight (8)
districts that form the Kagera Region of Tanzania. The district lies between longitude
300
45‟ and 32
0 00
‟ east and between latitude 1
0 00
‟ and 3
0 00
‟ south of the equator. It
borders Uganda on the northern side and Lake Victoria on the east. The district has a
total population of 289,697 people (National Bureau of Statistics [NBS], 2013). This
area was selected because it is currently the leading vanilla producing district in
Kagera Region. Therefore, the region served as the best area for the study on the
contribution of vanilla production to livelihood outcomes of smallholder farmers.
The study was carried out involving smallholder farmers from three wards namely
Kasharu, Maruku and Nyakato which the researcher selected to represent the rest of
the smallholder farmers in the district. These Wards were purposively selected
because they contain majority of vanilla farmers who are registered under Maendeleo
ya Wakulima (MAYAWA).
3.2 Research Design
A research design is the conceptual arrangement within which the research is
conducted where it establishes the design for the collection, measurement and
analysis of data (Kothari, 2004).The study adopted a cross-sectional research design.
The choice of this method was based on its ability to allow data collection that would
meet the research objectives. Cross- sectional design was preferred by the researcher
because the purpose of the study was to find out the prevalence of the outcome of the
interest for the population at a given point (Levin, 2006). In addition, a cross
29
sectional research design is cost effective and also allows inclusion of participants
from whom a comparison can be carried out (Creswell, 2003).
3.2.1 Target Population
The target population for this study was all households involved in vanilla
production as well as non-vanilla production. These targeted farmers were those
involved with farming between 1 to 5 acres of land. The population also involved
other key informants who assisted in providing vital agricultural and administrative
information.
3.3 Sampling Techniques
3.3.1 Sampling Frame
A sampling frame is a section of a target population where a sample is drawn
(Bhattacherjee, 2012). In other words, it is the selection of particular target members
of the population that will be interviewed in the study. The sample frame for this
study was smallholder farmers involved in vanilla and non-vanilla production on less
than 5 acres of land.
3.3.2 Sampling Unit
The sampling unit of this study included smallholder farmers who engaged in both
vanilla and non-vanilla farming for comparison purposes. The respondents were
obtained through household visit.
3.3.3 Sampling Procedure
A sampling procedure is a process of selecting a sub-group from a population in
order to participate in the study in such a way that the selected individual presents the
whole group (Ogula, 2005). In this study, the researcher used both probability and
non-probability sampling. For the case of vanilla farmers, (lottery technique) was
used where random selection using Maendeleo ya Wakulima (MAYAWA) farmers‟
association register book was applied. Smallholder farmers‟ names were written on
an individual piece of paper and these pieces were placed in a box from which names
of farmers were picked for interview. For non-vanilla farmers, simple random
sampling was used to select those who were interviewed. On the other hand,
purposive sampling was used to select 9 key informants based on their positions.
30
These involved Ward Executive Officers (WEO), representatives from vanilla
farmers association (MAYAWA), Ward Extension Officers as well as District
Agriculture Officers for agricultural and administrative information.
3.3.4 Sample Size
A sample size refers to a number of items to be selected from the universe to
constitute a sample (Kothari, 2004). The study involved three Wards and six villages
which were selected purposively. These included: Maruku (Maruku and Bukairuka
village), Kasharu (Kasharu and Butainamwa village) and Nyakato (Kiilima and Ibosa
village). The selection criterion of these wards was due to the fact that majority of
the vanilla farmers in these areas were registered under MAYAWA (DAICO of
Bukoba Rural District, (Personal communication, 2019). The total number of vanilla
farmers was 412. Therefore, the sampling fraction was calculated by dividing 50 by
412 (50/412) = 0.12. This sampling fraction was multiplied by the number of
households in every Ward in order to get the total number of households to be
selected as shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1: The Total Number of the Selected Households
Ward Number of
farmers
Sample
N
Number of villages
Maruku 150 18 2
Kasharu 125 15 2
Nyakato 139 17 2
Total 412 50 6
The overall sample size for the study was calculated using Yamane‟s formula
(Yamane, 1967) as shown below
)(1 2eN
Nn
Where; n = sample size
N = population size
e =margin of error
)05.0(000,591
000,592
n
31
397n
The total sample size was 397. However, 100 smallholder farmers were selected for
interview whereby, 50 vanilla farmers and 50 non-vanilla farmers were interviewed
from the same study villages for comparison purposes. This sample size was enough
due to the fact that according to Bailey (1998) a sample of 30 cases is at least
minimally convenient for statistical analysis.
3.4 Data Collection Methods and Research Instruments/Tools
3.4.1 Data Collection Methods
In order to gather adequate information for this study, the researcher used three data
collection methods and tools namely survey method, interview and documentary
review. The tools used for data collection were questionnaires, interview guide and
documentary review guide.
3.4.2 Survey Method
Survey method was used to gather information from vanilla and non-vanilla
smallholder farmers. In the context of this study, the questionnaire tool which
consisted of open and close-ended questions was used. The questionnaire was self-
administered by the researcher to collect data from the respondents. In this study, the
questionnaire was used to gather information from household smallholder famers
producing vanilla as well as non-vanilla farmers in Bukoba District Council.
3.4.3 Interview
Interview method was used to acquire information, views and opinions from the key
informants. For the purpose of this study, this method was used to collect qualitative,
administrative and agricultural data from key informants. These included Ward
Executive Officers, District Agricultural Officer, Ward Extension Officers as well as
representatives from Vanilla Farmer‟s Associations (MAYAWA). Interview guide
tool was used to gather information from key informants. The interview guide
consisted of semi structured questions which brought up new ideas and more
questions depending on the way the interviewee responded hence, gathering more
information.
32
3.4.4 Documentary Review
This is the technique used to categorize, investigate, interpret and identify the
limitations of physical sources, most commonly written documents whether in the
private or public domain (Bowen, 2009). In addition, according to Rwegoshora
(2006), documentary review method is the use of documents to support the
viewpoints or arguments of an academic work. In the context of this study,
documentary review checklist was used to conduct review of documentation pieces
published and unpublished from Bukoba District Council and other offices.
3.5 Data Analysis
3.5.1 Qualitative Data Analysis
Data analysis is the central step in qualitative research (Flick, 2013) .In this study,
qualitative data analysis was done through content analysis where data were analysed
by summarising them in terms of their themes and comparing and contrasting
arguments given by different interviewees.
3.5.2 Quantitative Data Analysis
In this study, quantitative data analysis was done by support of IBM computer
software well known as Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version
23.0.
For objective one, to determine income earned per year from farming activities and
non-farming activities among smallholder farmers, descriptive statistics that is,
frequencies, means and percentages were used.
For objective two, determining levels of livelihood outcomes among vanilla
smallholder farmers and non-vanilla smallholder framers was analysed by wealth
index through asset ownership. The wealth status is used as a proxy indicator of the
wellbeing levels of the household. Interview with key informants was used to
generate assets which were used in the index to generate the wealth status of the
household. The study adopted a formula developed by Simon (2005) cited in Tweve
and Jeckoniah (2018) to compute the wealth status of the household. That is:
WETi = Σ (yij/Ymax) (i = 1, 2, ----x, j = 1, 2, --------, n)
Where WET = wealth index
33
yij = number of an individual‟s assets (poultry, bicycle, motorbike, mobile phone,
radio, television set, land and solar panel)
Ymax = maximum number of those assets in the sample
X = number of items considered as indicators for wealth.
n = sample size
Based on the mean score of the wealth index, respondents were categorized into two
groups. These are low and high wealth status. Those below the mean were taken as
having low wealth status, while those above the mean were taken as having high
wealth status. Wealth index was used by Tweve and Jeckoniah (2018) to gauge the
levels of livelihood outcomes of woodlot and non-woodlot farmers in Mufindi
District, Tanzania.
For objective three, to compare levels of livelihood outcomes between vanilla
smallholder farmers and non-vanilla smallholder farmers, an independent T-test was
used.
3.6 Validity of the Study
Validity is the extent to which an instrument in the quantitative study has the same
results if used in the same situation when repeated occasionally (Kothari, 2004). This
study adopted Kothari‟s (2004) ways of maintaining validity in a study. Firstly,
through careful formulation of questions and pre-testing of questionnaire and
interview guide to make sure that the questions were clear and possible errors were
identified earlier so as to find solutions on how to tackle them. Secondly, in order to
maintain accuracy and uniformity, data collected was edited to eliminate errors.
3.6.1 Reliability of the Study
Reliability of the study is the extent of consistency of which another researcher
arrives at similar results if the same study is undertaken using the same procedures as
the first researcher (Kothari, 2004). In this study, reliability was achieved by the
researcher through conducting pre-testing of the questionnaire and interview guide to
various respondents and making corrections where errors were made.
34
3.7 Ethical Considerations
The researcher had to seek for permission for data collection from the University of
Dodoma (UDOM) and Administrative organs in Bukoba Rural District Council.
Smallholder farmers within household participating in vanilla production were
entitled to privacy and confidentiality both on ethical grounds and in terms of
protection of their personal data. Additionally, with regard to the researcher
accessing free entrance into different areas, pre-arrangements were made by
considering the respective administration. The study observed confidentiality and
anonymity by considering that names of respondents were not written on the
questionnaires as well as interview guides. In addition to the above, every participant
in this research study had a right to voluntarily decide to participate in the research or
pull out if one thought it pertinent to do so.
3.8 Limitations of the Study
During data collection, the researcher faced some challenges which one of it was that
some of the respondents were hesitant to fill in the questionnaire until they are given
money. In order to overcome this challenge, the researcher explained to the
respondents that the questionnaires were aimed for study purposes and not for any
income generation activity.
Another challenge was that some women respondents were reluctant to participate in
providing information concerning their household heads (husbands) in their absence.
Therefore, the researcher had to either revisit these households or wait until the head
of the household arrived.
Lastly, the researcher faced a challenge of reaching respondents as data collection
was conducted during farm preparation season where some of the smallholder
farmers were busy in their farms far from their households. Therefore, the researcher
had to collect data by conducting farm visits in the fields and some in the evening
when they were back to their homes.
35
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS/ FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.0 Overview
This chapter presents results/ findings and discussion on the contribution of vanilla
production to livelihood outcomes of smallholder farmers. This chapter is divided
into several sections. It begins with an overview, followed by a brief section which
identifies and discuses the characteristics of the sampled respondents. The third
section identifies and discusses farming and non-farming activities among vanilla
and non-vanilla smallholder farmers. The fourth section identifies and discusses
levels of livelihood outcomes among smallholder farmers and the fifth section
identifies and discusses the comparison of livelihood outcomes between vanilla and
non-vanilla smallholder farmers.
4.1 Socio Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
4.1.1 Age of the Respondents
The findings presented in Table 2 show that the age of respondents in the study area
ranged from 25-75, the minimum of which being 25 years for vanilla smallholder
farmers and 31 for non-vanilla smallholder farmers. The maximum age was 56 years
for vanilla smallholder farmers and 72 for non-vanilla smallholder farmers while the
average age was 41 and 51 for vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers
respectively. The findings show that two-fifth (40%) of vanilla smallholder farmers
were aged between 36-45 years while half (52%) of non-vanilla smallholder farmers
were aged between 46-55 years. The results in Table 2 show that as age increases,
farmers‟ engagement in vanilla production decreases (see for example, that only 2%
of smallholder farmers aged 56-65 years were vanilla producers while none in age
group 66-75 years were vanilla farmers). The results in Table 2 show that there is a
statistical significant relationship (P≤0.000) between age and vanilla production. The
results of this study corroborate to those by Liberio (2012), Lwelamira et al. (2015)
and Garu (2017), who found that engagement in cash crop production was carried
out by active age group (35-45). However, as age increased, engagement in cash crop
production decreased. According to Rutasitara ( 2002), as cited by Assenga et al.
(2013) old age set (65 years) and above has fewer people which is probably due to
mortality. This implies that engagement in cash crop production requires energetic
36
individuals who can cope with the labour intensity of the crop. Furthermore, results
of this study revealed that there was little engagement in vanilla production in the
younger age below 25 years. This is due to the fact that majority of the respondents
below 25 years were still living with their parents and therefore were not considered
as household heads.
Table 2: Socio Economic and Demographic Characteristics (Percent n=100)
Characteristics Percentage Total
(n=100)
P-value
Vanilla
(n=50
Non-vanilla
(n=50)
Age < 25 2.0 0.0 1
000*
25-35 24.0 2.0 13
36-45 40.0 18.0 29
46-55 32.0 52.0 42
56-65 2.0 24.0 13
66-75 0.0 4.0 2
Sex Male 80.0 78.0 79
Female 20.0 22.0 21 0.806ns
Marital
Status
Married 78.0 74.0 76
Separated 2.0 8.0 5
Widow 18.0 10.0 14 0.187ns
Widower 2.0 8.0 5
Education
Level
No formal
education
2.0 4.0 3
Primary 90.0 92.0 91 0.504ns
Secondary 4.0 4.0 4
College 4.0 0.0 2
Household
Size
1-3 22.0 74.0 48 0.000*
4-7 72.0 26.0 49
8-11 6.0 0.0 3
Main
Occupation
self –employed 2.0 2.0 2 0.603ns
crop production 98.0 96.0 97
Salaried work 0.0 2.0 1
*: means statistically significant at P<0.05 ns : means not significant
Source: (Field Data Survey, 2019)
37
4.1.2 Sex of the Respondents
Sex of the household head plays an important role in determining decision-making
within a household .The distribution of households head‟s sex is shown in Table 2.
Generally, majority (80% and 78%) of vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers
were male headed households respectively. Also, one-fifth (20% and 22%) of vanilla
and non-vanilla small holder farmers were female headed households respectively.
The results of this study are in agreement with Hill and Vigneri (2014), Arora (2014)
and Zakaria (2017) who reported that males in African household have control over
cash crop production, the proportion of males who were participating in cash crop
production was high. Very few households were female headed households. These
were probably single, widows, divorced or separated.
4.1.3 Education Level of the Respondents
According to TDHS (2005) as cited by Assenga et al. (2013) education is a basic
element of the life style and status an individual enjoys in a society. All household
heads were requested to state their level of education which, according to the results,
in Table 2, ranged from non-formal to formal education. The findings in Table 2
show that majority (90% and 92%) of vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers of
the household heads had attained primary education respectively, while very few
(2% and 4%) of the vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers had no formal
education respectively. In addition, very few (4% and4%) of both vanilla and non-
vanilla smallholder farmers had attained secondary education. The findings of this
study are in line with Anderson et al. (2011) and Lwoga et al. (2011) who reported
that majority of smallholder household heads had completed primary education.
However, the results show that, there is minimal participation of smallholder farmers
with higher levels of education in agricultural production in rural areas. On this
particular regard, Lwelamira et al. (2015) argued that highly educated people are the
ones who are assumed to participate more in crop production compared to the least
educated people. According to Odoemen and Obienne (2010), Ntibiyoka (2014) and
Kumba et al. (2015) increase in education enhances adoption of agriculture
innovations and influences cash crop production. Similarly, Minot et al. (2006)
reported that higher education level was associated with production of crops of high
value. However, contrary to this notion, the study showed that smallholder farmers
38
with lower level of education engaged more in crop production compared to those
with higher levels of education. This implies that engagement in crop production in
the study area is carried out by farmers with lower levels of education.
4.1.4 Marital Status of the Respondents
Marital status of any household has a strong association with involvement in crop
production. The importance of marital status in agricultural activities can be
explained in relation to household labour supply. This is because married households
complement each other with regard to making decisions concerning their livelihoods
compared to single, divorced or widowed household heads. Table 2 presents findings
on heads of household marital status where majority (78% and 74%) of vanilla and
non-vanilla smallholder farmers respectively were married. Furthermore, very few
(2% and 8%) of vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers respectively were
separated or widowers. The high marriage rate among vanilla and non-vanilla
smallholder farmers in the study area indicated that majority of the surveyed
households were married. This is in line with arguments by Kuboja (2010),
Kalimang‟asi et al. (2014) and Mbwambo (2015) who reported that households
comprising of husband and wife enhance additional farm labour supply used in
production which influences adoption of agricultural innovations compared to
widowed and divorced producers.
4.1.5 Main Occupation of the Respondents
Occupation of a household is a significant indicator of access to economic resources
(Assenga et al., 2013). The study looked at occupational structure of the heads of
household which, according to the findings in Table 2 show that majority (98% and
96%) of vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers were engaged in crop
production as their main occupation while very few (2%) of both vanilla and non-
vanilla smallholder farmers were engaged in self-employment as their main
occupation. These results are supported by those by Anderson et al. (2016) and Davis
et al. (2017) who documented that rural households depend on agriculture as their
main source of employment for income generation. Similarly URT (2004) and NBS
(2013) reported that more than two thirds of the population in rural areas in Tanzania
depend on agriculture as their main source of occupation. Therefore, this implies that
39
the livelihoods of smallholder farmers in the study area are dependent on their
engagement in crop production.
4.1.6 Household size
A household is a person or group of persons residing in the same homestead who
have the same cooking arrangements and are answerable to the same head of
household (NBS, 2013).The economic status of a household can be determined by
the composition of members present in a household who live together and exercise
choices in accomplishing specific family objectives. The findings in Table 2 show
that majority (72 %) of vanilla smallholder farmers had household size ranging
between 4-7 members while majority (74%) of the non-vanilla smallholder farmers
had household size ranging between 1-3 members. Very few (6%) of vanilla
smallholder farmers had households ranging between 8-11 members. The results of
this study corroborate those by Kumba et al. (2015), Lwelamira et al. (2015) and
Machimu (2016) who reported that the size of a household has influence on family
labour. This is due to the fact that members work together in the household‟s
economic activities with the aim of improving the economic status of the household.
Moreover, the sustainable livelihood approach advocates that a large household size
matters when it comes to sources of human capital (labour) for livelihood activities.
4.2 Farming Activities between Vanilla and Non-vanilla SHFs
4.2.1 Crops Produced by Vanilla and Non-vanilla SHFs
Crop production is the major important pre-requisite for improving livelihoods of
smallholder farmers in the study area. The findings in Table 3 show that farmers in
the study area were growing 6 major types of crops. Table 3 show that half (50%) of
the farmers in the study area were producing vanilla, (70% and 48%) of vanilla and
non-vanilla smallholder farmers respectively produced bananas, (20% and 26%) of
vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers respectively were producing coffee.
Very few (6% and 16%) of vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers respectively
were producing tea. The findings in Table 3 imply that smallholder farmers had
abandoned the traditional coffee cash crop and started producing vanilla as an
alternative cash crop with a view to improving their livelihood. It was noted that
banana was being produced by many households in the study area since it is a staple
food. These results are similar to NBS (2007) and PEI (2014) and who reported that
40
the most important crops grown in the study area were bananas, coffee, tea and sweet
potatoes. The results of this study are also similar to Packer (2008) who found that
vanilla farmers also engaged in production of other crops in attempt to increase
household income.
4.2.2 Experience in Years of Crop Production
The findings in Table 3 show that (60% and 42%) of the vanilla and non-vanilla
smallholder farmers had started crop production between 5-9 years back. The results
further show that majority (44%) of non-vanilla smallholder farmers respectively had
started crop production between 10-14 years back. The results indicate that most of
the smallholder farmers in the study area had started engaging in vanilla production
in less than 10 years ago while non-vanilla smallholder farmers had started engaging
in crop production more than ten years ago. This may be attributed to by the fact that
main crops such as bananas, coffee and tea have existed longer in the study area
compared to vanilla crop which was introduced later.
Table 3: Crops Produced and Experience in Years of Crop Production
(Percent n=100)
Characteristics vanilla non-vanilla Total (%)
(n=50) (n=50) (n=100)
Crops produced
Vanilla 50.0 0.0 50
Bananas 70.0 48.0 59.0
Coffee 20.0 26.0 23.0
Cassava 2.0 10.0 6.0
Tea 6.0 16.0 11.0
Sweet potatoes 0.0 2.0 1.0
Experience of crop production (yrs)
1-4 40.0 0.0 20.0
5-9 60.0 42.0 51.0
10-14 0.0 44.0 22.0
15-19 0.0 14.0 7.0
Sources: (Field data survey, 2019)
41
4.2.3 Main Source of Finance for Crop Production
Source of finance for crop production is an indicator of the household financial
ability to invest in production. Heads of household were requested to state their main
source of finance for crop production which according to the results of this study
indicate that majority (92% and 98%) of vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers
respectively, were using their own source of income as source of finance for crop
production. The results further show that very few (8% and 2%) of vanilla and non-
vanilla smallholder farmers had resorted to loans as their main source of finance for
production. During an interview with one of the key informants he stated that:
“Most smallholder farmers who are engaged in subsistence farming
use their own sources of savings to start up farming because their
production is carried out on small plots of land which do not need a
lot of capital for investment. The savings they make from other
household sources provide them with capital for investment in crop
production”. (Interview with the District Agriculture Officer, 2019).
These results are supported by Lusendamila (2010) and Mmasa (2017) who reported
that smallholder farmers were using their own sources of savings as finance for crop
production. Similarly, Syed and Miyazako (2013) reported that saving among
farmers is very essential in providing increase in capital levels as well as covering
the depreciation of existing levels of capital stock. However, it was discovered that
very few farmers were using loans as their main source of finance for production.
This is probably due to the fact that there is little credit accessibility by farmers and
lack of experience in terms of control of credit (Somji, 2007) hence, smallholder
farmers resort to own sources of savings for crop production.
4.2.4 Total Farm Size under Cultivation
The findings in Table 4 show that more than half (56%) of vanilla smallholder
farmers owned between 3-4 hectares of land while majority (73%) of non-vanilla
smallholder farmers owned between 1-2 hectares of land. Also, results from cross
tabulation show that there is statistical significance (P≤ 0.000) between farm size of a
household and engagement in vanilla production. The results imply that vanilla
smallholder farmers owned more land compared to non-vanilla smallholder farmers.
42
This is probably due to the fact that the vanilla farmers used income earned to buy or
rent land for vanilla cultivation. The result of this study are in line with Muyanga and
Jayne (2019) who reported that the larger the farm size a household has, the higher
the production levels it has. This implies that there is positive relationship between
farm size and production.
Table 4: Main Source of Finance for Production and Total Farm size under
Production
Characteristics vanilla non-vanilla Total P-
value
(n=50) (n=50) (n=100)
Main source
of finance
Own savings 92.0 98.0 95.0
Loan 8.0 2.0 5.0 0.169ns
Farm size under
cultivation in
hectare (ha)
1-2 44.0 73.5 58.6
3-4 56.0 24.5 40.4
Above 4 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.005*
*: means statistically significant (P< 0.05)
ns: means not significant
Sources: (Field Data Survey, 2019)
4.2.5 Vanilla Production
During this study, the respondents were asked to provide information on the total
farm size under vanilla cultivation, amount of vanilla produced per year, income
earned per year from vanilla yields and challenges faced by vanilla smallholder
farmers.
4.2.5.1 Total farm size under vanilla cultivation
A farm is a centre of a households‟ source of livelihood especially in the rural areas
of Tanzania. Vanilla smallholder farmers were asked to indicate farm size under
43
vanilla production. The findings in Table 5 show that the minimum farm size under
vanilla production was 0.5 hectares, the maximum was 3 hectares and the average
was 1 hectare. From the results in Table 5, one-third (32%) of vanilla smallholder
farmers cultivate vanilla on 1 hectare of land while very few (5% and 4%) produce
vanilla on 0.5 and 3 hectares respectively. This could be attributed to by the fact that
vanilla is intercropped in already existing farms. This information is also supported
by the Agricultural Officer who reported that:
“Vanilla smallholder farmers produce vanilla on small hectares of
land because of the labour intensity the crop has during pollination
of flowers. When vanilla flowers blossom, they stay fresh for 24
hours which after that the flower dries up and falls. Since
pollination is done manually, the farmer has to visit each and every
plant on the farm to pollinate the flowers. Therefore, labour
intensity restricts farmers from producing on more than 1 hectare.
Theft of vanilla beans force farmers to cultivate on a piece of land
that they can manage to guard against thieves”.(Interview with
the Agricultural Officer, 2019).
The results of this study are also in line with those by Byensi (2012), Hassan (2015)
and Perez-Borbolla et al. (2018) who documented that vanilla smallholder farmers
produced vanilla on 1 hectare of land. This implies that on average, smallholder
farmers are able to produce vanilla on 1 hectare of land due to its production being
labour intensive as it requires hand pollination during flowering.
4.2.5.2 Annual vanilla yields from vanilla smallholder farmers
The findings in Table 5 show that one-fifth (23%) of vanilla farmers harvested
between 6-10kgs of vanilla from their farms while a tenth (14%) harvested between
11-15kgs of vanilla and very few (7%) and (6%) harvested between 1-5 and above
15kg respectively. The results indicate that majority of vanilla farmers harvested
vanilla yields between 6-10kgs from their farms.
44
4.2.5.3 Annual Income Earned from Vanilla Production
The findings from Table 5 revealed that more than one-fifth (26%) of the vanilla
smallholder farmers in the study area were earning income between TZS 500,001-
1,000,000. While very few (6%) were earning less than TZS 500,000 from vanilla
production. This implies that vanilla production has a great contribution to provision
of household income. The results of income earned from vanilla are similar to those
by Nyomera et al. (2012) and Lwelamira (2015) who reported that farmers earned
more than TZS. 500,000 from cash crop production. During an interview with one of
the key informants he reported that:
“On average, vanilla farmers can harvest up to 70kgs of vanilla
beans from 1 hectare of land. A kilogramme of vanilla costs TZS
150,000 however, farmers are not able to acquire much from their
farms because others harvest and sell immature beans due to fear
of thieves” (Interview with the Extension Officer, 2019)
4.2.5.4 Challenges facing Vanilla Smallholder Farmers
Respondents were asked to identify challenges they were facing in relation to vanilla
production. The results in Table 5 show that more than one-fifth (25%) of vanilla
smallholder farmers were facing a challenge of theft of vanilla beans, a tenth (15%)
of them said that they were facing a challenge of price volatility, very few (5%)
were facing a challenge of lack of extension services and very few (4% and 5%)
were being challenged by fungus attack and lack of extension services. The results
show that among the challenges facing vanilla smallholder farmers, theft of vanilla
beans was a major problem. This information is supported by the MAYAWA
Agricultural Officer, who reported that;
“During vanilla flowering season, men, women and children gather
in their farms to pollinate the flowers using locally available
materials such as pins and needles with sharp points. It takes
approximately 24 hours for the vanilla flowers to stay fresh after it
blossoms. When it is past 24 hours, the flowers wilt down and that
means no vanilla beans during that season. Therefore a lot of effort
is needed to keep a close eye to the orchids in the farm” (Interview
with MAYAWA Agricultural Officer, 2019)
45
The observations from this study conform with the findings in Madagascar carried
out by CNV International and Fairfood International (2016) where it was reported
that Madagascar smallholder farmers were facing a problem of theft where vanilla
pods were harvested too early which negatively affected the quality of the crop. The
author reported that lack of access to resources (capital) and unstable low prices for
vanilla was yet another challenge. Also, the findings of this study are in line with
Balamurugan (2009), Komarek (2010) and Perez-Borbolla et al. (2016) who
reported that wide spread variations in vanilla prices, lack of skilled labour, lack of
training and lack of credit market hindered production of vanilla.
46
Table 5: Farm size Under Vanilla, Amount of Vanilla Produce (kg), Income
Earned per Year and Challenges Facing Vanilla Smallholder Farmers
Characteristics
(n=50)
Percent
(%)
Farm size under
Vanilla (ha)
0.5 5.0
1 32.0
2 9.0
3 4.0
Amount of vanilla
produce (kg)
1-5 7.0
6-10 23.0
11-15 14.0
Above 15 6.0
Annual income earned
(TZS)
Less than 500000 6.0
500001-1000000 26.0
1000001-1500000 10.0
1500001-2000000 4.0
Above 2000000 4.0
Challenges
Fungus attack 4.0
Labour costs 1.0
Theft of vanilla beans 25.0
Price volatility 15.0
Lack of extension services 5.0
47
4.2.5.5 Non-farming Activities
Non-farming activities are very essential in diversifying a household income.
Respondents in the study area were requested to state non-farming activities they
were engaged in. Results in Table 6 show that non-farm activities carried out in the
study area included casual labour on other people‟s farm, salaried job, livestock
keeping, food vending, genge, kiosk, brick making, carpentry, masonry, charcoal
burning, local brewing, saloon, tailoring and remittances. Results in Table 6 show
that three-fifths (60% and 68%) of vanilla and non-vanilla small holder farmers
respectively were engaged in livestock keeping. Also, two-fifths (42% and 32%) of
the small holder vanilla and non-vanilla farmers respectively, were engaged in local
brewing. The findings of this study are similar to those by Kessy (2005), NBS
(2007) and Kisoza (2014) who reported that livestock keeping and local brewing
were the main non-farming activities carried out in Kagera Region. These results
imply that both vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers were engaged in
varieties of non-farm activities to supplement crop production. However, livestock
keeping and local brewing were the major activities carried out in the study area.
48
Table 6: Distribution of Non-farming Activities among Vanilla and Non-vanilla
Smallholder Farmers in Percentage (n=100)
Variable
Percentage Total
(%)
P-value
Vanilla
(n=50)
Non-vanilla
(n=50)
Casual labour
on other people‟s farm
4.0
24.0
14
0.004*
Salaried job 2.0 4.0 3 0.558ns
Livestock keeping 60.0 68.0 64 0.405ns
Food vending 4.0 0.0 2 0.558ns
Genge 2.0 4.0 3 1.000ns
Kiosk 4.0 4.0 4 1.000ns
Brick making 16.0 12.0 14 0.564ns
Carpentry 10.0 8.0 9 0.727ns
Masonry 2.0 6.0 4 0.307ns
Charcoal burning 14.0 6.0 10 0.182ns
Local brewing 42.0 32.0 37 0.300ns
Saloon 0.0 6.0 3 0.079ns
Tailoring 4.0 0.0 2 0.153ns
Remittances 4.0 4.0 4 1.000ns
*: means statistically significant (P <0.05)
Sources: (Field Data Survey, 2019)
4.3 Income Earned per year from Non-farming Activities by Vanilla and Non-
vanilla SHFs
Rural households engage in non-farming activities as a means of diversifying their
incomes and such activities are considered as vital for their livelihood .The findings
in Table 7 show that half (52.2% and 44.7%) of the vanilla and non-vanilla
smallholder farmers respectively were earning less than TZS 500,000 from non-
farming activities. The results imply that non-farming activities in the study area
were less remunerative. The results of this study are supported by Portacarrero et al.
(2006) who reported that non-farm activities were not an important sector for income
generation among rural population as a result of engaging in low earning activities.
However, in other studies, non-farm activities have significant contribution to rural
household income as a result of low capacity agricultural activities to provide
49
sustainable livelihood. This is as documented by World Bank [WB], (2007), Katega
and Lifuliro (2014), Msinde (2016) and Chamicha (2015).Therefore; there is a need
to encourage smallholder farmers in the study area to participate in more
remunerative non-farm activities to supplement household income.
Table 7: Distribution of Income Earned per year from Non-farming Activities
between Vanilla and Non-vanilla Smallholder Farmers (Percent
n=100)
Characteristics
Income(Tsh)
Vanilla
(n = 50)
Non-vanilla
(n = 50)
Total (n
=100)
P-
value
<500000 52.2 44.7 48
500001 - 1000000 39.1 38.3 38.7
1000001 - 1500000 6.5 8.5 7.5
Above 1500000 2.2 8.5 5.4 0.545ns
ns: means not significant
Sources: (Field Data Survey, 2019)
4.4 Income earned per year from farming and non-farming activities between
vanilla and non-vanilla SHFs
The findings in Table 8 reveal that three-fifth (62%) of vanilla smallholder farmers
were earning income between TZS 1,500,001 - 2,500,000 from both farming and
non-farming activities while more than half (52%) of non-vanilla smallholder
farmers were earning income between TZS 500,001- 1,500,000 from both farming
and non-farming activities. The results from cross tabulation show that there is
statistical significant difference (P< 0.05) between engagement in vanilla production
and income from farming and non-farming activities. These results imply that vanilla
smallholder farmers were earning more income compared to their counterparts
engaged in producing other crops . The findings of this study are supported by
Mckillop and Wood (2010), Wamalwa (2011) and Achterbosch (2014) who reported
that cash crop production is a means of increasing rural poor income. Other findings
by World Bank (2008) found out that smallholder farmers who were successful in
moving out of poverty were the ones who diversified their farming activities by
growing non-traditional cash crops like vanilla while those who stuck to growing
traditional crops remained in poverty.
50
Table8: Distribution of Income earned per year from Farming and Non-
Farming activities between Vanilla and Non-Vanilla Smallholder
Farmers in Percentage (n=100)
Characteristics
Income (Tsh)
Vanilla(n=50) Non-vanilla
(n=50)
Total (%) P-value
Less than 500 000 0.0 8.0 4
500001-1500000 14.0 52.0 52.0
1500001-2500000 62.0 28.0 45
2500001-3500000 16.0 4.0 10
Above 3500000 8.0 8.0 8 0.000*
*: means statistically significant (P< 0.05)
Sources: (Field Data Survey, 2019)
4.5 Levels of Livelihood Outcomes Based on Asset Ownership between Vanilla
and Non-vanilla Smallholder farmers
The findings on asset ownership are presented by the wealth index. Based on the
wealth index, the mean was 4.05. Respondents were categorized into two groups.
Those below the mean were categorized as having low wealth status while those
above the mean were categorized as having high wealth status. The results in Table
9 show that majority (82%) of the vanilla smallholder farmers were above 4.05 while
majority (84%) of the non-vanilla smallholder farmers were below 4.05. The high
wealth status among vanilla smallholder farmers may be due to better opportunities
with regard to acquisition of assets compared to non-vanilla farmers. The results of
this study concur with the study by Mchopa and Jeckoniah (2018) and Tweve and
Jeckoniah (2018) who found that smallholder farmers who engaged in sunflower and
woodlot production had high wealth status compared to their counterparts. This
implies that vanilla production like other cash crops is associated with high wealth
status of smallholder farmers. However, results of this study show that majority of
non-vanilla smallholder farmers had lower livelihood outcomes .This is probably due
to engaging in production of crops that generated less income which provided little
opportunity with regard to assets acquisition.
51
Table 9: Wealth Index on Assets owned by Vanilla and Non-vanilla
Smallholder Farmers in Percentage (n=100)
Wealth groups
Mean
Vanilla
(n=50)
Non-vanilla
(n=50)
High wealth status >4.05 82.0 16.0
Low wealth status <4.05 18.0 84.0
Sources: Field Data Survey, (2019)
4.6 Housing Conditions
The physical stat of housing among vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder
farmersthrough housing conditions was one of the livelihood outcomes of this study.
The findings on housing conditions are presented in Table 10. The results in Table 10
indicate that most (100%) of both vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers owned
their houses. The findings of this study are in agreement with FAO (2015) which reported
that families lived in houses majority of which owned them. House ownership by
smallholder farmers in the study area may be explained by the point that local
material usage seems to be the very first and foremost characteristic of houses in
rural settlements because they are plenty and easy to procure (Sefika, 2015). Results
also show that majority (74%) of the vanilla smallholder farmers had houses with
cemented floors while a half (50%) of non-vanilla smallholder farmers had houses
with earthen floors. Majority (92%) of vanilla smallholder farmers had walls made of
block bricks while three-quarters (76%) of non-vanilla smallholder farmers had
walls made of unburnt bricks. Majority (84% and 96%) of vanilla and non-vanilla
smallholder farmers respectively, were using firewood as their main source of power
for cooking. This implies that, smallholder farmers in the study area were using
locally available sources of power for cooking. It was also learnt that majority of
vanilla smallholder farmers owned houses with 3-4 rooms while more than three-
fifths (70%) of non-vanilla smallholder farmers owned houses with 1-2 rooms.
Results from Table 10 further show that there is statistical significance difference (P
<0.05) between engagement in vanilla production and quality of housing conditions
in relation to type of floor of the house, material of the walls and number of rooms
and sources of energy for cooking. Better housing conditions among vanilla
52
smallholder farmers may be attributed by the fact that they gain more income from
vanilla, other crops and non-farming activities compared to non-vanilla smallholder
farmers. This means that income from vanilla is used to modify their house
conditions.The findings of this study are supported by Mulisa (2018) who reported
that a vanilla farmer from Bukoba Rural District was living in a small mud house
before engaging in vanilla production but switching to vanilla production changed
her life for the better whereby she then started living in good quality house. The
findings of this study also align with those by Wamalwa (2011), Oyugi(2016),
Mchopa and Jeckoniah (2018) and Tweve and Jeckoniah (2018) in production of
jatropha, sugarcanes, sunflower and woodlot who reported that through cash crop
production, smallholder farmers were able to own good quality houses compared to
their counterparts. This implies that vanilla production, like other cash crops
mentioned above was associated with ownership of good quality houses.
53
Table 10: Distribution of House Conditions among Vanilla and Non-vanilla
Smallholder Farmers in Percentage (n=100)
Characteristics Category
vanilla
(n=50)
non-vanilla
(n=50)
Total
(%)
P-
value
House
ownership
No 0.0 0.0 0.0 a
Yes 50.0 50.0 100
Type of floor Soil 0.0 50.0 25 0.000*
Floor tiles 24.0 0.0 12
Cement 74.0 10.0 42
Grass 2.0 40.0 21
Material of wall Block bricks 92.0 12.0 52 0.000*
Un burnt bricks 8.0 76.0 42
Muddy 0.0 12.0 6
Roof of the
house
Iron sheets 98.0 98.0 98 0.368ns
Roofing tiles 2.0 0.0 1
Grass 0.0 2.0 1
Main source of
energy for
cooking
Electricity 16.0 4.0 90 0.046*
Firewood 84.0 96.0 10
Number of
rooms
1-2 22.0 70.0 46 0.000*
3-4 72.0 30.0 51
Above 4 6.0 0.0 3
ns: means not significant
*: means statistically significant ( P<0.05)
a: means no statics computed because variable is constant
Sources: Field Data Survey, (2019)
4.7 Asset Ownership between Vanilla and Non-vanilla Smallholder Farmers
Monetary value of assets owned indicates the household‟s ability in terms of fixed
currency available. Results in Table 11 present assets owned by household heads
between vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers. Results reveal that almost
(100%) of both vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers respectively, owned
land. Almost (100% and 98%) of vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers
54
respectively, owned cell phones. Also, majority (82% and 78%) of vanilla and non-
vanilla smallholder farmers owned a radio. The results in Table 11 further show that
there is statistical significance relationship (P <0.05) between vanilla production and
ownership of motorbike, television, cattle, bicycle and sofa set.
Table 11: Distribution of Asset Ownership between Vanilla and Non-Vanilla
Smallholder Farmers in Percentage (n=100)
Variable
Percentage Total P-value
Vanilla
(n50)
Non-vanilla
(n=50)
(n=100)
Poultry 62.0 72.0 67 0.288ns
Land 100.0 100.0 100 A
Cattle 62.0 32.0 47 0.003*
Bicycle 60.0 30.0 45 0.003*
Motorbike 48.0 0.0 24 0.000*
Television 72.0 14.0 43 0.000*
Solar Panel 6.0 0.0 3 0.079ns
Cell phone 100.0 98.0 99 0.315ns
Radio 82.0 78.0 80 0.617ns
Goat 36.0 38.0 37 0.836ns
Pig 10.0 6.0 8 0.461ns
Wheelbarrow 16.0 8.0 12 0.218ns
Sprayer 18.0 10.0 14 0.249ns
Sofa 50.0 6.0 28 0.000*
*: means statistically significant (P<0.05), ns: means not significant
a : No statistics computed because the variable is constant
Sources: Field Data Survey,(2019)
55
4.8 Comparison of Livelihood Outcomes between Vanilla and Non-vanilla
Smallholder Farmers
4.8.1 Monetary Asset Value and Income Comparison between Vanilla and Non-
vanilla SHFs
Results revealed that the mean monetary asset value for vanilla smallholder farmers
was TZS 4,557,700 while the mean monetary asset value for non-vanilla smallholder
farmers was TZS 2,571,320. The results in Table 12 reveal that the mean income for
vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers was TZS 2,234,820 and TZS 1,519,894
respectively. This indicates that the mean income and monetary value of assets
owned by vanilla smallholder farmers was two times more compared to non-vanilla
smallholder farmers.
It was hypothesized that there is a significant difference in livelihood outcomes
between vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers. The Independent T-test was
used to test the hypothesis. These findings are presented in Table 13 and Table 14
(see appendix iv and v).The results revealed that there was a significant difference
(P≤0.000) in income and monetary value of assets between vanilla and non-vanilla
smallholder farmers. Thus, the hypothesis that there is no significant difference in
livelihood outcomes between vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers is rejected.
These findings of this study are similar to those by Tweve and Jeckoniah (2018) ;
Mchopa and Jeckoniah, (2018) who reported that farmers who engaged in woodlot
farming and sunflower production were wealthier than their counterparts. This
implies that engagement in cash crops like vanilla production was associated with
ownership of valuable assets.
Table 12: Monetary Asset value and Income Comparison between Vanilla and
Non-vanilla Smallholder Framers
Characteristics N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Monetary
asset value
Income
Vanilla 50 4557700.00 1585304.600 224195.927
Non-vanilla 50 2571320.00 1102369.016 155898.521
Vanilla 50 2234820.00 922162.2702 130413.4389
Non-vanilla 50 1519894.00 1159250.267 163942.
56
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Overview
This Chapter contains four sections. The first section begins with an overview. The
second section provides conclusion drawn from the study followed by
recommendations. The fourth section provides suggestions for future studies.
5.1 Conclusion
Generally, the objective of this study was to assess the contribution of vanilla
(planifolia) production to livelihood outcomes among smallholder farmers in Bukoba
Rural District, Tanzania. Specifically, the study sought to determine: (i) income
earned per year from farming and non-farming activities among smallholder farmers,
(iii) to determine levels of livelihood outcomes based on asset ownership among
smallholder farmers in the study area and (iii) compare livelihood outcomes between
vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers.
i) Based on income earned per year from farming and non-farming activities
among smallholder farmers, it is concluded that vanilla smallholder farmers
were earning higher income from farm and non-farm activities than non-
vanilla smallholder farmers.
ii) Based on levels of livelihood outcomes based on assets ownership among
smallholder farmers in the study area it is concluded that vanilla smallholder
farmers had high levels of livelihood outcomes compared to non-vanilla
smallholder farmers.
iii) Based on comparison of livelihood outcomes between vanilla and non-vanilla
smallholder farmers, it is concluded that livelihood outcomes of vanilla
smallholder farmers and non-vanilla smallholder farmers differed
significantly (P≤0.000).
57
5.2 Recommendations
Basing on the findings and discussions of this study, the following are recommended
in order to improve livelihood outcomes of smallholder farmers in Bukoba Rural
District.
i) Farmers in the study area should be sensitized to engage more in non-farming
activities which are more profitable to help improve their livelihoods.
ii) Since findings show that majority of non-vanilla smallholder farmers had low
levels of livelihood outcomes, these farmers are urged to engage in vanilla
production in order to improve their livelihood.
iii) The central government, local government and other agricultural institutions
should carry out more sensitization on vanilla production in order to raise
farmers‟ awareness on knowledge and importance of vanilla in relation to
improving yields and wellbeing of the farmers.
iv) Based on the fundamental importance of vanilla crop in the area giving high
contribution to household‟s income, there is need for increased sensitization
programmes on vanilla production in the study area.
v) The spice board of Tanzania should brand vanilla crop in the international
market to help vanilla farmers have more profit with the crop as it has more
profit and it is more consumed abroad than domestically.
5.3 Suggestions for Further Studies
a) In the study area, it was discovered that both men and women were involved in
vanilla production therefore; a gendered study should be conducted to
determine how different household members benefit from vanilla production.
b) Further research is suggested on cost and returns of vanilla production in the
study area.
c) Lastly, since this research discovered that vanilla production is a very labour
intensive crop to produce, a study on the productivity of vanilla production (per
unit of labour) can be a very important area for further research.
58
REFERENCES
Achterbosch, T. J., Berkum van S., Meijerink, G. W. (2014). Cash crops and food
security: contribution to income, livelihood risk and agricultural innovation.
Wageningen: LEI Wageningen.
Amin, M. E. (2005). Social science research methods: conception, methodology and
analysis. Kampala: Makerere University Printery.
Anderson, J. A., Marita, C., & Musiime, D. (2016). National survey and
segmentation of smallholder households in Tanzania: Understanding their
demand for financial, agricultural and digital solutions. Washington, D.C:
World Bank Group. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org.
Arora, D. (2014). Gender division of labour and farm production in subsistence
households. Retrieved from: https://editorialexpress.com
Assenga, E. A., Mwageni, E. A & Kayunze, A. K. (2013). SACCOS and women
poverty reduction in Morogoro district in Tanzania. Tanzanian Journal of
Population Studies and Development, 20 (1&2), 1-16
Bacho, F. Z. L. (2004). An exploratory survey of small scale off-farm economic
activities and sustainable household livelihoods in the Bongo district of
Ghana: Ghana Journal of Development Studies, 1 (2), 27-49. doi:
10.4314/gjds.v1i2.35005.
Bailey, K. (1998). Methods of social research. New York: The Free Press Avenue.
Balamurugan, S. (2009). A study of cost and returns of vanilla cultivation in India
(Doctoral Dissertation). Kamaraj University, Madurai, India.
Bennett, M., & Franzel, S. (2009). Can organic and resource-conserving agriculture
improve livelihoods? : A meta-analysis and Conceptual Framework for Site-
specific Evaluation (ICRAF Occasional Paper No. 11). Nairobi: World Agro
forestry Centre.
59
Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: principles, methods and practice.
textbooks collection (2nd ed.). Florida, USA: University of South Florida.
Birthal, P. S., Negi, D. S., Jha, A. K., & Singh, D. (2014). Income sources of farm
households in India: Determinants, Distributional Consequences and Policy
Implications. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 27(1), 37-
48.doi:10.5958/j.0974-0279.27.1.003.
BlueBiz, (2019). NEI: Adding Value to Tanzania’s Premium Vanilla. Retrieved from
https://www.bluebiz.com/en/BizClubs/Club-Africa-News/nei-adding-value-
to-tanzanias-premium-vanilla.
Bowen, G. (2009). Documents analysis as a qualitative research method: Qualitative
Research Journal, 9, 27-40. doi: 10.3316/QRJ0902027.
Brown, D. R., Stephens, E., & Ouma, J. (2006). Livelihood strategies in the rural
Kenyan highlands. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/
46534639
Burton, J. (2018). The leading Countries in vanilla production in the World: An
important component in various foods, Asia and Africa lead the way in
producing both synthetic and natural vanilla. Retrieved from
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-leading-countries-in-vanilla-
production-in-the-world.html
Busungu, C. (2009). Genetic diversity study of vanilla planifolia: Crop Grown in
Tanzania Using Molecular Techniques (Master‟s Thesis). Sokoine University
of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania.
Byensi, N. S. (2011). Factors affecting dynamic adoption of vanilla in Uganda: a
case study of Mukono District (Master‟s Thesis). Makerere University,
Uganda.
Cadot, O., Dutoit, L., & De Melo, J. (2006). The elimination of Madagascar’s
vanilla marketing board, Ten years on World Bank Policy Research
(Working Paper, 3979). Washington, DC: World Bank.
60
Cahn, M. (2006). Sustainable rural livelihoods, micro-enterprise and culture in the
Pacific Islands: Case Studies from Samoa (Doctorate Thesis). Massey
University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Carter, R. M., & Barrett, C. B., (2006). The economics of poverty traps and
persistent poverty: An asset-based approach. The Journal of Development
Studies, 42 (2), 178-199.doi: 10.1080/00220380500405261
Chambers, R. & Conway, G. R. (1991). Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical
concepts for the 21st Century. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net
Chamicha, S. (2015).Non-farm activities and Rural livelihood in Tanzania. The case
of Njombe District (Master‟s thesis). The Hague, Netherlands: International
Institute of social studies.
CNV International & Fairfood International. (2016). Bittersweet Vanilla:
Theunsavory story of vanilla farmers in Madagascar‟s Sava Region.
Retrieved from https://fairfood.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Bittersweet-
Vanilla.pdf
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). United States of America: Sage Publications.
Damien, M. G. (2013). Barriers to trade for smallholder farmers in Tanzania. a
review and analysis of agricultural related market policies in Tanzania.
Albania: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Daniel, E. (2013). Assessment of agricultural extension services in Tanzania: A case
study of Kyela, Songea Rural, and Morogoro Rural Districts. Internship
Report. Retrieved from http://www.parasite-project.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/12/Elifadhili-2013-Internship-report-final.pdf
61
Davis, J. R. (2003). The rural non-farm economy, livelihoods and their
diversification: Issues and options: Rural non-farm economy. Retrieved from
https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econonwp/dev/papers/0510/0510016.
pdf.
De La Cruz, J., Medina, L. C., Jiménes, G. C. R., García, H. S., Lucía, T., Zarrabal,
R., & Olvera, R. (2009). Vanilla - post-harvest operations - post-harvest
compendium. FAO.
Denscombe, M. (2014). The good research guide (5th. ed.) New York: Open
University Press.
Department For International Department, (1999). Sustainable livelihoods guidance
sheets. Retrieved from https:/www.ennoline.net/attachments/871/dfid-
sustainable-livelihoods-livelihoods-guidance-sheet-section1.pdf
Department For International Department, (2001). Sustainable livelihoods guidance
sheets (2). The UK department for international development. London.
Retrieved from http:/www.livelihoods.org/info/guidance-sheets-pdfs/section
2.pdf.
Department For International Department, (2002). Better livelihoods for poor people:
The role of agriculture. Retrieved
fromhttps://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/Better_Livelihoods_for_Poor_Pe
ople_The_Role_of.html
Department For International Department, (2000). Sustainable livelihoods guidance
sheets. Retrieved from http://www.livelihoodscentre.org/documents/
20720/100145/Sustainable+livelihoods+guidance+sheets/8f35b59f-8207-
43fc-8b99-df75d3000e86.
Doe, J. (2013). Revitalizing vanilla in Madagascar: Report on a feasibility study to
enhance small farmer participation in the vanilla value chain. Retrieved from
https://www.crs.org/our-work-overseas/research-publications/revitalizing-
vanilla-madagascar.
62
Ellis, F. (1998). Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. The
Journal of Development Studies, 35 (1) 1-38. doi:
10.1080/00220389808422553.
Ellis, F. (2000). The determinants of rural livelihoods diversification in developing
Countries. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51 (2), 289-302. doi:
10.111/j.1477-9552.2000.tb01229.x
Exley, R. (2010). Vanilla production in Australia. Handbook of vanilla science and
technology, 69–78.doi.org/10.1002/9781444329353.ch5
Food and Agriculture Organization & Internal Labour Organization (2009). The
livelihoods assessment tool-kit analyzing and responding to the impact of
disasters on the livelihood of people. Retrieved from http://www.fao.
org/fileadmin/user_upload/emergencies/docs/LAT_Brochure_LoRes.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organization (2015). The economic lives of smallholder
farmers. Rome: FAO. doi:10.5296/rae.v6i4.6320.
Food and Agriculture Organization, (2017). The state of food and agriculture
leveraging food systems for inclusive rural transformation: Leveraging food
systems for inclusive rural transformation. Retrieved from
www.fao.org/publications.
Farm Radio International (2018). Tanzania: Contract farming helps vanilla producers
get good prices, stable market. Retrieved from http://wire.farmradio.fm/
en/farmer-stories/2018/04/tanzania-contract-farming-helps-vanilla-producers-
get-good-prices-stable-market-17222.
Fehr, C. (2010).Vanilla production in East Africa Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, and
Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. New York: CRC Press.
Garu F.A. (2017). Organic spices farming in West Districts, Zanzibar: Its
contribution to livelihoods outcomes of smallholder farmers (Master‟s
Thesis). Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania.
63
GIZ (2014). The second most expensive spice in the world. Germany: Business Unit
Private Sector Cooperation.
Gourmet, V. (2019). Vanilla market update 2019. Retrieved from http://www.
gourmetvanilla.co.uk/vanilla-market-update/4574495445.
Hänke, H., Barkmann, J., & Martin, D. (2018). Socio-economic, land use and value
chain perspectives on vanilla farming in the SAVA Region (north-eastern
Madagascar): The Diversity Turn Baseline Study (DTBS). Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329268603.
Hassan, M. A. (2015). Factors affecting market access among spice farmers in
Zanzibar (Master‟s Thesis). Sokoine University of Agriculture, Mororgoro,
Tanzania.
Havkin-Frenkel, D., & Belanger, F. C. (2010). Handbook of vanilla science and
technology. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444329353
Schalkwyk, H. D., Groenewald, J. A., Fraser, G. C. G., Obi, A., & Van Tilburg, A.
(Eds.) (2012). Unlocking markets for smallholder in South Africa: Lessons
from South Africa. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers (10). 23-
33. doi: 10.3920/978-90-8686-168-2_6.
Hill, R., & Vigneri, M. (2014). Mainstreaming gender sensitivity in cash crop market
supply chains (ESA Working Paper No. 11-08, 315-341). doi: 10.1007/978-
94-017-8616.4_13
Hivu, D.O. (2013). The impact of smallholder cocoa production on rural livelihoods:
a case study in the Solomon Islands (Master‟s Thesis). Massey University,
Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Hoffman, P. G., & Zapf, C. M. (2010). Flavour, quality, and authentication. In
Handbook of Vanilla Science and Technology (pp. 162-182). doi
10.1002/9781444329353
64
International Recovery Platform (2010). Guidance note on recovery: Livelihood.
Retrieved from www.recoveryplatform.org
International Trade Centre (2014). Tanzania: Spices sub sector strategy. Retrieved
from http://www.intracen.org/uploadedFiles/Tanzania-Spices%20Roadmap%
20_ final. pdf
Jagdish, R. (2016). Vanilla cultivation information guide. Retrieved from
https://www.agrifarming.in/vanilla-cultivation
Joseph, J. (2018, October, 22). Kilimanjaro farmers embrace vanilla. The Citizen
Retrieved from http:// The CitizenTz [email protected]
Kajela, D. M., Prem, D., & Dara, K. P. (2019). Linkage between income
diversification and asset ownership in rural households of Yayu Woreda and
Hurumu WOreda, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. International Journal of
Research-Granthaalayah, 7(1), 56–72. doi:10.5281/zenodo.2550091.
Kalimangàsi, N. N., Kihombo, A., & Kalimangàsi, N. (2014). Contribution of
contract cocoa production on improving livelihood of smallholder farmers.
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 4(10).
Retrieved from www.ijsrp.org/research-papaer-1014/ijsrp-p34108.pdf
Kalyanaraman, B. K., Nathan, F., Heidi, H., Jieun, L., Stefan, M., Stephen, M. ... Ifti,
W. (2012) .The market for vanilla in Germany and the United States. Export
Opportunity Surveys (Research Paper, 1). Retrieved from:
https:/pdfs.semanticscholar.org/412b/9072ce75b76ad168ac360799d792d781f
40f.pdf.
Kapinga, A. G. (2015). Impacts of REDD+ activities to rural communities’
livelihoods: Evidence from Kondoa Advanced REDD+ in Kolo Hills Forests
project in Tanzania. (Master‟s Thesis). Sokoine University of Agriculture
Morogoro, Tanzania.
65
Katega, I., Hyandye, C., & Miyonga, M. (2014). Contributing factors to decline of
coffee production in Muleba District: International Journal of Research in
Chemistry and Environment: A Case of Makarwe Village in Buleza Ward.
Int. J. Res. Chem. Environ, 4, 85–89. Retrieved from www.ijrce.org/
uploads/20/882_pdf.pdf.
Katega, I. B., & Lifuliro, C. S. (2014). Rural non-farm activities and poverty
alleviation in Tanzania: A case study of two villages in Chamwino and Bahi
Districts of Dodoma Region. Retrieved from http:www.repoa.or.tz/
documents/ REPOA_RR_14_7.pdf.
Kessy, F. (2005). Economic and social Research foundation (ESRF): Rural Income
Dynamics in Kagera Region, Tanzania. Retrieved from: http://edi-
global.com.
Khosla, A. (1999). Policy matters: sustainable livelihoods. Retrieved from
www.sdpi.org/ceesp.
Kifelew, H., Hailemichael, G., Mulatu, Z., Bekelle, D., Getu, A., Mitiku, H., &
Tefera, T. (2016). Result of Vanilla (Vanilla Planifolia) Adaptation Study in
Ethiopia. International Journal of Research Studies in Agricultural Sciences
(IJRSAS), 2 (5), 35-38. doi: 10.20431/2454-6224.0205005.
Kintingu, B. B (2013). Contribution of grapes farming to the improvement of
livelihoods of grapes growers in Dodoma (Master‟s Thesis).University of
Dodoma, Tanzania.
Kisoza, L. J. A. (2014). Impact of policy and legal reforms on a pastoral system in
lower Kagera Sub-Basin, North Western Tanzania. Retrieved from:
https://www.ajol.info/index.php/huria/article/viewFile/108737/98532.
Komarek, A. M. (2010). Crop diversification decisions: The case of vanilla in
Uganda. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 49 (3), 227-242.
Krantz, L. (2001). The sustainable livelihood approach to poverty reduction. an
introduction. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1.1.469.7818.
66
Kumba, J. K., Wegulo, F., & Otieno, J. (2015). The impact of socio-economic
characteristics on cash and food crop production: Implications on household
food situation in Kiisi Central Sub-County, Kenya, Developing Country
Studies, 5 (5).
Levin, A. K. (2006). Study design III: cross-sectional studies, evidence-based
dentistry, 7, 24-25. doi:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400375.
Levine, S. (2014). How to study livelihoods: Bringing a sustainable livelihoods
framework to life (Working Paper 22). Retrieved from
https://securelivelihoods.org/wp-content/uploads/How-to-study-livelihoods-
Bringing-a-sustainable-livelihoods-framework-to-life.pdf
Liberio, J. (2012). Factors contributing to adoption of sunflower farming innovations
in Mlali Ward, Mvomero District, Morogoro, Tanzania (Master‟s Thesis).
Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania.
Lusendamila, S. L. (2010). Cashewnut production and marketing in Mkuranga
District, Tanzania.(Master’s Thesis). Sokoine University of Agriculture,
Morogoro, Tanzania.
Lwelamira, J., Safari, J., & Wambura, P. (2015) Grapevine farming and its
contribution to household income and welfare among smallholder farmers in
Dodoma Urban District, Tanzania. American Journal of Agriculture and
Forestry, 3 (3), 73-79.doi:10.11648/j.ajf.20150303.12
Lwoga, T. E., Stilwell, C., & Ngulube, P. (2011).Access and use of agricultural
information and knowledge in Tanzania. Library Review, Vol. 60(5), 383-
395.doi: 10.1108/00242531111135263.
Machimu, G. M. (2016). Contribution of smallholder sugarcane contract farming to
household livelihood outcomes in Kilombero Valley, Tanzania.(Doctorate
Thesis).Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania.
Mayawa (2001). Kilimo bora cha vanilla Mkoani Kagera (4th ed., 233pp.). Wizara
ya Kilimo Chakula na Ushirika.
67
Mbwambo, E. P. (2015). Impact of pig keeping on farmers' livelihoods outcomes: a
case of Mbeya Region, Tanzania. (Master‟s Thesis). Sokoine University of
Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania.
Mchopa, A. D., & Jeckoniah, J. N. (2018). Impact of sunflower production on
livelihood outcomes among smallholder farmers households in Iramba
District. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 5(10), 362–371.
doi.10.14738/assrj.510.5325
McKillop, R. F., & Wood, J. (2010). Smallholder coffee farmers in Papua New
Guinea: Challenges and hopes. Agricultural science, 22 (2), 27-31.
Minot, N., Epprecht, M., Anh, T., & Trung, L.Q (2006). Income diversification and
poverty in the Northern Uplands of Vietnam (Research Report No. 145).
International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington, DC.
Mmasa, J. J. (2017). Impact of ginger farming to smallholder farmers‟ income in
Tanzania-case of Same District. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension,
Economics and Sociology, 20 (2) 1-10,doi: 10.9734/AJAEES/2017/34873
Mphande F. A. (2016). Infectious diseases and rural livelihood in developing
countries: Rural Livelihoods, (2) 17-34. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-0428-5.
Msinde, J. V. (2016). Farm-off-farm linkages: contribution of off-farm employment
to farm inputs expenditure, shocks management and poverty reduction in
Kilombero valley, Tanzania (Doctoral Thesis). Sokoine University of
agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania.
Mulisa, M. (2018, August, 31). Vanilla: Potential game changer for Kagera farmers.
Daily News. Retrieved from https://www.dailynews.co.tz.
Muyanga, M., & Jayne, T. S. (2019). Revisiting the farm size productivity
relationship based on a relatively wide range of farm sizes: Evidence from
Kenya. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 101 (4), 1140-1163.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/1093/ajae/aaz003.pdf
68
Mwatawala, H. W., Mwang‟onda, E., & Hyera, R. N. (2016). Paddy production in
southern highlands of Tanzania: Contribution to household income and
challenges faced by paddy Farmers in Mbarali District. Scholars Journal of
Agriculture Veterinary Sciences, 3(3), 262–269. Retrieved from
http://saspjournals.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/SJAVS-33262-269.pdf
Narayan, D. (2000). Voices of the poor: Can anyone hear us. Voices from 47
Countries. Voices of the poor vol. 1. Retrieved from
https://www.participatorymethods.org
Nasrin, N., & Wahid, T. (2015). Contribution of rural non-farm activities in
household income generation: a study on Khulna Region. IOSR Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, 20 (10), 1–12. doi.10.9790/0837-201010112
Nawrotzki, R. J., Hunter, L. M., & Dickinson, T. W. (2012). Rural livelihoods and
access to natural capital: differences between migrants and non-migrants in
Madagascar. Demographic Research, 26, 661. doi.10.4054/2012.26.24
National Bureau of Statistics, (2007). National sample census of agriculture. Kagera
Regional report. Retrieved from :https://www.nbs.go.tz.
National Bureau of Statistics, (2013). 2012 Population and housing census:
population distribution by administrative areas. Dar es salaam and Zanzibar.
Ndambiri, H. K., Ritho, C., Ng'ang'a, S. I., Kubowon, P. C., Mairura, F. C.,
Nyangweso, P. M., Muiruri, E.M. & Cherotwo, F. H. (2012). Determinants of
economic growth in Sub Saharan Africa: A panel data approach.
International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 2 (2), 18-24.
Neef, A., Mizuno, K., Schad, I., Williams, P. M., & Rwezimula, F. (2012).
Community-based microtrade in support of small-scale farmers in Thailand
and Tanzania. The Law and Development Review,5 (1). Retrieved from
http://www.lawanddevelopment.net/Volume5No1Art5Neefetal.pdf
69
Ng‟ang‟a, S. K., Jeannette, V., Notenbaert, A., Moyo, S., & Herrero, M.
(2011).Household livelihood strategies and livestock benefits dependence in
Gaza province of Mozambique. African Journal of Agricultural Research,
6(3), 560–572. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10568/3955
Ngaga,Y.M., Mvena, Z.S.K., Rweyemamu C.L., Maerere A.P., Ndyetabula, L.I.,
Moshi S. & Kagombola, R.K. (2006). Baseline Survey report on Broadening
Genetic Base, Increasing Vines for Planting on Farm Processing and
Marketing of Vanilla in Selected Areas of Tanzania. PANTIL Research
Project.Sokoine University of Agriculture.23 pp.
Ntibiyoka, J. (2014). Economics of smallholder Tobacco production and marketing
in Mpanda District. (Master‟s Thesis). Sokoine University of Agriculture,
Morogoro, Tanzania
Nyomera, A., Kanyeka, Z. & Ndunguru, A. (2012) Supporting Tanzania‟s Cocoa
Farmers. Reseearch Report 12/3. Retrieved from http://www.repoa.or.tz/
documents/REPOA_RR_12-3.pdf
Odoemenem, I.U. & Obinne, C.P.O. (2010). Assessing the factors influencing the
utilization of improved cereal crop production technologies by small-scale
farmers in Nigeria. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 3 (1), 180-
183. doi: 10.1.1.673.5990
Ogula, P. A. (2005). Research methods. Nairobi: Catholic University of Eastern
Africa Publications.
Ojambo, F., & Hill, M. (2018).Vanilla production in Uganda surges as farmers
battles thieves. Retrieved fromhttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles
Oyugi, B. A. (2016). Socio-economic impacts of sugarcane farming on livelihoods
and the biophysical environment in Transmara Sub-County, Kenya (Master‟s
Thesis) Kenyatta University, Kenya.
Packer, E. (2008). The flavour of money: The Vanilla Industry and the Economy of
Antalaha. Retrieved from https:digitalcollections.sit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi
70
Pro-poor Economic Growth and Environmentally Sustainable Development Poverty
and Environmental Initiative, (2014). Mapping study of P-E related
Innovative Local Best Practices and Local Private Funding Opportunities
Bukoba Rural District. Retrieved from http://www.esrftz.org/PEI/pdf/PEI_
Mapping _Study_Bukoba.pdf
Perez-Borbolla, V., Andreu-Iglesias, G. L., Rodriguez-Luna, M., Aguilar-Octavio, P.
(2017). Perceptions regarding the challenges and constraints faced by
smallholder farmers of vanilla in Mexico. : A multidisciplinary approach to
the theory and practice of sustainable development. Environment,
development and sustainability, 19 (6) 2421-2441.doi: 10.1007/s10668-016-
9863-y
Petkoski, D., & Magarinos-Ruchat, B. (2014). Firmenich and Danida in Uganda:
Sustainable Vanilla Sourcing through an Innovative Partnership. Retrieved
from https://www.wbcsd.org/contentwbc/download/2870/35917
Poindexter J. (2019). Growing vanilla: How to plant, grow, and harvest vanilla beans
successfully. Retrieved from https://morningchores.com/growing-vanilla
Portocarrero, J. V., Young, T. Y., & Colman, D. (2006). Non-farm rural activities in
a peasant economy: The case of the North Peruvian Sierra. Journal of
International Development, 18 (2) 207-221.doi:10.1002/jid.1191
Putnam, R. D., & Nanetti, R.Y. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic Traditions in
Modern Italy. Princeton, N., J.: Princeton University Press.
Rana, R., Marthur, A., Jain, C. K., Sharma, S. K., & Marthur, G. (2013). Microbial
production of vanilla. International Journal of Biotechnology and
Bioengineering Research,4 (3), 227–234. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1141.2012.01075
Reuben. R., Van Den, B.M. (2001). Non employment and poverty alleviation of rural
farm households in Honduras. World Development, 29 (3), 549-560. doi:
10.1016/S0305-750x (00)00107-8.
71
Rutasitara, L. (2002). Economic policy and rural poverty in Tanzania: a survey of
three regions. research report on poverty alleviation (Research Report No.
021). Dar es Salaam: Mkuki & Nyota Publishers.
Rwegoshora, H. (2006). A guide to social science research. Dar-es Salaam,
Tanzania: Mkuki & Nyota Publishers.
Salehi, A., Karltun L.Ch., Söderberg U., & Eriksson L. 0. (2010). Livelihood
dependency on woodland resources in Southern Zagros, Iran. Caspian
Journal of Environmental Sciences (CJES). 8 (2), 181-194 .
Samsudin, S., & Kamaruddin, R. (2013). Distribution of the livelihood assets among
the hardcore poor: Evidence from Kedah, Malaysia. World Applied Sciences
Journal. 28 (13), 38–42. doi:10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.28.efmo.27008
Sarris, A., Savastano, S. & Christianensen, L. (2006). The role of agriculture in
reducing poverty in Tanzania: A household perspective from rural
Kilimanjaro and Ruvuma (Working Paper 19). FAO Commodity and Trade
Policy Research Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-ah468e.pdf
Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihood framework for analysis (IDS
Working Paper 72). Retrieved from: https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk
Sefika E. O. (2015). Material use and architectural features of rural architecture in
Diyarbakir. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sefika
Serrat, O., & Serrat, O. (2017). The sustainable livelihoods approach: Knowledge
Solutions, 21–26. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_5
Simon, S. M. M. (2005). Adoption of Rotational woodlot Technology in Semi-Arid
areas of Tanzania: The Case of Tabora Region (Doctoral Thesis). Sokoine
University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania.
72
Slater, R., & Twyman, C. (2003). Hidden livelihoods? : natural resource-dependent
livelihoods and urban development policy. London: Overseas development
Institute. Retrieved from https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-
assets/publications-opinion-files/2462.pdf
Somji, N. (2007). Agricultural council of Tanzania: Financing agriculture. Retrieved
from http://www.actanzania.org/index.php.
Stirrat, R. L. (2004). Yet another “Magic Bullet”: the case of social capital: Aquatic
Resources, culture and development. 1(1), 25-33. doi:10.1079/ARC20044
Syed, S., & Miyazako, M. (2013). Promoting investment in agriculture for increased
production and productivity. Retrieved From: www.fao.org/3/a-az725e.pdf.
Tanzania Demographic Health Survey (2005). Tanzania demographic and health
survey 2004-2005.Maryland: National Bureau of Statistics and ORC Macro,
Calveton.
Tanzania Invest (2019). Smallholder farmers. Tanzania smallholder farmers.
Retrieved From: https://www.tanzaniainvest.com/smallholders
Tijani, B. A., Benisheik, K. M., Mustapha, A. B., & Dangaladima, W. (2010).
Analysis of factors influencing labour supplied to non-farm sub-sector by
households in Mubi north local government area of Adamawa State, Nigeria.
Nigerian Journal of Basic and Applied Science.18 (1), 35–43
Tweve, A. B. & Jeckoniah, J. N. (2018). Gendered Livelihood Outcomes from
Woodlots in Mufindi District, Tanzania. Journal of Co-operative and
Business Studies (JCBS). Retrieved from http://www.suaire.suanet.ac.tz
Tweve, A. B. (2016). Gendered livelihood outcomes from woodlots in Mufindi
District, Tanzania (Master‟s Thesis). Sokoine University of Agriculture,
Morogoro, Tanzania.
United Nations Development Programme, (2017). Securing vanilla for farmers and
development in Comoros. Retrieved from http://www.africa.undp.org
73
United Republic of Tanzania, (2004). Agriculture as the backbone of the economy of
Tanzania. Dar-es Salaam: Ministry of agriculture and food security.
Retrieved from http://www.tanzaniagateway.org
United Republic of Tanzania, (2013). Agriculture. Tanzania government website.
Retrieved from http:// www.tanzania. go.tz/ agriculturef.html.
Walker, E. (2015). Male farmers are up to 3 times more productive than female
farmers. Retrieved from https://www.one.org.
Wamalwa, J. K. (2011). The consequences of emerging cash crops on small-scale
rural farmers’ livelihoods: a case study of the energy crop, Jatropha Curcas
L, in Kenya (Master‟s Thesis).Massey University, Palmerston North, New
Zealand.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Special working
session. Retrieved from https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org
Wiggins, S., & Keats, S. (2014). Economic and private sector professional evidence
and applied knowledge services topic guide: Smallholder Engagement with
the Private Sector. Retrieved from http://partnerplatform.org/eps-peaks
World Bank (2009). Local Government Discretion and Accountability: Application
of a Local Governance Framework. Retrieved from www.worldbank.org
World Bank (2007). Tanzania-pilot rural investment climate assessment: Stimulating
non-farm microenterprise growth. Washington DC. Retrieved from
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org
World Bank. (2008). World development report: Agriculture for development.
Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org
Wye Group Handbook. (2007) Rural households’ livelihood and well-being:
Statistics on rural development and agriculture household income. Geneva:
United Nations.
74
Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis. Tokyo, Harper & Row, New
York and John Weatherhill.
Zakaria, H. (2009). Socio-economic analysis of livelihood strategies of rural women
beneficiaries of microcredit in the Tolon/Kumbungu district of the Northern
Region of Ghana. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.2351.9601
Zakaria, H. (2017). The drivers of women farmers‟ participation in cash crop
production: The case of women smallholder farmers in Northern Ghana. The
journal of Agricultural education and extension, 23 (2), 141-158.doi:
10.1080/1389224X.2016.1259115.
75
APPENDICES
Appendix I: Questionnaire on the Contribution of Vanilla Production to
Livelihood Outcomes among Smallholder Farmers in Bukoba
Rural District, Tanzania
Good morning/afternoon/evening Sir/Madam. My name is Irene Gerald Muzanila. I
am a Postgraduate student from the University of Dodoma carrying out research on
the contribution of vanilla production to livelihood outcomes among smallholder
farmers in Bukoba Rural District. Your sub location was selected for the study and I
am visiting you today to seek your consent to collect data concerning the title above
for academic purposes only. Summary of the statistics will be made and all the data
will be held with supreme confidentiality. Respondents will be guided by the
interviewer in filling out the questionnaires. This interview will take a maximum of
10 minutes.
Questionnaire No……………..Date…………………………..
A. Residence and Socio-demographic identification
Name of the respondent…………………………………………
Name of head of the household………………………………….
District………………………………………………
Ward………………………………………………………
Village……………………………………………………
Interview date………………………..
Household identification number…………………….
76
B. Household Composition
1. Current Residence of Household Members
Sex
1.Male
2.Fema
le
Age
(Year
s)
Marital
status
1.Single
2.Married
3.Separeted
4.Widow
5.Widower
6.Cohabit
7.Child
8.Others
(specify)
Education level
1.No formal
education
2.Primary
3.Secondary
4.College/Univer
sity
Years
of
schooli
ng
Main
Occupation
1.Salaried
employmen
t
2. Self
employed
off farm
3.Crop
production
4.Livestock
keeping
5.Trader
6.Casual
labourer off
farm
7.Fisher
folk
8. Student
pupil
9. Non
school child
10.Others
(specify)
1.House
hold
head
2.
3.
4.
5.
77
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
C. Information on farming and non- farming activities.
2. Are you a vanilla farmer?
1. Yes 2. No
3. Which crop do you produce?
1. Coffee 2. Bananas 3.Beans 4. Sweet potatoes 5.Maize 6. Tomatoes
7.cabbage 8. Onions 7. Other (specify)……………………..
4. When did you start producing? (Indicate year)……………..
5. How many seasons do you harvest your crop?
1. One 2. Two 3. Three 4. Four
6. What was the main source of capital for your production?
1. Own savings 2. Loan 3. Government 4.Donors 5. Relatives/ friends
7. What is your household total farm size?
(Acres)…………………………………..
8. How much of your farm size is dedicated to farming?
(Acres)……..................................
9. How much of your farm size is dedicated to vanilla production?
(Acres)………………
10. Do you engage yourself in non-farm activities?
1. Yes 2. No
11. What non-farm activities are you engaged in ?
Income generating activities Yes= 1 No= 2
Casual labour on other people‟s farm
Salaried work
Wage employment in private owned
venture
Livestock keeping
78
Food vending (mama lishe)
Genge
Kiosk
Brick making
Carpentry
Milling cereals
Transport and service sector
(taxi/daladala/bodaboda
Masonry
Charcoal burning
Local brewing
Salon
Tailoring
Remittances
79
D. Household income
12. How much do you earn per year from farming activities?
(Tsh)……………………
Crops Income earned per year (TZS)
1.Coffee
2.Banana
3.Vanilla
4.Beans
5.Sweet potatoes
6.Maize
7. Tomatoes
8. Cabbage
9.Onions
10.Carrots
11.Egg plants
Others
80
13. How much do you earn per year from non-farming activities?
(Tsh)………………………………………..
IGAs Income per year
1.Casual labour on other people‟s farm
2.Salaried work
3.Wage employment in private owned venture
4. Livestock keeping (cattle, goats, sheep,
poultry)
5. Kiosk
6.Brick making
7. Carpentry
8.Milling cereals
9.Casual labour in other farms
10. Wage employment in private owned
venture
11.Remittances from relatives
12. Transport and service sector
(taxi/daladala/bodaboda)
13. Masonry
14.Petty trade
15.Charcoal burning
16. Local Brewing
17. Tailoring
Salon
14. Has your household income increased after your involvement in vanilla farming?
1. Yes 2. No
If yes, how much has increased? …………………………….
If no, give reasons…………………………………
81
E. Household asset ownership
15. Does your household own any of the following assets?
S/N Assets owned Yes= 1 No= 2 If yes
how
many
Estimated value of
asset
1. Poultry
2. Cattle
3. Functioning bicycle
4. Plot of land (acres)
5. Functioning motorbike
6. Functioning Television
set
7. Solar panel
8. Functioning cell phone
9. Functioning radio
10 Goat
11 Sheep
12. Tractor
13. Wheel barrow
14. Water pumping set
15. Sprayer
16. Milling machine
F. Household housing condition
16. Attributes of the house in which the household members live
House Attributes of the house
1. Ownership of the house 1= Owner 2 =Rented
2. Type of the house floor 1= Earth, 2= Floor tiles, 3=Cement 4= Grass
3. Material of the house
walls
1= Block bricks 2= Mud bricks 3=Soil
4.=timber
4. Roof of the house 1= Iron sheets 2= Roofing tiles 3= Grass 4 =
thatched
82
5. Main source of lighting
for the household
1= Electricity/solar 2 =Lantern lamp 3=
small oil lamp(kibatari) 4= Candle
6. Source of water for
domestic use
1= River 2= Borehole 3= Rain harvest 4=
Buying
7. Main source of power for
cooking
1= Electricity/solar 2= Firewood 3=Gas 4=
Charcoal
8. Type of latrine 1= Pit latrine 2= Flush/septic tank
17. What are the challenges faced by vanilla producers?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
18. What are your general comments on vanilla production?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Thank you very much for your cooperation
83
Appendix II: Interview Guide for key informants
Good morning/afternoon/evening Sir/Madam. My name is Irene Gerald Muzanila. I
am a Postgraduate student from the University of Dodoma carrying out research on
the contribution of vanilla production to livelihood outcomes among smallholder
farmers in Bukoba Rural District. You are among the persons to provide information
for this research. I am kindly requesting for your time to assist me by providing
information from the following questions given below. Kindly be informed that the
information you will provide will be handled confidentially and will only be used for
academic purposes.
1. District…………….Ward……………..
Village………………Name…………….Title………………………
2. What are the main sources of income in your area?
………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………….
3. What are the non-farming activities available in your area?
………………………………………………………………………...
…………………………………………………………………………
4. To what extent ido non-farm activities contribute to livelihoods of
smallholder farmers?
………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………
5. What is the current total number of vanilla smallholder farmers in your area?
………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………..
6. Apart from vanilla, what other crop/crops are mainly produced in your area?
…………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………..
7. What size of farm is dedicated to vanilla farming within your area?
………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………
8. How much does a kilogramme of vanilla cost?
…………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………...
84
9. What assets do smallholder farmers own in your area?
………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………
10. What are the major challenges faced by vanilla farmers?
………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………
11. What recommendations/ suggestions do you have for further improvements of
vanilla production?
…………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………...
Thank you for your cooperation
85
Appendix III: Documentary review checklist
S/N Title/Office Documents
1.
2.
Village Agriculture Officer
MAYAWA OFFICE
Reports on registered vanilla
smallholder farmers
Reports on vanilla
production performance
Reports on performance of
other crops
Registers on vanilla
producers
Mayawa journals
86
Appendix IV: Independent sample t-test for household monetary asset values among vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers
(n=100)
Income Levene’s Test for
equality of
variance
t-test for equality of means 95% confidence Interval of the
Difference
F Sig T Df Sig.
(2tad)
Mean Difference Std Error
difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances
assumed
6.456 0.13 7.274
98
.000
1986380
273071.717
1444478.066
2528281.934
Equal variances
not assumed
7.274 87.407 .000 1986380 273071.717 1443656.005 2529103.995
87
Appendix V: Independent sample t-test for household income among vanilla and non-vanilla smallholder farmers (n=100)
Income Leevene’s Test
for equality of
variance
t-test for equality of means 95% confidence Interval of
the Difference
F Sig T Df Sig.
(2tad)
Mean
Difference
Std Error
difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances
assumed
1.118 .293 3.413
98
.001
714926
209487.2041
299205.4613
1130646.539
Equal variances
not assumed
3.413 93.282 .001 714926 209487.2041 298942.4999 1130909.500
88
Appendix VI: Introduction Letter from the University of Dodoma
89
Appendix VII: Permission Letter from Bukoba District Council
![Ocimum Sanctum [Tulsi]—An Alternative Additional Livelihood](https://img.pdfslide.net/doc/110x75/633770dcc06e50574602fa40/ocimum-sanctum-tulsian-alternative-additional-livelihood-.jpg)
