research report on economic returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

47
ECONOMIC RETURNS FOR INVESTING IN SMALL SCALE FARMERS CASES OF IRINGA, KILOSA AND CHAMWINO COUNCILS FINAL RESEARCH REPORT 1 1 Undertaken by Dr. Honest Prosper Ngowi and Mrs. Bahati Matimba of ANO Consulting Ltd 1

Category:

Food


2 download

DESCRIPTION

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

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

ECONOMIC RETURNS FOR INVESTING IN SMALL SCALE FARMERS

CASES OF IRINGA, KILOSA AND CHAMWINO COUNCILS

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT1

JUNE 2014

1 Undertaken by Dr. Honest Prosper Ngowi and Mrs. Bahati Matimba of ANO Consulting Ltd1

Page 2: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Item Page

number

1 Introduction 3

2 Scope of the assignment 3

3 Methodology 4

4 Study Findings 4

5 General Findings 4

6 Case Studies Findings 7

7 The Case Study of Iringa Municipal Council 7

8 The Case of Chamwino District Council 19

9 The Case of Kilosa District Council 27

10 Conclusions 34

11 Recommendations 34

1. INTRODUCTION

2

Page 3: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

This is a research report on the returns of investments in small holder farmers in Tanzania. The

report is based on three case studies. These are case studies from Iringa, Kilosa and Chamwino

District Councils. The study was conducted between May and June 2014. The study was guided

b y terms of reference (ToR) provided by the client (Action Aid Tanzania – AAT). The report

presents the three case studies separately in order to provide district-specific insights. Based on

the three case studies, the report gives recommendations accordingly.

2. SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT

The following were the questions that were expected to be answered in the study:

1. Assess how the government both central and local governments are investing in

smallholder farmers, to what extent the governments have invested to smallholder farmers,

what is working and why and what is not working and why? What are the gaps, what has

been the priority focus of investment to smallholder farmers for the identified case studies?

2. To what extent other stakeholders including private sectors are investing in smallholder

farmers, how much has been invested both financial and technical support, what is working

and what does not work and the reasons behind?

3. How smallholder farmers are receiving the support from the government and other private

sectors, what kinds of support provided?

4. Assess how farmers receive extension services, inputs and any other support necessary in

their development agendas?

5. Assess the outcome of the investment from smallholder farmers, is there any increase in

production?, to what extent?, how these outcomes have contributed to improvement in

smallholder livelihoods?

6. How much the government eg local government have received from smallholder farmers as

returns from the investment --- collected government revenue from farmers and others

3. METHODOLOGY

3

Page 4: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

The study that informs this report is based on both secondary and primary data. Secondary

data were collected through documentary review while primary data were collected through

field interviews. District Executive Officers (DEDs) of the three districts were presented with

introduction letters. They then directed the researchers to the office of the District Agricultural

and Livestock Development Officers (DALDO) that provided most of the responses in the three

districts. In Iringa, a number of other respondents than the districts officials were interviewed

too.

4. STUDY FINDINGS

In this section, the findings from the study that informs this report are presented. Findings from

the literature are presented to give a general overview on some of the key issues in the study.

The findings from the literature are followed by findings from each of the three case studies.

4.1. GENERAL FINDINGS

A number of studies have been conducted on small scale farmers in general and those in

Tanzania in particular. Among the study of great relevancy in the context of this study is that of

Vorley, Cortula and Chan (2012)2 . Among the key issues of relevancy in the context of this

report include the findings that more investment is required in agriculture in general and for

small scale farmers in particular in order to solve such challenges as rural poverty, food

insecurity, stewardship of natural resources, and climate resilience.

Althogh governments have increased commitments to public investment in agriculture, these

have failed to materialize. Instead, attention has been paid to creating a facilitating

environment for private investment in agriculture. It is also found in the Vorley et al (ibid) that

attracting investment should be a means to an end. Among other things, quality of the

investment is critical. Another important finding is that in Tanzania, women are reported to

produce about 70% of all food crops. From interviews with stakeholders and documentary

2 Tipping The Balance: Policies to shape agricultural investments and markets in favour of small-scale farmers

4

Page 5: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

review in this and other studies that the authors have been involved in3, the following were the

general findings on the key researh questions:

4.1.1. The way the government is investing in smallholder farmers

Generally both the central and local governments are investing in smallholder framers in

various ways. These include through investing in agricultural infrastructure including but not

limited to rural roads, markets, irrigation, inputs supplies as well as provision of extension

services. Generally, investment in smallholder farmers is inadequate. For example, inputs such

as seeds and fertilizer are inadequate in quantity and quality as well as in delivery time.

Interventions such as farmers schools are working well. Despite the many investments that the

government has made on small scale farmers, there are several gaps that exist. These include

but are not limited to access to financial services, access to markets as well as agro-processing.

4.1.2. Investments by other stakeholders in smallholder farmers

Apart from the central and local governments, there are other stakeholders that are investing

in small scale farmers. These include but are not limited to Non Governmental Organizations

(NGOs) such as Agricultural Non State Actors Forum (ANSAF), Muungano wa Vikundi vya

Wakulima Tanzania (MVIWATA), Oxfam, Action Aid and many others. Other stakeholders

include such organizations as the USAID, Techno Serve, MUVI etc. Investments by such

stakeholders have included but not limited to financial and technical support including training.

Some NGOs have also supported smallholder farmers indirectly through lobbying and advocacy

for pro-smallholder farmers policy, legal and regulatory framework. Generally, provision of

demand-driven as opposed to supply-driven support works well for small scale farmers

supported by such stakeholders.

4.1.3. The way smallholder farmers are receiving the support

Generally, smallholder farmers are receiving the support positively. They receive the support 3 Such as a study on Economic Profile of Kigoma Region in 2013 for the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism; A Study on Value Added Tax (VAT) on Fertilizer for the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives in 2013 and in data collection for the Vorley, Cortula and Chan (2012) publication

5

Page 6: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

from the government and other stakeholders both directly and indirectly. For example,

extension services from the government are directly provided through the office of DALDO.

Government input support to smallholder farmers is provided indirectly through private sector

agents (input suppliers/agro-dealers). Support from NGOs is also both direct and indirect. In as

far as inputs are concerned for example, farmers have been receiving the support mainly via

the private sector through voucher system. There have been complaints on the quantity that is

provided, late delivery and quality.

4.1.4. Outcome of the investment from smallholder farmers

Generally, the investments by the various stakeholders have given various kinds of outcome.

Generally, the outcome has been positive in terms of farmers improvement of farming

practices. As a result, there have been increases in areas cultivated, production volumes, access

to finance, access to markets and improved livelihoods for smallholder farmers.

4.1.5. Returns to the government from smallholder farmers

As a results of various forms of invetments on smallholder farmers, there have been different

kinds and levels of returns to the government. It is understood that the government does not

invest on smallholder farmers so that it (the government) gets monetary profit. The

government invests on smallholder farmers as a public good. The aim is to ehance the farmers’

capability so that they can undertake their agricultural activities better, increase production and

productivity, reduce poverty and improve their livelihoods. Indirectly though, the govern,

especially local governments, are likely to get some direct and indirect returns for their

investments on smallholder farmers. Among other things, as a result of better perfomance due

to government investments, some LGAs are able to collect more crop cess from the increased

agricultural produce and related economic activities such agro-processing and trade.

4.2. CASE STUDIES FINDINGS

6

Page 7: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

Apart from the general findings above, the researchers conducted specific case studies in Iringa,

Kilosa and Chamwino district councils. Findings from each of the three case studies are

presented in what follows.

4.2.1. THE CASE STUDY OF IRINGA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

The study in Iringa involved responses from the Iringa District Council (IRD), MUVI, Tanzania

Agricultural Productivity Programme (TAPP), RUDI and Iringa Mercy Organization (IMO)

4.2.1.1. Interventions by MUVI

Introduction of MUVI Programme

Rural Micro, Small & Medium Enterprise (RMSMES) is a programme commonly known as Muunganisho wa Ujasiriamali Vijijini (MUVI), it was initiated to support the Government in poverty reduction strategy, which broadly aims at transforming Tanzania’s agriculture based economy into export & market led, competitive semi industrial but still largely agriculture based economy.

See details at: http://www.sido.go.tz/UI/muvi.aspx

MUVI interventions in Iringa

MUVI has supported about 13,000 small holder farmers in Iringa region. These include

sunflower and tomato farmers (about 4,500 for each crop). It also invests in millet in the dry

areas of the region. It has also invested in training on improved production techniques,

harvesting, post-harvesting, processing, and marketing for small scale farmers. It has moved

from production to marketing support of small scale farmers. This is because of the observation

that marketing is a problem for tomato and millet small scale farmers. MUVI has been linking

farmers with breweries to do millet contract farming. This was however still in negotiation

between the partners at the time of this study. MUVI has found out that finding markets for

small scale farmers is good. This is because they have problems with good markets. If the

market problem is solved for small scale farmers, they will then have motivation to produce

more.7

Page 8: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

Not all interventions work

MUVI has invested a lot in small scale farmers but this does not always work. For some of the

supported small scale farmers and agro-processor, however, MUVI interventions have not

worked. Some beneficiaries are not growing, not willing to restructure their enterprises, lack

good entrepreneurial attributes and focus as they are doing too many things at a once. Also,

some lack professionalism and systems such as financial management systems and not using

banking services due to largely cash economy.

The following do work

From its experience in Iringa, MUVI is of the view that training for small scale farmers is

generally good when properly done. For example, the Small Industries Organisation (SIDO) has

trained some small scale farmers on agro-processing including tomato juice processing. This has

helped a lot in value addition and storage of perishable crops thereby giving incentives for more

production.

MUVI has also found out that there are many other interventions that work well for small

holder farmers. These include branding, having business plans, good business name as well as

having/being a member of small scale farmers associations. Farmers’ associations are seen by

MUVI to be very instrumental for organized small holders. It has also experienced that the hub

and spoke model (big farmer that buys from the small ones) is also good and works well for

small scale farmers. MUVI has also experienced that good will/trust between associations and

input suppliers work out well for small scale farmers. For examples, some small scale farmers

were able to get fertilizer worth 90,000,000 Tanzanian Shillings (Tshs) from YARA (fertilizer

supplier) on guarantee basis. Guarantee of small scale farmers by from Local Government

Authorities (LGAs) has worked in Njombe. Through such guarantee, farmers associations have

received fertilizer worth about 200,000,000 Tshs from YARA on credit without collateral. MUVI

has helped in facilitating such guarantees for over three years in Iringa

8

Page 9: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

Other issues that work well for small scale farmers include capacity building on such areas as

governance for farmers association. Also good quality inputs such as fertilizer supplied on

time and adequate quantity works well for small holder farmers

MUVI has also experienced that private sector intervention (MUVI involving various

implementing partners such as Business Services Providers) to provide agriculture interventions

is goods and sustainable. This is because the compared to the public sector, private sector is

more flexible, faster and efficient. According to MUVI, pure public sector intervention is likely

to fail in interventions that need speed. MUVI has also experienced that investment in markets

infrastructure (collection points) work well for small holder farmers.

Although it can be expensive, MUVI is of experience that participatory approaches in making

decisions that affect small scale farmers (for example on where to build market infrastructure)

is very important.

In line with the private sector efficiency argument, MUVI points out that delivery of

interventions to small scale farmers through the government can be more costly, less efficient

and less speedy than doing so through the private sector. However, when the private sector

delivers agricultural interventions for smallholder farmers, it has to mainstream in the public

sector for sustainability and exit strategy.

Access to finance for smallholder farmers is important for improved performance. The National

Microfinance Bank (NMB) in partnership with MUVI is including training of small holder farmers

in financial matters. MUVI has worked on organizing small holder farmers into Village

Community Bank (VICOBA). Also community banks like Mufindi Community Bank (MUCOBA)

have helped in working with farmers including in training on various issues such as business

plans, innovation for financial institutions, accessing low interest loan such as from Tanzania

Investment Bank (TIB) agricultural window. This has worked well for Njombe farmers.

Small holder farmers owning shares in financial institutions such as banks helps farmers to

access finance more easily and on better terms. This has been the case in Njombe Community

9

Page 10: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

Bank (NJOCOBA) model. When farmers groups open account in the bank, they automatically

become the bank’s shareholders. According to MUVI, being away from urban areas is not good

for financial institutions. Therefore rural smallholder farmers who are the majority do not enjoy

as much financial services as those near urban areas.

Investing in high value crops is better for smallholder farmers. In Iringa for example, tomato is

more high value crop than sunflower. Good investment can give up to 4,000,000 Tshs in

revenue per acre and profit of over 1,000,000 Tshs. Sunflower yields a profit of only about

300,000 Tshs per acre on same period.

Good policies in favour of small holder farmers matter for improved production and

productivity. MUVI has connected various farmers to specific organizations that lobby and

advocate for specific kind of agricultural products. For example, tomato farmers in Iringa were

linked to Tanzania Horticultural Association (TAHA ), sunflowers farmers linked to TEHOSA while

processors were linked to Tanzania Sunflower Processors Association (TASUPA) in collaboration

with SNV. These specific associations/organizations aim at addressing policy matters that

individual farmers or small associations cannot handle.

Training by agro-dealers has proved to work well for smallholder farmers. For example, there

has been training on use of pesticides by Syngenta which is a company dealing with inputs

supplies. Also provision of simple and user-friendly training manual on good agricultural

practices for smallholder farmers helps them. Another thing that works well in smallholder

farmers’ intervention is evaluation of interventions in order to learn lessons, avoiding making

same mistakes and re-inverting the wheel.

Smallholder farmers participation in trade shows/fairs/exhibition such as Nane Nane trade

fair, exchange visits as well as having demonstration plots help small holder farmers to learn

from peers and those doing better. For good output, it is also good to invest in soil testing as it

helps smallholder farmers to know kinds of crops to be grown in various areas.

10

Page 11: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

MUVI has also experienced that having inputs subsidy helps. It has experienced that there is

low productivity without subsidy and high productivity with subsidy. However, inputs subsidy is

very political and inefficient in Tanzania. It has been characterized by late delivery of seeds and

fertilizer, wrong fertilizer packaging and formulation without considering the fertilizer needs for

particular types of soil. For example, Minjingu takes time to function while smallholder farmers

do not have time to wait for the fertilizer to function. There is also the problem of delay in

government payment of agro-dealers giving input credit. These agro-dealers have borrowed

from banks but had not been paid on time by the government. Therefore, they cannot pay back

loan and may get problem with bank and their enterprises may collapse. There is a need to

learn from Malawi’s best example of how inputs subsidy works. Malawi has managed

transparency and huge government involvement in the supply chain rather than private sector

in the grass root. Malawi chiefs have more say on the grassroots not like in Tanzania where

Village Executive Officers (VEOs) are the ones determining who is poor in order to be eligible for

inputs subsidy. According to MUVI, inputs credit is more sustainable and therefore better

option than total subsidy.

Attaining huge volumes is problematic

For most small scale farmers in Iringa, getting huge volumes to supply to buyers is a big

challenge. According to MUVI, there is an investor (from Europe) wanting 25 tones of solar-

dried tomato (for export) monthly. However, the investor cannot get the volume from small

scale farmers.

4.2.2. The Case of Tanzania Agriculture Productivity Program (TAPP) by USAID

About TAPP

11

Page 12: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

USAID-TAPP, launched in October 2009, is a five-year program supported by the American

people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The program

is increasing smallholder incomes, improving nutrition, and expanding markets through

agricultural innovation and commercialization.

See details at http://www.tanzania-agric.org/

TAPP investment on smallholder farmers in Iringa District Council

TAPP (www.tanzania-agric.org ) invests a lot on small scale farmers in Tanzania including in

Iringa District Council. It is raising sales, incomes and food security of about 19,000 smallholder

farmers. It works in conjunction with local partners to:

i) Transfer good agricultural practices that increase crop volume, quality and variety

ii) Reduce logistics costs and increases availability of inputs and financial products

iii) Commercialize smallholder supply chains

iv) Create new buyer linkages and expand access to local, regional and export markets

v) Introduce improved nutrition and disease prevention practices.

Areas of investment

Among its investments on smallholder farmers include training and support on drip irrigation;

Integrated pest management; crop rotation; calenderizing, sack garden, fertilizing, trellising,

mulching, raised beds, live barriers and planting spacing among others. In its investments on

smallholder farmers, TAPP gives full package training – from land preparation to marketing;

provides inputs – not for free but on cost-sharing: 75% covered by TAPP, 25% covered by

farmer groups. Inputs provides include high-breed seeds, fertilizer etc.

12

Page 13: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

It also invests in providing linkage to finance. Through its intervention is has managed to

enable smallholder farmers access loans from NMB, MUCOBA and some SACCOS. TAPP gives

the finance through these institutions on commercial basis. The interest rate is 2.5%.

Returns of the investment by TAPP

TAPP respondents indicated that there have been good returns from the resources invested in

smallholder farmers. These returns include but are not limited to good education provided

farmers; introduction and adoption of faster- growing crops due to technology used from land

preparation, irrigation and fertigation (fertilization); greater yield than others not receiving

TAPP or other similar interventions. For example, tomato commonly gives about 400 baskets

but TAPP farmers get up to 1000 baskets for the same land area. For paprika, TAPP farmers

harvest about 24 tones per acre while normal tomato without the intervention gives only 5

tones. As a result of the intervention, there has been experienced larger and longer frequency

of harvesting crops such as tomato. Also, farmers produce high quality crops than normal due

to the training.

4.2.3. The Case of Iringa Mercy Organization (IMO)

IMO is a TAPP partner. It promotes education on nutrition for smallholder farmers so that they

can improve their incomes and health conditions. It started this intervention in February 2014.

Therefore, by the time this report was written (June 2014), IMO was just about four months

old.

The way IMO invests on small holder farmers

IMO has a demonstration plot of about ¼ of an acre for vegetables (carrots, cabbage, paprica

etc). It provides all the inputs (seeds, manure/fertilizer, trays, pesticides etc) needed for

demonstration. The demonstration is done for free. This plot is used to demonstrate all the best

agricultural practices for a group of 50 farmers. When the group has received the practical

training each individual in the group is supposed to implement the training in his/her own

13

Page 14: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

home garden using the skills learnt from IMO. At the home garden, they are advised to use best

seeds as the ones from the demonstration plot. They are advised to use locally available

manure – from chicken, cows, goats etc.

The individual smallholder farmers are trained in groups of 50. They are then advised to scale

up their cultivation from home gardens to large commercial gardens. They are advised to plant

at least five different kinds of vegetables using the technology learnt from IMO including but

not limited to proper seeds, seedlings, soil, spacing, fertilization, weeding, watering, harvesting

etc. IMO makes close follow up in forms of supportive supervision, mentoring and monitoring

and evaluation (M&E). The individuals opting to scale up from home gardens to large scale

farming/gardening are also required to remain in groups where they meet at least once a week

to take care of the group garden at the same time as they keep their own individual gardens.

IMO Investment

IMO invests its staff time, office space, demonstration plot space (1/4 acre for a group of 50

people), tools such as trays for seedlings, seeds, manure, fertilizer etc to train, mentor, monitor

and evaluate/follow up the individual farmers in their home gardens and big gardens/farms for

those who decide to scale up. It also invests time in searching for markets and linking them to

farmers.

Results of the investments

Since the intervention began on February 2014, IMO has seen very good results on part of the

smallholder farmers. There has been good response and uptake of the intervention by many

smallholder farmers. The model has spread very fast. There have been best cases where some

farmers have graduated from the demonstration plots and home gardens to large scale

commercial gardening.

According to IMO “Mr. Yona from Kilolo is among our best performing farmers. He learnt from

the demonstration plot, practiced home gardening and belongs to Ubena group. He has also

moved further to produce vegetables on large scale in his own large (about one acre) private

14

Page 15: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

garden on commercial basis in a very short period of time of less than three month. He is an

example of those adapting and taking up the technology very fast”

Those who have done well in their home gardens, have improved their nutrition and health.

This in turn has many direct and indirect benefits including reducing costs associated with bad

health and advantages of god health such as more efficient and effective participation in

economic activities. Some are selling vegetables from the home gardens thereby increasing

their incomes and reducing poverty. Those not selling the vegetables from the home gardens

but just consuming are able to save the cost of buying the vegetables. The cost is not only in

terms of money but also in terms of time that would be used to go to and from the market to

buy vegetables.

Also, the IMO trainees have left the old farming practices and embraced the new ones that give

better results in terms of increased outputs, productivity, higher quality etc. They now practice

better farming at all stages from farm preparations, seedlings preparations (done on special

trays hang on high ground instead of being placed on the ground), better planting time, better

spacing, watering/irrigation, fertilization, weeding, pruning, protection of vegetables through

living barriers such as maize and millets on the sides of the vegetable4. All these have resulted

to better yields, incomes and less poverty among the beneficiary smallholder farmers.

Another good return for the investment made by IMO is the multiplier effect of its intervention.

There are many people who were not part of the demonstration plots and home gardening

interventions but have learnt and copied from those who were part of these interventions. For

example, some friends, relatives and neighbours of those practicing home gardening after the

demonstration plots training are copying the good gardening practices.

Although it is difficult to quantify these benefits and assign them a monetary value, it is clear

that the investments undertaken by IMO are yielding good returns and give good value for

money. The intervention began only in February 2014 while this case study was documented in

4 Insects will then attach the maize and millets before reaching the vegetables which are more delicate and higher value than maize and millets

15

Page 16: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

the last week of May 2014. IMO would be a good case study to follow up in the future so as to

measure/evaluate the returns of the investment over time. Challenges include dangers of

missing baseline data if IMO did not have them at the beginning of its intervention in Iringa.

4.2.4. Investments by Iringa Municipal Council

The main focus in the investments that Iringa Municipal Council (IMC) undertakes for

smallholder farmers is irrigation in the whole council because it is semi dry area. Only three out

of six wards have adequate rains. Isimani, Pawaga and Idodi have no enough rain while Kalenga,

Kiponzelo and Mlolo wards get enough. There are many big rivers such as Ruaha Ndogo. IMC

has invested in improving traditional irrigation schemes (30 of them all together but only 18 of

them have been well improved). Aim in the Big Results Now (BRN) context is to improve 11

irrigation schemes within two years from 2014/15.

Investment in value chain development

IMC has facilitated farmers’ groups (about 4) to do value addition in rice so that they sell

processed rice from Pawaga and Idodi and processed sunflower from Isimani, Kalemga and

Mlolo. IMC has invested in building go-downs, improved and installed processing machines – on

sharing cost with groups. It has also given technical support. Some groups existed and others

were formed and strengthened by the IMC. It has also invested in introducing and supporting

ware house receipt system (WRS). It has also supported farmers to learn on WRS from Chimala

and Mbarali.

Results/impacts of the investment

As a result of this investment, there has been increased sale of processed products that give

farmers higher prices. The investment in WRS has enabled farmers to access credit from various 16

Page 17: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

financial institutions using their crops as collateral. The WRS has enabled smallholder farmers

to sale their crops when prices are good instead of succumbing to buyers’ prices. According to

IMC, there has been more output (rice) in Pagawa. This has increased food security, increased

incomes, improved livelihoods including better houses. This has also resulted in better incomes

for IMC through crop cess collected by private sector on behalf of the council.

Investment in farmers training

IMC has also invested in farmers training. This has taken the form of farmer class, farmers

training of trainers (ToT) known in Kiswahili as wakulima wagani kazi. The farmers have been

trained at Igurusi College in Mbeya. It has also invested in extension services at district, ward

and village levels.

Investments in markets

IMC has build about 11 markets in which smallholder farmers can sale their produce. Some of

these markets are working well while some are not working due to various challenges.

Investment in rural roads

IMC has invested in district and feeder roads that facilitate smallholder farmers to undertake

their activities. This is done by the Works Department of the council. These roads do help small

holders to transport farm inputs and outputs and traders to reach them.

Investment in dams

IMC has invested in dams for irrigation purposes. This is done through rain water harvesting for

irrigation purposes as well as development of underground water schemes. Among the places

where this has been done include Tanangozi and Igingilanyi where underground water sources

have been developed using solar pumps for drip irrigation by smallholder farmers.

4.2.5. Investment by Rural Urban Development Initiative (RUDI5

5 See its profile at http://www.tnnc.go.tz/ngodetails.php?applicationid=597 17

Page 18: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

RUDI focuses on training farmers on value addition. In Iringa among other things, it has give one

machine in Idodi for rice processing for better prices and profits for smallholder farmers. RUDI

invests in smallholder farmers in various ways. Among other things, it organizes farmers in

groups where farmers are sensitized to do collective marketing. It also invests in improving

godowns and WRS. It links framers to finance and helps them to identify long and short term

Income Generating Activities (IGAs) such as animal husbandry and trade. The aim is to add

incomes of farmers instead of over dependence on maize and rice. It also supports Village

Community Banks (VICOBA) formation. The aim is to solve problems of access to affordable

finance for smallholder farmers.

RUDI also invests in gender training including roles distribution in agriculture so that women get

relief from extra work in farms. RUDI also tries to organize youths in groups and facilitates them

by giving them machines to reduce/reverse rural - urban migration that has negative results in

agricultural labour availability in rural Tanzania in general and Iringa region including IMC in

particular.

RUDI also invests in training and supporting collective marketing, better storage, better quality

and sorting of crops in grades. It also facilitates common and bigger voice for farmers;

facilitates and trains on various elements of entrepreneurship including market research and

record keeping for agro-business so as to know costs, prices, profit margins and therefore

recommended minimum sales prices that will give profit. RUDI invests on training on good

governance and organization leadership of farmers groups. It also invests on farmers through

training on developing groups visions so that they know what they want and how to achieve the

same. Its training includes market information access too.

Results of the investment

18

Page 19: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

RUDI has seen substantial positive impacts of its investments on smallholder farmers in Iringa.

Its various capacity building interventions such as training have resulted into much stronger,

vibrant, dynamic, professionally managed and operated farmers’ groups and associations. As a

result of the interventions, farmers have improved their agricultural practices at from farms

preparations, planting, weeding, fertilizing, harvesting, storage as well as marketing. This in

turn, has led into improved livelihood of smallholder farmers.

4.2.6. THE CASE OF CHAMWINO DISTRICT COUNCIL

Chamwino District Council (CDC) is located in Dodoma region. The case study in CDC was mainly

informed by the council’s DALDO office. In what follows, the findings from CDC are presented

based on the key research questions.

4.2.6.1. The way central and local governments are investing in smallholder farmers

Both the central and local governments are investing in smallholder farmers through supporting

their priority agricultural investments based on the District Agricultural Development Plans

(DADPs) on a cost-sharing basis. The beneficiaries contribute additional labour and materials in

varying proportions, depending on the nature of the investment. The government is responsible

in providing funds for farmers’ priority interventions. To enable and facilitate project

completion, the government provides guidelines for funding those farmers’ interventions.

4.2.6.2. The extent to which the governments have invested in smallholder farmers

Both the central and local governments have invested in smallholder farmers in the following

ways:

i) Agricultural infrastructures investments as can be seen in irrigation facilities in

Chamwino DC

19

Page 20: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

ii) Agricultural extension services in which a total of 78 extension staff have been

employed in six years of ASDP-I. These staff are working closely with smallholder

farmers

iii) Agricultural capacity building through improved supervision, monitoring and evaluation

(M&E) of agricultural projects being implemented by smallholder farmers

The table below provides an example of the way CDC has partly budgeted for agricultural sector

hereby investing on smallholder farmers.

Table 1: Selected Items in Chamwino District Council Budget

PLANNED ACTIVITY APROVED

BUDGET

AMOUNT

RECIVED

ACTUAL

EXPENDITURE

PHYSICAL

ACHIEVEMENT

FINANCIAL

SOURCES

REMARKS

To support constrruction of 1

cattle dip at Chiboli village by

June 2009

9,685,000 9,685,000 9,600,000 Cattle dip

construction

completed

DADG Funds were sent to committee

account for implementation.

To support rehabilitation of

Iringa Mvumi primary market

Market by June 2009

10,020,715 10,020,715 10,020,000 Animal collection

pen rehabilitation

completed

DADG AI Equipments Purchased

To support acquisition of 15 tons

of sorghum seeds for farmers in

a whole district

15,500,000 15,500,000 15,500,000 15,000 kg of macia

seeds procured and

distributed to 6000

households in 72

villages

DADG

To facilitate establishment of 1

artificial insemination centre at

Mvumi Mission village by June

2009

9,058,000 9,058,000 4,700,000 2 Nitrogen cans, 4

Pistolets,20

sheath,250 doses

of Semen, 10

packets of Gloves

purchased;

rehabilitation of A.I

center ongoing

DADG Rehabilitation work ongoing

To support rehabilitation of 1

irrigation scheme at Mpwayungu

village by June 2009.

6,937,000 6,937,000 6,937,000 Rehabilitation of

bunds was done

DADG Contracted work

To support establishment of one

acre of grape vine nursery and

100 ha. On drip irrigation

technique at Chinangali grape

vine block farm by June 2009.

100,000,000 100,000,000 85,620,000 Grape nursery with

500,000 seedlings,

pump test and

installation,

construction of

DADG Contracted work

20

Page 21: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

tank completed

To support acquisition of 23

motorcycles for village and ward

extension officers by June 2009

38,400,000 38,400,000 38,400,000 Twenty (23)

motorcycles has

been purchased

and distributed to

23 ward extension

officers

DADG Contracted work

To support acquisition of 15

powertillers for farmers by June

2009

63,137,000 63,137,000 63,137,000 Fifteen (15) JD

power tillers has

been purchased

and given to

farmers on 50%

cost sharing

arrangements

DADG Contracted work

To support mobilization activities

for establishment of new

irrigation shemes at Manda,

Chifukulo, Majeleko and Mvumi

makulu.

6,000,000 6,000,000 5,600,000 Studies done at

Manda and Mvumi

Makulu,

DADG Mvumi Makulu irrigation

scheme passed for

implementation.

To conduct Monitoring and

evaluation of all investment

Projects by June 2009.

(Investment servicing costs)

14,131,000 14,131,000 14,131,000 M&E conducted in

all quarters,

involved village

project committes

Basic-ACBG

To facilitate the participatory

planing process (O&OD planing

tool) from the village, ward and

district levells according to

DADPs guidelines by June 2009.

12,400,000 12,400,000 12,400,000 Extended

participatory

planning was

conducted in all 28

wards,

Top up A-CBG DADP compiled from WADPS

To facilitate 2 days training to

village project commitees on

DADP project monitoring and

evaluation by June 2009

12,974,000 12,974,000 9,000,000 Member from 12

Project

implementation

committees were

trained,

Top up A-CBG Training has improved PC

planning, monitoring and

evaluation skills.

To suport a 3 days training to 100

farmers at Chinangali

II,Makang'wa and Mvumi

Makulu villages on grapevine

production by June 2009

10,670,000 10,670,000 10,670,000 100 farmers at

Chinangali II grape

farm were trained

on grape

agronomic

practices

Top up A-CBG ARI Makutupora were

involved in the training of

farmers.

To facilitate 12 DSMSs

(agriculture and livestock) to

attend a 5 weeks training on

Introduction to computer

4,542,000 4,542,000 4,500,000 Training conducted

at UCC-Dodoma

branch. Planning

and reporting skills

Basic-ACBG

21

Page 22: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

application and Planrep software

by June 2009.

to 15 DSMS

improved

To support training for 3 staff

on undergraduate courses at the

recognised Government

institution for three years by

June, 2009

8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 Tuition fee and

book allowances

for 3 extension

staff were paid to

respective

universities

Top up A-CBG Tuition fees paid to

IRDP,SUA,SJUT

To support Post graduate

courses to 1 staff at the

recognized government

institutions by June 2009

15,000,000 15,000,000 13,150,000 Tuition fee and

research funds for

2 extension staff

were paid to

respective

universities

Top up A-CBG Tuition and research funds

paid to SUA

To facilitate 4 days training to 22

extension staff on extension

program planing by June 2009.

4,499,000 4,499,000 4,400,000 Improved

extension program

planning to ward

extension officers

AEBG

To support 120 farmers to

acquire cashewnut seeds and

train them on cashewnut

production by June 2009

11,066,000 11,066,000 11,066,000 Three tons of

cashew nut seeds

procured and

planted in 120

acres

Top up A-CBG

To support acquisition of 1 4WD

pickup double cabin for DALDOs

office by June 2009.

45,000,000 45,000,000 45,000,000 1 4W Nissan pick-

up doble cabin

procured.Improved

project monitoring

Top up A-CBG

To support rehabilitation of one

building for exhibition ,

establishment of 15 demo plots

for crops,10 demo plots for

pastures, 4 animal sheds and

facilitate farmers to participate

at Nzuguni Nanenane ground by

June 2009

20,685,967 20,685,967 20,600,000 15 demonstration

plots established,4

animal sheds

constructed and 80

farmers were

facilitated to

display their

innovations

AEBG 120 farmers were faciltated to

attend and display their crop

and livestock innovations

To support a 1 month training on

Artificial insemination at NAIC

Arusha for 2 livestock officers by

by June 2009.

6,560,000 6,560,000 6,560,000 2 staff trained and

equipment for AI

procured

Top up A-CBG A.I services are provided to

semi-intensive farmers at

Mvumi mission

To support construction of 1

Ward agricultural resource

center at Haneti by June 2009

18,503,750 18,503,750 18,503,750 The WRC is at

completion stage

AEBG Contracted work

22

Page 23: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

To support control of migratory

pests by conducting a 5 days

survey, 5 days community

sensitization, acquisition of 1500

ltrs of pestcides, 500 bullet and

28 knapsack sprayers at 28 wards

by June 2009.

6,500,000 6,500,000 6,325,000 Armyworm and

quelea outbreak

controlled in the

district

A-EGB

To support acquisition of blowers

and agricultural chemicals for

spraying on cashew nuts trees in

the district by June 2009.

6,396,000 6,396,000 6,396,000 1blower and other

implements for

cashewnut spraying

procured

A-EGB

To facilitate vaccination

campaign against CBPP and

Newcastle disease by June 2009

15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 CBPP and rabbies

controlled in 22

villages

AEBG 9,784 cattle and 492 dogs

vaccinated

To support rehabilitation of

Mpwayungu irrigation scheme

100,000,000 100,000,000 97,500,000 Rehabilitation of

1,500 meters of

main canal

completed

DIDF Contracted work.

Rehabilitation to start during

dry season

GRAND TOTAL 570,665,432 570,665,432 542,715,750

Source: Field data, Chamwino District Council, June 2014

4.2.6.3. What is working and why

According to the findings in CDC, there are a number of interventions that work well for

smallholder farmers in the council. These are outlined below.

i) Agricultural infrastructure: Irrigation schemes

Investment in irrigation schemes work well for smallholder farmers. This is because the income

impacts of such investment are likely to be high in the future. Beneficiaries have acquired

productive assets that are likely to increase their incomes significantly. With irrigation schemes

in place, smallholder farmers are able to plant varieties of crops the year round.

ii) Agricultural Extension services

Investment in agricultural extension services works well for smallholder farmers. This is because

responsive extension services provided have enabled farmers to use improved crop and

livestock inputs thus increasing production and productivity.

iii) Private sector involvement in smallholder Agriculture

23

Page 24: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

Involvement of the private sector in general and such banks as CRDB in funding smallholder

farmers is good. In CDC for example, CRDB has funded smallholder farmers through a

cooperative at Chinangali II. The investment has made grape drip irrigation at Chinangali to be

one of the best Public Private Partnership (PPP) practices in ASDP-1.

4.2.6.4. What is not working and why

There has been a number of investments on smallholder farmers that have not worked well in

Chamwino. According to the findings in CDC, among the intervention that has not worked well

is the input subsidy intervention. It was argued in the field that although the Central

government targets smallholder farmers, most often input vouchers are used by large scale and

rich farmers because of inability of intended farmers to contribute to the unsubsidized costs of

the vouchers. In some cases, the targeted smallholder farmers end up selling their inputs

especially fertilizer to those with cash. This makes the aim of investing in smallholder farmers

through inputs subsidy a failure.

4.2.6.5. Existing gaps

Although there have been a number of interventions aiming at investing in smallholder farmers

in CDC, there are still some gaps that exist. These gaps show what s remaining to be done in

efforts to invest in smallholder farmers. According to respondents, the following are the

existing gaps in Chamwino:

a. Investment in value addition of agricultural products

b. Investments in soft components such as marketing skills, packaging, grading,

labeling and adherence to standards.

c. Investments in linkages of various actors in various nodes of agricultural value

chain including smallholder farmers, inputs suppliers, transporters, processors,

traders and consumers

4.2.6.6. Priority focus of investment

24

Page 25: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

There are a number of priority areas of investments in smallholder farmers in Chamwino. These

areas include investment in irrigation infrastructure. A total of ASDP funds received for this

purpose in the period 2007/208 to 2013/2014 is Tshs 4,193,942,122/=. Out of this, a total of

Tshs 2,566,649,543 (61%) was spent in Construction and upgrading of irrigation schemes.

Reasons for this priority include the following:

a. Availability of underground water suitable for irrigation

b. Presence of Irrigation facilities such as dams that were constructed through

other programmes

c. Technical support from zonal irrigation office

4.2.6.7. The way smallholder farmers receive support

There are various mechanisms through which smallholder farmers receive support. These

include the following:

i) Support from the government through priority interventions incorporated in the

District Agricultural Development Programmed (DADPs)

ii) Support from the private sector through farmer’s groups/cooperatives such as

SACCOs receiving loans for agricultural production, for example Chinangali SACCOS

received 1.5 billion Tsh for grape farming investment

iii) Extension services are provided through farmer groups mainly using Farmer Field

school extension approach

iv) Inputs are provided through private input dealers operating in their localities in the

municipality. This is done through inputs voucher system involving village, ward and

district voucher committees.

v) Farm implements are provided through government input trust fund where farmers

obtain loans for farm machinery and implement

The kind of support that is provided include financial support, capacity building in forms of

training on agronomy and husbandry and extension services

4.2.6.8. Outcomes of the investment from small holder farmers:

25

Page 26: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

There have been a number of outcomes of the investments that have been made on

smallholder farmers in Chamwino. According to the field findings, notable outcomes include the

following:

i) One important achievement is that projects are owned and managed by farmers

themselves. This is an important aspect for making the projects sustainable. Farmers

through their SACCOS/irrigators organizations meet and plan for their farms without

undue interference from the Council staff and other stake holders.

ii) Chinangali II Grape project has improved farmers’ capacity in grape production due to

involvement in land preparation, nursery management, transplanting of seedlings, pest

and disease control, rotational irrigation management and other vineyard care

practices.

iii) There is a spillover effect as such interventions as Farmer Field School (FSS) have been

copied by other farmers in and outside the district.

iv) Various interventions have succeeded by impressing youths to remain in the villages.

For example, grape production in Chinangali creates an assurance of about 6 to 15 tons

of the crop per acre per year and guarantees stable income for the period of about 50

years.

4.2.6.9. Amounts that the council has received as crop cess

Partly as a result of investment in smallholder farmers, Chamwino DC has seen various kinds of

returns for the investments. Apart from the direct benefits enjoyed by the smallholder farmers

themselves, the council has enjoyed indirect returns in forms of crop cess collected from

various agricultural produce. The council has a contract with a private company that collects

revenue on behalf of the council through PPP arrangements. The company pays a total of

15,400,000/= per month as crop cess. Therefore, CDC receives a total of Tshs 184,800,000/= as

crop cess per annum.

4.2.7. THE CASE OF KILOSA DISTRICT COUNCIL

26

Page 27: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

Similar to Iringa and Chamwino District Council, Kilosa District Council (KDC) undertakes various

kinds of investments for smallholder framers in the council. In what follows, study findings from

KDC are presented. Similar to IDC and CDC, the case study is mainly informed by responses

from the office of the DALDO.

4.2.7.1. The way the government is investing in small holders farmers

Kilosa district council through extension officers, involves smallholder farmers to propose

agricultural projects which ultimately will improve production. This is done in the context of

participatory approach approaches to development in general and Opportunities and Obstacles

to Development (O&OD) in particular. However, projects in which the council invests in differ

from one area to another depending on the nature and resources available in that particular

locality.

Having agreed with the proposed agricultural project the district council’s professionals

shoulder the responsibility of writing technical project proposals and send the same to the

central government and other stakeholders asking for financial support to facilitate the

implementation of the proposed projects.

The district council is obliged not only to supervise the initiated projects but also to provide

technical advice to the smallholder farmers so as to run projects effectively. Moreover, it is

mandatory requirement for the district council to prepare reports on the running projects and

send the said reports to the central government at the regional level.

4.2.7.2. The extent to which the government has invested in smallholder farmers

In Kilosa district council, the government has succeeded to construct about 52 channels for

irrigation schemes, to provide 50 small tractors (power tillers) through smallholder farmers

groups, one tractor for Mvumi ward, processing machines for sunflower, rice and maize and

provision of technical support e.g the use of quality declared seeds through “shamba darasa”27

Page 28: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

4.2.7.3. What is working and why

The investment in irrigation channels is partly working well. However only 12 channels out of 52

channels (23%) are working properly. These are working well because they are improved ones,

as their construction projects had sufficient funds to meet the budget. Therefore, improved

infrastructure with adequate funding are likely to work well compared to unimproved ones

with inadequate funding. The government, both central and local, must therefore set aside

adequate funds for investment in agricultural infrastructure.

4.2.7.4. What is not working and why

Investments with no adequate funds are not working. In Kilosa for example, about 40 irrigation

channel schemes are traditional ones hence perform below standard. There is a blockage of

channels by sand resulting from the 2014 heavy rainfall. The rationale for the ineffectiveness of

the said channels is insufficient funds to meet the budget for construction project.

4.2.8.5. Existing gaps

There are a number of gaps in investments on smallholder farmers in KDC. For example, all the

52 irrigation channels schemes should have been modern ones. However, only 12 channels are

improved ones and therefore, the remaining 40 channels should be improved to meet the

required standard. There is an urgent need for construction of roads to reach those irrigation

schemes easily.

4.2.8.6. Priority focus of investment in smallholder farmers in KDC

According to respondents, the priority focus of investment in smallholder farmers in KDC is on

rice fields, though other crops like maize and onions perform better in some seasons.

4.2.8.7. The extent to which other stakeholders are investing in smallholder farmers in KDC

28

Page 29: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

Apart from the central and local governments, there are other stakeholders that are investing

in smallholder farmes in KDC. Some of these other stakeholders are outlined in what follows.

i) Investments by WOPATA

WOPATA is an organization which has invested a lot in Kilosa District council specifically in the

construction of business centre (mnada) at Rudewa and Kimaba wards. It has also invested in

provision of education on the modern rice farming and the establishment of “Bank Mazao”

ii) Investment by Tanzania Social Action Fund (TASAF)

TASAF is another organization which has invested to smallholder farmers in Kilosa. It has

invested in rural roads construction and repair, irrigation schemes and training of farmers.

Normally, TASAF approach is a participatory one. It funds some of the costs in the investments

and beneficiaries (smallholder farmers in this case) contribute their part. The main form of

beneficiaries’ contribution is in-kind contribution including provision of labour and materials

such as stones, sand and others in case of construction investments.

iii) Investment by BRACK

BRACK is a microfinance institution (MFI). It has invested in smallholder farmers by provision of

loans and training. This provision of loans is a critical investment because access to finance is

among the major constraints that smallholder farmers face. Financial institutions tend to shy

away from financing agricultural investments due to such risks as drought as most agricultural

activities are rain-fed.

Other risks that financial institutions escape is the relatively long period it takes for agricultural

investments to pay back due to long gestation period compared to trading activities of buying

and selling goods. Financial institutions also tend to avoid extending loans to the agricultural

sector due to fears of post-harvest losses. If there will be interventions that reduce these risks,

for example investment in irrigation, agricultural insurance as well as reducing post-harvest

29

Page 30: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

losses, financial institutions would most likely be more willing and able to extend credit to

agricultural undertakings especially in the production part.

iv) Investment by MKUHUMI

MKUHUMI is another organization which provides training to the farmers on how to exercise

farming without affecting environment.

v) Investment by Tanzania Horticulture Association (TAHA)

TAHA has invested in training and marketing to the smallholder farmers in Kilosa district.

vi) Investment by Swiss Contact

Swiss Contact in Tanzania provides training in modern farming to young persons of the age

between 16 years and 20 years.

4.2.8.8. The way smallholder farmers receive support

The government provides subsides to the smallholder farmers. The inputs subsidy is provided

through voucher system to the targeted households. The inputs are supplied by private sector.

Support in form of extension services is provided direct to smallholder farmers in their farms, in

demonstration plots as well as by individual farmers visiting or calling extension officers for

guidance in case of need.

Where disaster arises the government provides both technical and financial supports to the

smallholder farmers. For example, in this 2014 the government is about to curb the destructive

birds namely “Kwerea Kwerea” in Mangole, Kimaba, KIlangali and Maganze divisions. Also in

Tindiga, Mabwerebwere and Msowelo wards.

4.2.8.9. The way farmers receive extension services, inputs and any other support

necessary in their development agendas30

Page 31: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

The extensions officers provide training to the small group of smallholder farmers representing

their fellow smallholder farmers. Having been trained, the representatives of the smallholder

farmers step into the shoes of extension officers to train their fellow smallholder farmers. This

is a training of trainers (ToT) or cascading approach of provision of extension services. It is a

good approach due to the scarcity of extension officers relative to the demand for them.

Also the agricultural inputs are given to those smallholder farmers who have been identified

and qualified by the district council authorities. However the inputs are subject to cost sharing

between smallholder farmers and government. Some farmers do not afford their part of cost-

sharing and resort to sell their vouchers/parts of inputs to those able to foot the costs. This is

done even at a through-away price thereby distorting the good intention and logic behind the

subsidy intervention.

4.2.9.0. Outcome of the investment from smallholders farmers

The investment to the smallholder farmers has brought about the increase in production to the

smallholder farmers of Kilosa District. For example in Peapea, Batuwa and Mbuyuni villages in

Rudewa ward, there is improvement in maize production from 4 – 5 bags of maize to 16 – 17 of

maize per acre.

In kilangali division production of rice has increased from 15 – 16 bags of rice to 36 bags of rice

per acre. There is also improvement in livelihood due to the fact that most of the households in

Kilosa district are living in bricks and iron roofed houses. Also there has been increase in assets

owned by smallholder farmers. These include but are not limited to mobile phones, bicycles,

motorcycles and even houses. All these indicators show that investments in smallholder

farmers are generally giving good outcomes.

4.2.9.1. Amount that the local government has received from smallholder farmers as

returns from the investment

31

Page 32: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

Kilosa DC has received substantial amount of revenue from crop cess as shown in the table

below.

Table 2: Kilosa District Council Itemized Revenue Chart For 2010 – 2013

OWN SOURCE 2010-211

REVENUE DESCRIPTION BUDGET (In Tsh)

ACTUAL (In

Tshs)

DIFFERENCE (In

Tshs) %

Local

Taxes

Produce cess

50708 Farm Produce Levy

131,768,224.00

170,260,600.00

(38,492,376.00) 129.21

50713 Produce Cess

10,000,000.00

9,700,900.00

299,100.00 97.01

51082

Other Food Produce

Cess

12,240,000.00

167,600.00

12,072,400.00 1.37

51085 Sugarcane Cess

1,350,628,385.00

1,375,636,601.20

(25,008,216.20) 101.85

51086 Onion Cess

30,000,000.00

9,167,000.00

20,833,000.00 30.56

Total

1,534,636,609.00

1,564,932,701.20

(30,296,092.20) 101.97

OWN SOURCE 2011-212

Produce Cess

050708 Farm Produce Levy 496,523,600.00 518,763,832.02 (22,240,232.02) 104.48

050713 Produce Cess 5,000,000.00 4,403,518.69 596,481.31 88.07

051082

Other Food Produce

Cess 165,723,300.00 77,464,000.00 88,259,300.00 46.74

051084 Tobacco Cess 7,150,000.00 9,374,424.41 (2,224,424.41) 131.11

32

Page 33: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

051086 Onion Cess 139,000,000.00 1,659,000.00 137,341,000.00 1.19

051085 Sugarcane Cess 450,000,000.00 1,410,467,115.75 (960,467,115.75) 313.44

Total

1,263,396,900.00

2,022,131,890.87 (758,734,990.87) 160.06

OWN SOURCE 2012-213

110810 Rice Crop cess 333,000,000.00 14,527,900.00 318,472,100.00 4.36

110807 Maize Crop cess 318,584,000.00 18,670,192.4

2

299,913,807.58 5.86

110808 Other export crop

cess

426,853,700.00 918,455,947.11 -491,602,247.11 215.17

110815 Other produce cess 312,954,900.00 186,513,333.11 126,441,566.89 59.60

Total 1,391,392,600.00 1,138,167,372.64 253,225,227.36 81.80

Source: Field data, Kilosa District Council June 2014

As can be seen in the table above, Kilosa District Council receives substantial amount of

revenues from crop cess. In the context of this study, the council has all the reasons to invest

substantially in smallholder farmers because there are substantial revenues from the activities

undertaken by smallholder farmers. For the council to invest in smallholder farmers is widening

its revenue base.

5. CONCLUSIONS

From the study findings in the three districts, it is evident that there are a number of

investments from various stakeholders that have been made on smallholder farmers. The

investments are by the government (central and local), private sector and civil society

organizations. These investments are in forms of various types of capacity building,

construction of agricultural infrastructure, provision of various kinds of inputs including seeds

and fertilizer.

There have been good results on part of the smallholder farmers as a result of these

investments. Generally, there has been better agricultural practices that have given better

33

Page 34: Research report on economic  returns for investing in smallholder farmers (2)

outputs and more incomes resulting into improved livelihoods for smallholder farmers. For the

district councils, there has been an increase in revenues emanating from crop cess. Therefore,

investment in smallholder farmers is a good undertaking in the bid to help smallholder farmers

improve their undertakings thereby increasing possibilities of them escaping poverty.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings, it is recommended that all stakeholders including but not limited to the

central and local government, private sector, civil society organizations and individuals should

keep on investing on smallholder farmers. Such investments should be participatory and

demand-driven not supply-driven so that they address the felt-needs of specific farmers.

34