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

8/12/2019 2012 ECA Baseline Survey Report Barue Districe Mz -25 10 12

1/50

0

BEIRA AGRICULTURAL GROWTH CORRIDORBaseline Survey for the Commercialisation of

Small Scale Agriculture (ECA) Programme inBarue District, Mozambique.

BASELINE REPORT

August 2012

AEMA Development Consultants:-B.T. Hanyani-Mlambo

Quisito Bastos Gimo

Charity Nyasha Dangwa


2/50

1

Acknowledgements

The baseline information, analysis, updates on achievements to date, and recommendations

contained in this report have been contributed by many stakeholders directly or indirectly

involved in the Commercialization of Small Scale Agriculture (ECA) Programme. The consultantswould like to thank the Beira Agricultural Growth Corridor (BAGC) for initiating and supporting

this baseline survey. Sincere gratitude also goes to the ECA programme staff, Agricultural

Development Company (AgDevco), the World Food Programme, financial institutions, input

suppliers, commodity buyers, government officials, and producers in Barue District for their

initiatives, contributions and feedback during both the data collection period and the presentation

of preliminary findings.

The views expressed in this report, however, are those of the consultants, and do not necessarily

represent the views of BAGC and/or ECA.

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


3/50

2

Table of Contents

Table of ContentsAcknowledgements .................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................. 4

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................... 5

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 10

1.1 Background to the ECA Programme ...................................................................................................................... 10

1.2 Baseline Purpose and Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 10

2. Methodology and Baseline Strategy .............................................................................................................................. 12

2.1 Approach and Framework ......................................................................................................................................... 12

2.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................................................................... 13

2.3 Site Selection and Sampling ...................................................................................................................................... 142.4 Methodological Challenges ........................................................................................................................................ 15

3. ECA Project Participation .................................................................................................................................................. 16

3.1 Structure and Management of the ECA Project................................................................................................. 16

3.2 Participation of Small Scale Farmers .................................................................................................................... 16

3.3 Characterization of Growers on the ECA Programme.................................................................................... 17

4. Associations and Group Dynamics ................................................................................................................................ 20

4.1 Grower Membership to Production Groups ....................................................................................................... 20

4.2 Organization, Group Dynamics and Cohesion ................................................................................................... 20

4.3 Integration with Other Farmers Organizations............................................................................................... 215. Traditional Crop Production and Marketing ............................................................................................................. 22

5.1 Preamble ........................................................................................................................................................................... 22

5.2 Historical Crop Production Trends ........................................................................................................................ 22

5.2.1 Type of Crops, Yields and Production Volumes..................... ..................... ...................... ...................... ...... 225.2.2 Traditional Crop Production Practices .......................................................................................................... 22

5.2.3 Sources and Costs of Inputs ................................................................................................................................ 225.3 Crop Marketing Systems from the Past ................................................................................................................ 23

5.3.1 Marketing Arrangements.................................................................................................................................... 23

5.3.2 Marketed Volumes and Proportions................................................................................................................ 24

5.3.3 Producer Prices and Margins............................................................................................................................. 246. Technical Assistance and Backstopping ...................................................................................................................... 26

6.1 Technical Assistance before the ECA Project ...................... ...................... ..................... ...................... .............. 26

6.2 Training and Extension Support under ECA ...................................................................................................... 26

7. Credit and Market Support ............................................................................................................................................... 297.1 Credit and Market Support Prior to the ECA Project ...................... ..................... ...................... ..................... 29

7.2 ECA Credit, Finance and Input Support ............................................................................................................... 29

7.3 ECA Marketing Support .............................................................................................................................................. 32

8. Programme Impact on Crop Production Trends ..................................................................................................... 33

8.1 Adopted Agricultural Practices ............................................................................................................................... 33

8.1.1 Adopted Agricultural Production Practices ................................................................................................. 338.1.2 Input Use Intensity ................................................................................................................................................. 34

8.2 Project Impact on Crop Production ....................................................................................................................... 34

8.2.1 Impact on Crop Diversity..................................................................................................................................... 348.2.2 Impact on Area under Crop Production and Production Volumes................... ...................... .............. 35

8.2.3 Impact on Crop Yields ........................................................................................................................................... 369. New Marketing Arrangements ........................................................................................................................................ 37

9.1 New Market Linkages .................................................................................................................................................. 37


4/50

3

9.2 Marketed Volumes and Proportions ..................................................................................................................... 37

9.3 Value Addition Activities ............................................................................................................................................ 38

10. Economics of Production ................................................................................................................................................ 39

10.1 Project Impact on Production Costs ................................................................................................................... 39

10.2 Project Impact on Producer Prices ...................................................................................................................... 40

10.3 Improvements on Financial & Economic Margins .................... ..................... ...................... ...................... ... 4011. Impact on Livelihoods ...................................................................................................................................................... 42

11.1 Impact on Household Food Security ................................................................................................................... 42

11.2 Changes in Household Asset Ownership Patterns .................... ..................... ...................... ...................... ... 43

11.3 Impact on Poverty Reduction, Livelihoods & Household Incomes .................... ...................... .............. 44

12. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................. 47

12.1 Technical and Generic Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 47

12.1.1 CA Up-Scaling ........................................................................................................................................................ 4712.1.2 Facilitating the Formation of more Sustainable Farmer Clubs...................... ...................... .............. 47

12.1.3 TFT and the Capacity Building of Value Chain Players......................................................................... 4712.1.4 Use of an Integrated Approach....................................................................................................................... 47

12.2 Short, Medium and Long-Term Policy Recommendations .................... ...................... ...................... ... 47

12.2.1 Market Expansion ................................................................................................................................................ 4712.2.2 Adoption of an Effective M&E System .......................................................................................................... 48

12.2.3 Optimizing Margins through Diversification............................................................................................. 4813. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................. 49


5/50

4

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AgDevco Agricultural Development Company

BAGC Beira Agricultural Growth CorridorBOM Banco Opportunidade de Mozambique

CA Conservation Agriculture

CDM Cerveja de Mozambique

CPI Investment Promotion Centre

ECA Commercialization of Small Scale Agriculture Programme

(Empresa de Comercializao Agricola)

EPZ Export Processing Zone

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations

GI Gross Income

GM Gross Margin

GMA Gross Margin AnalysisHA Hectarage

HH Household

IFAD International Fund For Development Agriculture

JAM Joint Aid Management

KIIs Key Informant Interviews

MBIAMs Market-Based Input Assistance Mechanisms

MLT Mozambique Leaf Tobacco

NGO Non Governmental Organization

NR Natural Region

P4P WFPs Purchase for Progress ProgrammeTORS Terms of Reference

TtF ECAs Touch the Farmer ProjectTVC Total Variable Cost

USD United States Dollar

WFP World Food Programme


6/50

5

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Commercialisation of Small Scale Agriculture (ECA) Programme is a market-basedextension programme, which aims to ensure smallholder household food security andimproved incomes for up to 30,000 farmers in central Mozambique.

This baseline survey was designed to provide benchmark information for use in analysing andtracking programme impact over time.

The baseline survey was also designed to capture, through recall, the situation of theparticipating farmers prior to joining the programme as well as the achievements to date.

Methodology and Baseline Strategy

The Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) framework was used as the basis for assessing thecontribution that project activities made to sustaining livelihoods.

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

A total of 178 households were interviewed for the household questionnaire survey, with 82.6% ofthe households being beneficiaries, while the remaining 17.4% were non-beneficiaries.

The other specific baseline tools included a desk study, key informant interviews, focus groupdiscussions, case studies and direct observation.

Where possible data analysis was disaggregated by gender, while generic data analysis was guidedby already established five (5) farmer categories viz:-maize complete, maize medium, maize basic,sesame and non-beneficiaries.

ECA Project Participation

At programme inception, ECA registered 700 growers, with this statistic having grown to 936growers by the end of the first cropping season.

Out of the total 936 registered growers, a total of 72 growers (7.7%) were beneficiaries of thecomplete maize input package, 110 growers (11.8%) benefitted from the maize medium input

package, 649 growers (69.3%) benefitted from the maize basic input package, whilst 105

growers (11.2%) registered for the sesame programme.

Current support produced 1,400mt from 563ha of maize and 86mt from 188ha of sesame. Beneficiaries of more premium input support packages have on average smaller families,

judged by the household size, compared to beneficiaries of basic input support packages and

non-beneficiaries.

Female farmers constitute insignificant proportions (0 3.4%) of household heads incategories of farmers either participating or not participation on the ECA programme, with the

most affected farmer categories being beneficiaries of basic maize input packages and sesamegrowers.

The bulk of households benefitting from maize complete input packages (16.3%) and basicmaize input packages (29.3%) are married, while singles relatively dominant within the farmer

categories benefitting from medium maize input package and sesame growers.

The majority of ECA programme beneficiaries (65.8%) are relatively young adults, with thebulk of the beneficiaries falling within the 30 40 age-group, followed by those in the 40 50

age groups.

With the exception of sesame growers, whose education status analysis remains inconclusive,the categorization of programme beneficiaries for maize producers reflect their educational

status with beneficiaries having better education benefitting from higher pack order input

support packages.


7/50

6

Associations and Group Dynamics

A number of long-established farmer associations exist in the area, with a number of theminvolved in marketing activities.

However, there are no linkages between the existing farmer associations, localized farmergroups and other farmer groups outside of the ECA programme or vertical integration with

farmer organizations at district, provincial or national level. Crop production under the ECA programme is organized on the basis of participants belonging

to established farmer clubs.

Each farmer club has a standard size of 11 15 members, with a total of 52 farmers clubsserving 21 programme collection points under the programme.

The level of organization within the established farmers clubs was rated as largely medium(33.3%) to high (55%) by programme beneficiaries.

On the other hand, the level of cohesiveness within the groups was rated as high by 85.7% ofthe beneficiaries.

Traditional Crop Production and Marketing

Crops grown in the district before the ECA programme included maize, sorghum, groundnuts,cowpeas, sesame, sugar beans, pigeon pea, sweet potatoes, a variety of vegetables, cotton, soya

beans and tobacco.

Maize yields ranged from 0.4 1.2mt/ha (with an average of 0.8mt/ha), although the baselinesurvey (based on circumstances prior to the ECA programme and on 2010/11 production

figures) indicate an average maize yield of 1.8mt/ha and average maize crop output of 2.7mt

per household, which both appear to be rather inflated.

Past crop production systems were characterised by use of conventional agriculturalproduction methods and a rudimentary fertiliser economy.

The bulk of seed inputs for both maize and legumes were retained seed, with 80.3% of therespondents for maize and 80.0% for legume confirming use of retained seed.

The bulk of seed used for cash crops (tobacco, cotton and soya bean), on the other hand, wasfrom private produce buyers (48.9%) and non-governmental organizations (34.9%).

Average input costs for the 2010/11 cropping season were USD10.10/10kg maize seed packand USD42.40/50kg pack of fertilizer.

Crop marketing was characterized by a multi-channel system which included crop producemarketing through buying agents, local traders, transporters and local associations.

Marketed volumes and the proportion of marketed produce was limited for all crops. Producer prices were seasonal, ranging from 3.6MT/kg (USD0.12/kg) to 5.0MT/kg

(USD0.17/kg).

Technical Assistance and Backstopping

Before the ECA programme farmers produced using whatever farming practices they chose. Contact with extension staff was totally non-existent or at a bare minimum. Assessments on technical support also produced mixed results. In some areas technical assistance was characterised by close extension agent or technician-to-

farmer contact, while in other areas this relationship was non-existent.

ECA technical assistance was assessed as either effective or very effective by between 75.0 98.2% of the interviewed beneficiaries.

The major constraint has been ensuring timely coverage and the costs related to technicalassistance efforts.

This has also been a wholly new ball game for both the implementing team and target groups.Credit and Market Support

Unlike the case with training and extension support, a number of initiatives on credit andmarket support existed before the advent of the ECA programme.

Examples include input and market support from government, MLT and BOM.


8/50

7

All the contracted 936 growers under the ECA programme accessed credit finance, with theonly differences being the level of support.

The average input credit was 1999MT (USD69) per farmer, with a range of 55MT (USD2) 9862MT (USD340).

Group pressure and a stop order agreement with ECA assisted in ensuring a 100% creditrecovery, compared to a rate of 97.5% for non-ECA beneficiaries.

Overall assessments show that beneficiaries perceive input credit support as having been veryeffective.

In addition to a production support role (through input credit and extension support), the ECAprogramme is trying to establish a permanent working relationship with growers by providing

market support facilitated through buying platforms for growers contracted produce.

Programme Impact on Crop Production Trends

Local production has undergone transformation. CA has been extensively adopted by both ECA beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries within the

same communities, with full and partial adoption of basic CA practices ranging from 50 95%.

The introduction of the ECA programme promoted a wider adoption and increased intensity inthe use of improved crop varieties and production practices by local farmers.

The average fertilizer application rate by basic maize input package beneficiaries increasedfrom 27kg/ha to 96kg/ha, while the average fertilizer application rate by complete maize input

package beneficiaries increased from 50.0kg/ha to 112.5kg/ha.

Rather than increasing crop diversity, the impact has been on greater intensification and focuson a few contracted crops.

The area under maize production by beneficiaries of the maize basic input package increasedby 76.3% from an average of 1.86ha during the baseline period to 3.28ha during the 2011/12

cropping season.

Subsequently, maize production output by beneficiaries of the maize basic input packageincreased by 46.2% from an average of 3.03mt during the baseline period to 4.43mt during the

2011/12 cropping season. On the other hand, maize production output by beneficiaries of the maize complete input

package increased by 104% from an average of 2.41mt during the baseline period to 4.92mt

during the 2011/12 cropping season.

This compares to a maize production output increase by non-beneficiaries of only 16% from anaverage of 2.31mt to 2.67mt.

Basic maize input package beneficiaries maintained their average yields at 1.8mt/ha duringboth the baseline period and under CA during the 2011/12 cropping season.

On the other hand, complete maize input package beneficiaries improved their average yieldsfrom 1.9mt/ha during the baseline period to 2.3mt/ha under CA during the 2011/12 cropping

season.

This compares to an average yield of 2.1mt/ha under CA for non-beneficiaries during the2011/12 cropping season. On the contrary sesame yields and outputs failed to increase under both conventional and CA

production conditions.

New Marketing Arrangements

The ECA programme has ushered in a new marketing channel for growers maize and sesameproduce.

Farmers benefit from opportunities for economies of scale because of bulk buying, groupmarketing and the subsequent reduction in unit transaction costs.

Quality control is an integral part of the buying systems which ensures that the ECAprogramme continues to attract premiums in secondary markets for the benefit of both the

private agribusiness firm and the participating small scale growers.


9/50

8

There has been a general increase in both the volumes and proportions of marketed cropproduce.

The ECA programme has an estimated market capacity of about 1,500mt for maize and 100mtfor sesame, while the production potential of the growers is as high as 4,600mt, and hence the

need for an expansion of the programmes absorption capacity.

Additional markets have been identified and are being further explored e.g. the Ceverja deMozambique(CDM) contract for grits processing in the manufacture of opaque beer.

Economics of Production

While input prices for fertilizers declined in overall, maize seed prices actually increasedbetween the baseline and 2011/12 review periods.

This unexpected phenomenon could be a result of the quality of seed used by farmers beforeand after the launch of the ECA programme as growers switched from use of retained seed to

improved seed varieties.

The ECA programmes producer price at 7MT/kg (USD0.24/kg) produced ripple effects inmaize marketing by providing stiff competition thereby pushing local producer prices for

maize from traditional averages of 3.6 4MT/kg (USD0.12 0.14/kg) to between 5 6MT/kg(USD0.17 0.21/kg) by ECA competitors.

Returns per invested dollar (GM/TVC) improved from -0.11 for conventional maize productionby beneficiaries prior to the ECA programme to 0.18 for maize basic input package

beneficiaries practising CA and 0.35 for maize complete package beneficiaries practising CA.

This compares to a return of 0.03 for non-beneficiaries still practising conventional tillage. On the other hand, margins for sesame were estimated at 0.49. Sugar beans, a crop the ECA programme is hoping to add to its crop-mix, is at the moment the

only crop enterprise achieving optimum margins after posting a GM/TVC index of 1.06.

Impact on Livelihoods

Evidence from the baseline survey shows that on average participation on the ECA programmeimproved household food security, notably for beneficiary farmers receiving complete andmedium maize input packages.

As an example, the proportion of average household expenditure on food for maize mediuminput package beneficiaries declined from 8.5% to 1.3%.

The baseline household survey established positive changes for both productive and non-productive assets.

Notable changes have been recorded for hoes (where the average numbers increased from 4.1to 5.3, while ownership proportions increased from 93.2% to 99.4%), cattle (where the

average numbers increased from 3.6 to 4.7, while ownership proportions increased from

18.5% to 19.7%) and improved housing (where ownership proportions increased from 19.7%

to 36.5%).

On average household incomes for beneficiaries of the maize basic package increased fromUSD631 to USD738, representing a 16.7% increase over a one-year period.

This compares to an income increase of 34.9% for maize complete package beneficiaries and a-5.9% for non-beneficiaries.

Recommendations

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

There is need for capacity building of value chain players, notably for producers e.g.comprehensive Training for Transformation (TFT) for all growers participating on the ECA

programme as a strategy for ensuring a change in the mindset; promote a business approach to

agriculture, and the transition from subsistence to commercialized agriculture. For value chain

players M&E training is critical.

There is need for the adoption of an integrated approach in programme implementation.


10/50

9

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

turnover and optimum margins.

Conclusion

This baseline survey has provided key benchmark information which lays the foundation of aneffective M&E framework for the ECA Programme and similar projects.

Preliminary results from the assessment conducted as part of the baseline study show that theECA Programme has already registered notable progress.

This initiative has immense potential.


11/50

10

1. Introduction

1.1 Background to the ECA Programme

Capacity building initiatives within agricultural value chains, comprising effective research, input

assistance mechanisms, as well as extension and marketing support, form the pillars of sustainableagricultural and economic development. The strengths and effectiveness of such agricultural

support mechanisms determines the extent to which the agricultural sector can grow and bring

about the necessary development especially in agro-based economies as is the case in most

developing countries.

The Commercialisation of Small Scale Agriculture (ECA) Programme is a market-based extension

programme, which aims to ensure smallholder household food security for up to 30,000 farmers in

central Mozambique, and boosting household incomes through the production of high value crops

such as soya, cow peas, sesame and sugar beans. This, the programme is pursuing through

innovative inorganic input cost and usage reduction schemes, advanced conservation farming

techniques, and the provision of a full service package. This package includes the provision ofagronomic extension services, facilitation of joint planning, the provision of high quality

agricultural inputs and affordable weather insurance, facilitation of access to appropriate

commercial finance for farmers, facilitation of market access in various forms including pre-

arranged market contracts, and collective logistics facilitation for both input distribution and

product collection requirements. This baseline survey was designed to provide benchmark

information for use in analysing and tracking programme impact over time. This report thus

presents preliminary qualitative and quantitative findings from the baseline survey, covering the

specific areas of intervention of the initiative and the agro-economic situation of the participating

farmers.

1.2 Baseline Purpose and Objectives

As already highlighted, the main purpose of this baseline survey was to provide benchmark

information that will be used for analysing and tracking programme impact over time. However,

given that this initiative has been under implementation for about a year, this baseline survey also

captured, through recall, the situation of the participating farmers prior to joining the programme

as well as the achievements to date.

The specific objectives of the baseline survey were as follows:-

(i) Determining the number of smallholder farmers currently involved in the project and itsorganization, as well as documenting the demographic status, livelihoods status, and

asset ownership for the participating households.

(ii) Ascertaining membership to production groups, degree of organization and cohesion ofthe groups, and the existence of vertical integration with structures of other farmer

organizations.

(iii) Assessing the production and marketing situation of participating farmers prior toentering the programme in terms of volume of production, yield, types of commodities

produced, agricultural practices, use of and sources of inputs, cost of inputs, quantity of

product marketed and respective prices and margins.

(iv) Determining and evaluating the type of technical assistance that smallholders currentlyreceive as well as its source.

(v) Documenting the type of support provided to date by the programme, deliverymechanisms and potential for effectiveness.


12/50

11

(vi) Assessing the current production situation of participating farmers in terms of types ofcrops, volume of production, yields, agricultural practices, use of and sources of inputs,

and the cost of inputs.

(vii) Analysing current marketing arrangements, new market linkages, marketed volumes andvalue addition activities, quantity of product marketed, and the respective prices and

margins.(viii) Assessing the pre-project situation regarding to credit access for smallholder farmersand conditions of access, as well as documenting experiences registered this past season

in terms of the number of farmers participating, value of credit disbursed, and the level of

credit recoveries.

(ix) Documenting the prices currently paid to farmers for their produce, the marginsregistered after paying for inputs and loans, and a comparative analysis with farmers not

covered by the programme.


13/50

12

2. Methodology and Baseline Strategy

2.1 Approach and Framework

The Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) framework (DFID, 2004) was used to assess thecontribution that project activities made to sustaining livelihoods. In this assessment, livelihood

strategies are defined as those activities undertaken by households and the communities to

provide a means of living and ensure household food security.

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

The SLA framework (Figure 1) places households at the centre of a web of inter-related influences

that affect how these households create a livelihood for themselves. Closest to the household at

the centre of the framework are the five livelihood assets that they have access to and use i.e.

human, financial, physical, social and natural assets. The baseline survey identified indicators for

each of these assets and compares these with the current indicators to assess for any significant

changes.

The extent of households access to these assets is strongly influenced by their vulnerability

context, which takes account of trends e.g. economic, political, and technological; shocks such as

droughts, floods, pests, epidemics, natural disasters, and civil strife; and seasonality in prices,production, and employment opportunities. Access is also influenced by the prevailing social,

institutional and political environment, which affects the ways in which these households combine

and use their assets to achieve their livelihood strategies. The assessment determined the

contribution to livelihoods derived from the project interventions. Throughout all analysis gender

lenses were applied to see how the programme mainstreamed and responded to gender issues,

such as for example the participation of women in key decision making structures, whether

impacts of interventions were as intended or negatively affecting women/men and thereby

causing social disharmony.


14/50

13

2.2 Methodology

The baseline survey adopted the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods of social enquiry

to facilitate both technical and socio-economic analysis, and was carried out in different but

integrated phases.

Phase 1: Review of Background Material and Development of Baseline Survey Tools

This stage consisted of a desk study and involved the review of project documents including

background material used in project preparation, approved project documents, secondary

information from national statistics institutes, and other additional literature relevant to the ECA

programme. Information collected at this stage was used to develop field data collection tools.

Phase 2: Chimoio, Barue & Project Site Level Data Collection

The establishment of the programmes benchmarks was based on information collected from ECA,

BAGC, AgDevco and stakeholders in Chimoio, Barue and local farming areas. The following

baseline survey tools were utilized:

1. Key Informant InterviewsKey informant Interviews (KIIs) were guided by a pre-prepared checklist. Consulted keyinformants included representatives of ECA, BAGC, AgDevco, Local Government,

Government Agricultural Departments, Farmers, Banco Opportunidade de Mozambique(BOM), Mozambique Fertilizer Company, Phoenix Seeds, the World Food Programme

(WFP) and other donors/NGOs working on similar interventions.

2. Focus Group DiscussionsFocus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted with farmer clubs involved in the ECA

programme. An FGD guide was used to facilitate discussions.

3. Household InterviewsA total of 178 households were interviewed through a formal semi-structured household

questionnaire. Data quality was assured through (i) detailed and elaborate enumerator

training, (ii) review of all completed questionnaires, and (iii) regular discussion of problem

areas and how to deal with the problems with the enumerators.

4. Case StudiesThe Most Significant Change (MSC) approach was used to document exceptional cases of

impact based on interviews with a few selected key informants identified by communities.

5. Direct ObservationThis tool enabled the baseline survey team to see interventions on the ground and act as

the basis of triangulation of data sources.

6. PhotographyFor illustration purposes, photographs of interventions and beneficiaries were taken to

augment data collected using other tools.

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


15/50

14

Phase 3: Data Analysis and Draft Report Writing

Data entry, cleaning and analysis of household survey questionnaires was conducted using the

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 16. Attempts were also made to synthesize

collected baseline survey data, analyse it and present it in user-friendly tables and illustrational

charts/graphs. Where baseline data was not available, proxy baseline information (from withinthe district or other similar settings) were used as benchmark information. Where possible data

analysis was disaggregated by gender, while generic data analysis was guided by already

established farmer categories viz:-

(i) Farmers receiving a complete maize input package (seed, basal and top-dressingfertilizer),

(ii) Farmers receiving a medium maize input package (seed and top-dressing fertilizer),(iii) Farmers receiving a basic maize input package (seed only),(iv) Farmers receiving inputs for sesame production (seed and crop chemicals), and(v) Non-beneficiaries (farmers not participating on the programme).

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

Phase 4: Dissemination of Findings

This phase will be devoted to the presentation of preliminary findings and wider dissemination of

the baseline survey findings. Subsequently, a final report incorporating comments from the draft

report and the presentations will be submitted to ECA, BAGC and AgDevco.

2.3 Site Selection and Sampling

The baseline was conducted in Barue District where the ECA programme is being implemented.

Within the district, 4 out of a total of 21 sites (serving as buying points and centres for production

clubs) were selected for the baseline survey. An additional and different geographical

administrative area, outside the programme area but with similar geo-physical and socio-

economic conditions, was used as the source of non-programme participants who were

interviewed as the control group for the baseline survey for purposes of comparing between

programme beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Sampling for key informant interviews was based

on the snow ball technique where a few initially identified informants assist in identifying

additional key informants for the study. To ensure accomplishment of all the assignmentsobjectives, purposive sampling was utilized for the household survey.

A total of 178 households were interviewed through a formal semi-structured household

questionnaire. Of these 178 households, 147 households (82.6%) were participating and deemed

as beneficiaries of the ECA programme, while the remaining 31 (17.4%) were non-beneficiaries

who acted as the surveys control group. See Table 1.

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

Numbers Percentage [%] Female Male

Maize Complete 34 19.1 3.4 15.7

Maize Medium 41 23.0 3.4 19.7

Maize Basic 59 33.1 0 33.1

Sesame 13 7.3 0.6 6.7

Non-Beneficiaries 31 17.4 1.1 16.3

TOTALS 178 100.0 8.4 91.6

Source: ECA Baseline Survey (2012).


16/50

15

2.4 Methodological Challenges

A few methodological challenges were encountered during the baseline survey. These included:-

(i)

The late or poor attendance of baseline survey meetings by farmers in some areas,(ii) The baseline survey coincided with the peak of the horticultural production season whenfarmers prepare and plant an assortment of crops including sugar beans, thereby

affecting both attendance figures and punctuality,

(iii) The liaise faireculture and attitude among some of the field enumerators.


17/50

16

3. ECA Project Participation

3.1 Structure and Management of the ECA Project

The ECA programme operates as a private agribusiness firm, controlled by a board of directorswhose membership include shareholders and AgDevco, which acts as a fund manager for the Beira

Agricultural Growth Corridor (BAGC). The BAGC, through AgDevco, funds the programme through

equity loan funds. The premise was to provide affordable finance to agricultural developmental

programmes with potential tangible impact at the farmer level and beyond (wider impact), mentor

beneficiary private agribusiness firms throughout the intervention, provide increased benefits

from economies of scale, as well as ensuring viability and sustainability of the project initiative.

As already highlighted, the objective of the ECA programme is to improve household food security

and incomes and is currently providing support for the production of two crops viz: maize andsesame, with plans for diversifying into more crops. Apart from providing input credit to

participating farmers by linking growers to commercial banks, the ECA programme isimplementing a market-based extension programme which capacity builds producers through

extension support and training, monitors and evaluates progress, and provides a guaranteed

market for the farmers produce and logistical support for participating growers. The programme,

which was launched in August 2011, comprises an administration team, an operations manager,

two field technicians and numerous support staff.

3.2 Participation of Small Scale Farmers

At programme inception, ECA registered 700 growers. This statistic had since grown to 936

growers by the end of the first cropping season1. Registration of new growers for the 2012/13

cropping season was under way during the time of the baseline survey. ECA project beneficiariesare classed under five (5) basic categories viz:-

(i) Farmers receiving a complete maize input package i.e. seed, basal and top-dressingfertilizer. A typical completamaize input package in support of 0,25ha comprised 6.5kgOPV maize seed, 1 x 50kg basal fertilizer, and 1 X 50kg top dressing fertilizer.

(ii) Farmers receiving a medium maize input package i.e. seed and top-dressing fertilizer. Atypical medio maize input package in support of 0,25ha comprised 6.5kg OPV maize

seed and 1 X 50kg top dressing fertilizer.

(iii) Farmers receiving a basic maize input package i.e. seed only. Likewise, a typical basicamaize input package in support of 0,25ha comprised of only 6.5kg OPV maize seed.

(iv) Farmers receiving inputs for sesame production i.e. seed (3kg) and crop chemicals, and(v)

Non-beneficiaries i.e. farmers not participating on the programme.

Beneficiary targeting and selection is based on a number of criteria, inter alia, interest andcapacity, crop production history of the farmer, arable land size, effective labour resources

available, location (based on accessibility within 45km north and south of ECAs centralwarehouse in trying to maintain transaction costs at a minimum), while at club level targeting

hinges on self-selection given that the club has to reamin a cohesive and sustainable unit.

Current statistics show that out of the total 936 growers registered with the ECA programme, a

total of 72 growers (7.7%) were beneficiaries of the complete maize input package, 110 growers

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

1:468.


18/50

17

(11.8%) benefitted from the maize medium input package, 649 growers (69.3%) benefitted from

the maize basic input package, whilst 105 growers (11.2%) registered for the sesame programme.

Current support produced 1,400mt from 563ha of maize and 86mt from 188ha of sesame.

3.3 Characterization of Growers on the ECA Programme

In characterizing growers and non-beneficiaries of the ECA programme, the following variables

were considered:-

(i) Household size,(ii) Gender,(iii) Marital status,(iv) Age of household head, and(v) Highest education level attained.

Beneficiaries of more premium input support packages have on average smaller families, judged

by the household size, compared to beneficiaries of basic input support packages and non-

beneficiaries. See Table 2.

Table 2:Household sizes for different farmer categories.

Type of Farmer Group Household Size

Sample Size (n) Average

Maize complete 33 6.70

Maize medium 41 7.68

Maize basic 59 8.68

Sesame 13 7.68

Non-beneficiary 30 8.13

Female farmers constitute insignificant proportions of household heads in categories of farmers

either participating or not participation on the ECA programme. The most affected farmer

categories are beneficiaries of basic maize input packages and sesame growers. See Figure 2.

0

5

10

1520

25

30

35

Maize complete Maize medium Maize basic Sesame Non-benefic iary

% of

farmers

Type of farmer group

Gendered anlysis of farmer group members

Male Female Figure 2:Comparative gender analysis for different farmer groups.


19/50

18

The majority of households participating on the ECA programme are either married or single. The

bulk of households benefitting from maize complete input packages and basic maize input

packages are married, while singles relatively dominant within the farmer categories benefitting

from medium maize input package and sesame growers. On the other hand, widowed and

divorced households constitute insignificant proportions in all the farmer categories. See Figure 3.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Maize complete Maize medium Maize basic Sesame Non-bebeficiary

% of

farmers


Comparative marital status of farmer group members

Figure 3:Marital status of different target groups.

The majority of ECA programme beneficiaries are relatively young adults, with the bulk of the

beneficiaries falling within the 30 40 age-group, followed by those in the 40 50 age groups, with

insignificant proportions being above 50 years of age. See Figure 4.

Figure 4:ECA project membership by age.


20/50

19

With the exception of sesame growers, whose education status analysis remains inconclusive, the

categorization of programme beneficiaries for maize producers reflect their educational status

with beneficiaries having better education benefitting from higher pack order input support

packages. See Figure 5.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Maize complete Maize medium Maize basic Sesame Non-bebeficiary

% of

farmers


Highest education levels attained by farmer group members

Primary Secondary None

Figure 5:Highest education levels attained by household heads.


21/50

20

4. Associations and Group Dynamics

4.1 Grower Membership to Production Groups

The baseline survey discovered the existence of long established farmer associations in Barue

District, with a number of them involved in marketing activities e.g. some farmer associationshave established warehouses in the district, are contracted to and selling agricultural produce to

the World Food Programme (WFP). Recently, there has also been an increase in the hive of

activity in association building in the area by a number of non-governmental organizations.

However, there are no linkages between these farmer associations and the ECA programme.

Crop production under the ECA programme is organized on the basis of participants belonging to

established farmer clubs. Each farmer club has a standard size of 11 15 members. Targeting

and selection was group based, with groups being self- selecting based on the capacity of

prospective individual members. To date there are 52 farmers clubs serving 21 programme

collection points, with an average of 2 or more farmers clubs serving a single collection point.

Conversely, the 21 collection point all feed into the central warehouse located in Catandica.

Apart form membership in production groups, ECA project beneficiaries also access input credit,

extension and market support through established five (5) farmer categories viz: (i) farmersreceiving a complete maize input package i.e. seed, basal and top-dressing fertilizer, (ii) farmers

receiving a medium maize input package i.e. seed and top-dressing fertilizer, (iii) farmers receiving

a basic maize input package i.e. seed only, (iv) farmers receiving inputs for sesame production i.e.

seed and crop chemicals, and (v) non-beneficiaries i.e. farmers not participating on the

programme. Their respective proportions are illustrated below. See Figure 6.

19%

23%

33%

7%

18%

Type of group farmer belongs to

Maize complete Maize medium Maize basic Sesame Non-beneficiary

Figure 6:Distribution of beneficiaries across production groups.

4.2 Organization, Group Dynamics and Cohesion

The bulk of the established farmers clubs were, however, formed for the sole purpose of

facilitating participation on the ECA programme, which might be a source of sustainability

challenges during the later phases of the project. However, current assessments remain positive,

with the level of organization within the established farmers clubs being rated as largely medium(33.3%) to high (55%) by programme beneficiaries. On the other hand, the level of cohesiveness

within the groups was rated as high by 85.7% of the beneficiaries. See Figure 7 and 8.


22/50

21

0

5

10

15

20

25

Maize complete Maize medium Maize basic Sesame

% of

members

Type of group

Assessment of level of organisation within group

High Medium Poor

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Maize complete Maize medium Maize basic Sesame

% of members

Type of

group

Level of cohesiveness within group

High Medium

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

4.3 Integration with Other Farmers Organizations

As already highlighted, there are no linkages between existing farmer associations, localized

production groups and other farmer groups outside of the ECA programme. The potential exists

for vertical integration of local farmer clubs with structures of other farmers organisations,

although presently such linkages do not exist and are yet to be established. In worst casescenarios, ECA beneficiaries were not even aware of farmers organisations at district, provincial

and national level. However, key informant interviews with district public extension and

agricultural officers revealed the existence of the Union Destrital dos Associcoes dos Campories de

Barue(UDACB), whose operations are currently curtailed by organizational, logistical and financialconstraints. In addition to UDACB, CHESA, Agrifuture and World Vision have also established

associations in the district, again with little or no interaction with ECA farmers clubs.


23/50

22

5. Traditional Crop Production and Marketing

5.1 Preamble

This section presents historical production and marketing statistics as they occurred. On the other

hand, Section 8 (Programme Impact on Crop Production trends), Section 9 (New MarketingArrangements) and Section 10 (Economics of Production) will present comparative analysis of the

before and after scenarios.

5.2 Historical Crop Production Trends

5.2.1 Type of Crops, Yields and Production Volumes

Crops grown by farmers in Barue District before the advent of the ECA programme included food

crops such as maize as the main staple crop, sorghum, groundnuts, cowpeas, sesame, sugar beans,

pigeon pea, sweet potatoes and a variety of vegetables. In addition to these food crops local

farmers also produced cash crops such as cotton, soya beans and tobacco under contract growing

arrangements. According to key informant interviews and focus group discussions with farmers,

maize yields ranged from as low as 0.4mt/ha to as high 1.2mt/ha, with an average of 0.8mt/ha.

The baseline survey (based on circumstances prior to the ECA programme and on 2010/11

production figures), on the other hand, indicate an average maize yield of 1.9mt/ha and average

maize crop output of 2.7mt/ha, which both appear to be rather inflated.

5.2.2 Traditional Crop Production Practices

Past crop production systems were characterised by use of conventional agricultural production

methods and a rudimentary fertiliser economy. The bulk of the farmers also relied on retained

rather than bought-in improved hybrid seed as planting material. Crop chemicals were also rarely

used. In other words, while only a few farmers traditionally used hybrid seed, chemicals andfertilisers, the majority did not use any bought-in seeds, fertilizers and/or kraal manure. This

practice was compounded by the perception that local soils are fertile, fertilizers are bad for the

soil, a general negative attitudes towards chemical fertilisers and the rampant reliance on shifting

cultivation systems. Key informant interviews assert that 20 50% of production in Barue Districtis based on a shift cultivation system, while reports from other districts claim that about 80% of

crop production systems in other districts are still based on shifting cultivation systems.

Traditional or conventional production was also characterized by unplanned and unorganised

mixed cropping comprising 3 5 crops within the same plot.

5.2.3 Sources and Costs of Inputs

The bulk of seed inputs for both maize and legumes were retained seed, with 80.3% of the

respondents for maize and 80.0% for legume confirming use of retained seed. On the other hand,

the bulk of seed used for cash crops (tobacco, cotton and soya bean) was from private produce

buyers (48.9%) and non-governmental organizations (34.9%). See Table 3.


24/50

23

Table 3:Source of seed inputs for major crops.Major Crops Source of Inputs Baseline

Number Percentage[%]

Maize Manufacturer 5 9.2

Wholesaler 5 2.9

Local agro-dealer 6 3.5Other farmers 4 2.3

Retained/seed multiplication 139 80.3

NGOs 6 3.5

Private produce buyer 1 0.6

Other 3 1.7

Legumes Manufacturer 1 0.6

Wholesaler 1 0.6

Local agro-dealer 6 3.4

Other farmers 4 2.2

Retained/seed multiplication 48 80.0

Cash crops Retained/seed multiplication 2 4.7

NGOs 15 34.9Private produce buyer 21 48.9

Other 5 11.6

As already highlighted, chemical fertilizers were rarely used as part of the local production system.

Meanwhile, insights from the baseline household survey show average input costs for the 2010/11

cropping season as being USD10.10/10kg seed pack for maize and USD42.40/50kg pack of

fertilizer.

5.3 Crop Marketing Systems from the Past

5.3.1 Marketing Arrangements

The marketing and crop buying system prior to the ECA programme was characterized by a multi-

channel system. Marketing alternatives for growers included:-

(i) Formal companies sending buying agents to villages where they mount temporary buyingpoints.

(ii) Farmers selling to local traders and transporters who bulk up and sell to formal companies.(iii) Farmers selling to local associations who also bulk up to sell to formal companies.(iv) Farmers disposing produce through transporters along the road side.

However, in other areas crop marketing was characterized by informal marketing and reliance on

spot sales within localized contexts (e.g. local villages) and/or along major highways. Such markets

only existed during the buying season rendering them unreliable and not sustainable. There were no

standard buying procedures, no established buying system, with agricultural traders/commodity

brokers/fellow villagers coming in with circumstantial conditions e.g. a prize for the day, a system

that was also characterized by lack of information on prevailing prices and conditions before the sell.

No input or production support was provided.


25/50

24

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

highways.

Various commodity brokers then sold off purchased produce to more established commodity

buying companies such as DECA for maize.

5.3.2 Marketed Volumes and Proportions

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

Table 4:Marketed volumes, prices and incomes received before the ECA programme.

Crop Details BaselineSample Size (n) Mean

Maize (conventional) Qty Sold (mt) 171 1.57

Producer Price (USD/kg) 165 0.18

Sorghum Qty Sold (mt) 7 0.36

Producer Price (USD/kg) 7 0.16

Sugar beans Qty Sold (mt) 37 0.46

Producer price (USD/kg) 37 0.54

On average, maize producers marketed less than 2mt of maize grain prior to the initiation of the

ECA programme, based on marketed volumes during the 2010/11 production and marketing

season. Sales of other crops, such as sorghum and sugar beans, were also quite subdued. This

could be related to the extensive crop production systems used, the poor management systems

(e.g. use of retained seed and the rudimentary fertilizer economy), the subsequent low yields and

production volumes. Comparative analysis of average annual incomes farmers were realizing from

crop sales, gross incomes and net incomes are discussed in Sections 10.3 and 11.3.

5.3.3 Producer Prices and Margins

Producer prices were seasonal, entailing that prices varied depending on the specific time period

and season. During the start of the season producer prices started quite low at 3.6MT/kg


26/50

25

(USD0.12/kg). Towards the end of the season when marketed volumes start to decline, producer

prices responded by a hike to up to 5.0MT/kg (USD0.17/kg).


27/50

26

6. Technical Assistance and Backstopping

6.1 Technical Assistance before the ECA Project

Both key informant interviews and focus group discussions confirmed that before the ECA

programme farmers produced using whatever farming practices they chose. Contact withextension staff was totally non-existent or at a bare minimum. Access to technical information was

a prerogative for only a few farmers, with a minority of farmers accessing sporadic and

intermittent training. Farmers produced on their own without extension support, despite the

existence of a public extension system. The majority of the interviewed farmers and key

informants had not interacted with public extension staff. See Figure 9.

Figure 9:Source of technical assistance.

6.2 Training and Extension Support under ECA

Assessments on technical support produced mixed results, given that in some areas technical

assistance was characterised by close extension agent or technician-to-farmer contact, while inother areas this relationship was non-existent. Where technical backstopping has been strong,

elaborate training focused on:-

(i) Good agronomic practices,(ii) Principles and practices of conservation agriculture,(iii) Land preparation and land size measurements,(iv) Row planting and spacing,(v) Fertiliser application rates(vi) The benefits of timely production,(vii) Increased production practices,(viii)Crop post-harvest management, and(ix) Marketing.


28/50

27

Delivery mechanisms for the training and extension support included:-

(i) Demonstrations on purpose-built demonstration sites,(ii) Farmer field schools (group training),(iii) Field days,(iv) Practice in-field, and(v)

Farmer visits for the individual follow-ups.

Such trainings were on a monthly basis, while monitoring and follow-ups were conducted at least

twice a week. See Figure 10. Assessments by beneficiaries are that trainings have been very

effective as evidenced by an improvement in farmers knowledge base, access to information, and

the widespread adoption of promoted technical recommendations. See Figure 11. However, and

as already highlighted, in some areas beneficiaries complained that ECA focus has largely been

restricted to logistical support with very little technical training, and where training was provided

it was only once and very area specific.

Figure 10:Frequency of technical support.

Figure 11:Effectiveness of technical training.


29/50

28

The major constraint has been ensuring timely coverage and the costs related to technical

assistance efforts. Compared to public extension systems, the ECA extension agent-to-farmer ratio

fairs much better. However, having 470 growers per technician makes it difficult for farmers to get

effective and efficient services. This has also been a wholly new ball game for both the

implementing team and target groups, e.g. trying to shift farmers from traditional productionpractices, which is not easy.


30/50

29

7. Credit and Market Support

7.1 Credit and Market Support Prior to the ECA Project

Unlike the case with training and extension support, a number of initiatives on credit and market

support existed before the advent of the ECA programme. In Barue District, the governmentprovided inputs for sale to farmers through a local farmers association (Nzara Yapera) and

through local agro-dealers. Contract farming arrangements, which included input support

packages, were also implemented by seed maize companies that relied on small scale farmers for

seed multiplication and by the Mozambique Leaf Tobacco (MLT) in support of small scale tobacco

growers.

Commercial banks, including the Banco Opportunidade de Mozambique(BOM), assisted small scale

farmers with input finance. To access input support, e.g. production loans, small scale farmers had

to be organised in groups. Loans were provided in-kind, with beneficiaries receiving physical

inputs rather than cash payments. Interest rate was, and remains, at a flat rate of 3% per month2,

with the first repayment expected at the end of the season from the proceeds of ones harvest.Farmers are also exempted from penalties e.g. for late payments (although this has traditionally

not communicated to the farmers). Focus group discussions with farmers, however, revealed that

there has been poor rapport between farmers and the bank (BOM) after BOM extended input

credit to farmers who secured their loans through title deeds to immovable property but later lost

their homes after defaulting on repayments.

As already highlighted, the only noble cash crop grown under contract farming arrangements

before the ECA programme was tobacco. However, MLT withdrew after some time of engaging

local farmers. For maize, it has always been difficult for farmers to have access to inputs and the

market. Market demand was very limited and unreliable e.g. one could come and only buy 1 x

50kg bag or 1 X 20kg bucket of maize grain. BOM also provided warehouse loans to associations,

which were extended as cash loans to associations to facilitate the purchase of agriculturalcommodities from other farmers for bulking and eventual marketing to more established

commodity buyers.

7.2 ECA Credit, Finance and Input Support

ECA accessed loans from banks for on-lending to farmers. For the first cropping season finance was

organised through BOM. As with BOM concessionary loans for all small scale farmers, interest rates

were pegged at 3% per month over a minimum loan period of 7 months which covers the growing

period of 150days. The initial idea was to have finance to cover maize, sesame, cowpea and sugar

bean production but the ECA programme failed to get seed for cowpeas and sugar beans whose pricewas also prohibitively high. The increase in cost of seed for sugar beans made the crop an unviable

enterprise hence the decision to drop the crop for the first season of cropping. All the contracted 936

growers3accessed credit finance, with the only differences being the level of support and hence the

classification completa, medio and bsica. As such the bulk of growers sited the ECA

programme as the source of input credit during the baseline survey. See Figure 12 and Figure 13.

2

For any other sector loans the interest rate is a compounded figure of 5.5% per month.3A different source quoted this figure as 850, citing a few farmers who fell on the wayside due to technicalities such as the

failure to submit loan applications on time and lack of identification documents.


31/50

30

Figure 12:Sources of input credit for growers.

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

As already highlighted, input credit was provided through groups organised as local farmer clubs.

For farmers to access input credit they had to be members of the farmer clubs or credit groups.

However, input credit was individualised entailing that each farmer received input to facilitate

crop production by his or her household. Credit repayments were also individualised, with

individual farmers responsible for their own credit repayments. However, group pressure and a

stop order agreement with ECA assisted in ensuring a 100% credit recovery 4. There was also an

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


32/50

31

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

members.

As already highlighted, inputs were distributed in kind. A typical completamaize input package

in support of 0,25ha comprised 6.5kg OPV maize seed (ZM521), 1 x 50kg basal fertilizer

(Compound D), and 1 X 50kg top dressing fertilizer (Urea). While sesame growers benefited from

chemical distributions, maize growers were deliberately not given chemicals although chemicals

could have been required. This was a ploy to control the level of farmer debtedness given that this

was a first season and that there was a possibility that some farmers could struggle to repay and

hence increase the likelihood of defaults. The strategy then was to reduce the risk of both the

growers and the company. The average input credit was 1999MT (USD69) per farmer, with a

range of 55MT (USD2) 9862MT (USD340)5. However, the level of input support also mirrored

individual farmers farming experiences (reflected by their age groups). See Figure 14.

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

Apart from provision of credit or finance the bank (BOM) also provided a number of other services

such as financial literacy, budgeting and mobile banking for producers. Overall assessments show

that beneficiaries perceive input credit support as having been very effective. Market support

initiatives were, however, rated not so positively. See Figure 15.

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


33/50

32

Figure 15:Effectiveness of ECA input support.

No challenges were encountered in most groups. However, in other groups the challenge was the

case of individual defaulters, the failure to recover the ECA debt from other group members and

delayed repayments (although other members paid up to ensure a 100% recovery rate). For some

farmers, contract farming (which enshrines Farming As A Businessprinciples and demands the

use of modern farming methods) was also a new concept to them. Thus cases of side-marketing

were also cited in some areas but because the ECA programme offered the best price for grain,side-marketing only occurred with seed companies who offered higher prices. There has,

however, been no evidence of side-marketing on the ground. What this entails is that side-

marketing might remain a threat to the venture unless ECA maintains its premium on producer

prices for all crops it is involved in.

7.3 ECA Marketing Support

In addition to a production support role (through input credit and extension support), the ECA

programme is trying to establish a permanent working relationship with growers by providing

market support facilitated through buying platforms for growers contracted produce. Theprogramme organized marketing platforms by pre-arranging for maize buying at collection centres,

provided free transport since transport was not paid for when produce was collected from the

sheds/collection points, and provided packaging material, thereby substantially decreasing unit

marketing costs for individual growers. The ECA programme also arranged for cash payments for

delivered produce through mobile banking units stationed at the central buying point. Some

marketing challenges still remain. Most road networks are poor, the logistics and costs are very

high, as a result it makes it difficult for agricultural companies to make a profit. As an example,

maize buying companies in Mozambique have to complete with GMO maize imported duty free

from South Africa.


34/50

33

8. Programme Impact on Crop Production Trends

8.1 Adopted Agricultural Practices

8.1.1 Adopted Agricultural Production Practices

Local production has undergone transformation. Whereas, traditional or conventional production

systems have been characterised by unplanned and unorganised mixed cropping comprising 3-5

crops within the same plot, training and technical assistance has improved production practices

into either a monoculture of maize and or intercropping of 2 crops for example maize and

sunflower. The flagship technologies for the ECA programme have been the promotion of improved

crop varieties, soil fertility management practices and Conservation Agriculture (CA). As discussed

in Section 8.1.2 (Input Use Intensity) the use of both improved seed varieties and fertilizers have

improved significantly, notably on maize production plots. The use of improved seed achieved a

100% adoption rate. For CA, field marking and holing were prerequisites for input distributions

(receiving inputs) so adoption of these basic CA practices were very high (90-95%). Mulching and

weeding were also relatively high because the fields were constantly supervised and monitored

(50%). See Picture 5, Picture 6 and Figure 16.

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

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


35/50

34

CA has been extensively adopted by both ECA beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries within the same

communities. However adoption, in some cases has only been partial, for example, uptake of

basins, mulching and micro-dosing of fertilisers and or use of organic material. CA practices such as

mulching have also been adopted for other crops other than maize, for example for millet, small

grains and sorghum production.

8.1.2 Input Use Intensity

Again, as highlighted before, before the intervention of the ECA programme the bulk of producers

relied on retained seed as planting material while the fertilizer economy has been nothing but

rudimentary. The introduction of the ECA programme promoted a wider adoption and increased

intensity in the use of improved crop varieties and production practices by local farmers. As an

illustrational example, the average fertilizer application rate by basic maize input package

beneficiaries increased from 27kg/ha to 96kg/ha, while the average fertilizer application rate by

complete maize input package beneficiaries increased from 50.0kg/ha to 112.5kg/ha. See Figure

17 and 18.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Seed Fertiliser Seed Fertiliser Seed Fertiliser Seed Seed

Maize complete Maize medium Maize basic Sesame Non

beneficiary

Mean qty

used (t/ha)

Type of group

Comparative average maize inputs used

Baseline 2012 R ev iew

0

50

100

150

200

250

Seed Fertiliser Seed Seed Fertiliser Seed Seed

Maize complete Maizemedium

Maize basic Sesame Nonbeneficiary

Mean qty

(kg/ha)

Type of group

Comparative average legume inputs use

B as el in e 2012 R ev ie w

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

8.2 Project Impact on Crop Production

8.2.1 Impact on Crop Diversity

One of the generic assumptions is that donor-funded input support programmes promote the

diversification of crops, enterprises and sources of both income and livelihoods. However, thisbeing a donor assisted contract farming arrangement, the impact has been on greater

intensification rather than crop diversification, hence the decline on the number of crops farmers

are now producing as they put more focus on contracted crops. See Table 5.

Table 5: Number of crops grown.

Number of crops Baseline 2012 Review

Number Percentage [%] Number Percentage [%]

One 57 32.0 77 43.3

Two 74 41.6 80 44.9

Three 31 17.4 17 9.6

Four 13 7.3 4 2.2

Five 3 1.7 - -Source: ECA Baseline Survey (2012).


36/50

35

8.2.2 Impact on Area under Crop Production and Production Volumes

According to key informant interviews and focus group discussions, improved access to inputs

under the ECA programme has resulted in a number of farmers expanding areas under maize and

sesame production by clearing forests and bringing new virgin land under production. Thebaseline household survey figures also show an overall increase in the area under maize and

sesame production. The area under maize production by beneficiaries of the maize basic input

package increased by 76.3% from an average of 1.86ha during the baseline period to 3.28ha during

the 2011/12 cropping season. During the same period, the area under maize production by non-

beneficiaries increased by 129% from an average of 1.08ha to 2.37ha, largely as a result of cross-

pollination of ideas and adoption of CA practices. See Table 6 and Figure 19.

Table 6:Comparative cropped area and outputs

Farmer

Categories

Baseline 2012 Review

Maize (CA) Maize (Conventional)

No. of

farmers

Mean

area(ha)

Mean

output(mt)

No. of

farmers

Mean

area(ha)

Mean

output(mt)

No. of

farmers

Mean

area(ha)

Mean

output(mt)

Maize complete 34 1.27 2.41 22 0.86 2.92 22 1.51 2.00

Maize medium 41 1.87 3.02 40 1.13 2.63 25 1.58 2.35

Maize basic 58 1.86 3.03 50 1.49 3.25 43 1.79 2.94

Sesame 13 1.63 2.49 11 1.45 2.28 5 1.30 1.94

Non beneficiary 31 1.08 2.31 4 1.13 2.13 26 1.34 2.67

0

1

2

3

4

Mean area (ha) Mean output

(mt)


(mt)


(mt)

Maize Maize (CA) Maize (Conv)


Mean area (ha)

&

Output (t)

Comparative maize area planted and output

Maize complete Maize medium Maize basic Sesame Non beneficiary

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


37/50

36

Subsequently, maize and sesame production volumes (crop output) also recorded positive growth.

The adoption of CA practices by ECA beneficiaries also entailed that even with a decline in area

under production wrt.the baseline period and area under CA, crop output was compensated andbuoyed by the increase in yields. See Section 8.2.2. Maize production output by beneficiaries of the

maize basic input package increased by 46.2% from an average of 3.03mt during the baseline

period to 4.43mt during the 2011/12 cropping season. On the other hand, maize production outputby beneficiaries of the maize complete input package increased by 104% from an average of 2.41mt

during the baseline period to 4.92mt during the 2011/12 cropping season. During the same period,

maize production output by non-beneficiaries increased by only 16% from an average of 2.31mt to

2.67mt.

8.2.3 Impact on Crop Yields

The ECA interventions greatest impact has been on improving crop yields. Buoyed by the

provision of improved seed varieties, technical assistance, the adoption of good agricultural

practices by farmers, ECA beneficiaries who received complete maize input packages yielded as

much as 4.2 4.5mt/ha, although the average has been lower6. Basic maize input packagebeneficiaries maintained their average yields at 1.8mt/ha during both the baseline period and

under CA during the 2011/12 cropping season. On the other hand, complete maize input package

beneficiaries improved their average yields from 1.9mt/ha during the baseline period to 2.3mt/ha

under CA during the 2011/12 cropping season. This compares to an average yield of 2.1mt/ha

under CA for non-beneficiaries during the 2011/12 cropping season. See Figure 20.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Maize

complete

Maize

medium

Maize basic Sesame Non-benf

Maize yields

(t/ha)


Comparative maize yields

Baseline Maize conv 2012 Review Maize conv 2012 Review Maize CA

Figure 20:Comparative maize yields.

On the contrary sesame yields and outputs failed to increase under both conventional and CA

production conditions. Sesame yields recorded a fall from 1.48mt/ha during the baseline period to

1.44mt/ha under CA and 1.46mt/ha within conventional plot holdings. This is an area that requires

further investigation.

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

10mt/ha.


38/50

37

9. New Marketing Arrangements

9.1 New Market Linkages

The ECA programme has ushered in a new marketing channel for growers maize and sesameproduce. Using its network of warehouses and collection points, the programme offers growers a

transparent system, where farmers are involved in bulking, transporting, weighing and grading of

the produce, facts concurred through Focus Group Discussions. According to key informants,

where disputes arise, these are handled by an independent arbitration committee. Given that the

programme makes use of mobile banking units during the buying season, farmers are paid cash

after deducting costs for inputs. Farmers benefit from opportunities for economies of scale because

of bulk buying, group marketing and the subsequent reduction in unit transaction costs. Quality

control is an integral part of the buying systems (e.g. ensuring a moisture content limit of 12.5%,

and that there is no foreign matter and/or weevil damage) which ensures that the ECA programme

continues to attract premiums in secondary markets for the benefit of both the private agribusiness

firm and the participating small scale growers.

In comparison, informal maize grain traders buy grain from numerous open space buying points

dotted along the Chimoio Tete highway. Farmers are paid a flat prices for all their produce, with

producer prices ranging from 5.0 5.5MT/kg (USD0.17 0.19/kg). Bought grain is then sold and

off-loaded at more established grain buying companies such as DECA at 6MT/kg (USD0.21/kg).

This entails a price differential of 0.50MT/kg (USD0.02/kg) although the margins are lower given

transport and other transaction costs borne by the grain traders.

9.2 Marketed Volumes and Proportions

There has been a general increase in both the volumes and proportions of marketed crop produce.

See Figure 21.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Maize (CA) Maize (Conv) Sorghum Sugarbeans

Quantity

sold (t)

Crop

Comparative quantity of quantity of crops sold


Figure 21:Average quantities of crop produce sold.

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


39/50

38

2011/12 cropping season, the ECA programme has an estimated market capacity of about 1,500mt

for maize and 100mt for sesame. On the other hand, the production potential of the growers is as

high as 4,600mt, and hence the need for an expansion of the programmes absorption capacity.

9.3 Value Addition Activities

What, however, stand out as the ECA project interventions greatest potential is the existence andopportunities for vertical integration through agro-processing and packaging and the subsequent

marketing to niche and other high value end markets. Farmers, on their own, also sell maize as

grain only, with no value addition activities at the moment. Additional markets have been

identified and are still being explored further e.g. the Ceverja de Mozambique(CDM) contract forgrits processing in the manufacture of opaque beer7. Potential for small scale agro-processing (e.g.

by localized farmer cooperatives) is also immense.

7The current arrangement of processing through the JAM facility in Beira has failed to meet the quality specs required for

the brewing process. This is due to the fact that the milling process is unable to remove sufficient germ from the final gritproduct. This has caused a reduction in the total requirements from CDM pending the improvement in quality of the grits

produced. Additional ways to resolve the quality issues are currently being explored.


40/50

39

10. Economics of Production

10.1 Project Impact on Production Costs

Previously, local farmers only accessed crop inputs through agro-dealers which turned out to bevery expensive. According to key informant interviews, bulk purchases of inputs by the ECA

programme have facilitated access to benefits such as bulk discounts, economies of scale and a

marginal decline in unit transaction costs. Key informant interviews showed that nominal prices

for fertilizers averaged 1,500MT/50kg fertiliser (USD51.72/50kg). On the other hand, chemical

fertilizers sourced and distributed by the ECA programme averaged 1,159MT/50kg

(USD39.97/50kg). However, analysis of

Documents

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