weber msu, cirad 2010

17
Towards Improved Decision Making for Different Types of Farmers and Other Different Types of Farmers and Other Sector Stakeholders: R fl ti A i lt lM ktIf ti R eflections on AgriculturalMark etInf ormation Developments and Challenges in Zambia M.T. Weber ACF/FSRP and Michigan State University Presented at Workshop on Agricultural Market Information Presented at Workshop on Agricultural Market Information Systems in Africa: Renewal and Impact” Montpellier, France 29-31 March, , 2010

Upload: slavb

Post on 05-Dec-2014

618 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

DESCRIPTION

 

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Weber MSU, CIRAD 2010

Towards Improved Decision Making for  Different Types of Farmers and OtherDifferent Types of Farmers and Other 

Sector Stakeholders: R fl ti A i lt l M k t I f tiReflections on Agricultural Market Information 

Developments and Challenges in Zambia

M.T. Weber ACF/FSRP and Michigan State University

Presented at “Workshop on Agricultural Market InformationPresented at Workshop on Agricultural Market Information Systems in Africa: Renewal and Impact” Montpellier, France

29-31 March, , 2010

Page 2: Weber MSU, CIRAD 2010

Outline of PresentationOutline of Presentation

1 Identify sources of agriculture/food price1. Identify sources of agriculture/food price information and use in Zambia.

2 Identify and discuss the implications of2. Identify and discuss the implications of differences among: 

small/medium farmers =0 20 ha & customary land‐ small/medium farmers =0‐20 ha & customary land

(1.5 million small & medium‐scale farmers 

commercial farmers = >20 ha and free hold title‐ commercial farmers = >20 ha and free‐hold title

(1400 commercial farms– less than 500 farm>500 ha

3 Di th i t f th ki th ti3. Discuss the importance of the asking the question of what information for whom?

Page 3: Weber MSU, CIRAD 2010

Zambian Agricultural Market Information Sources

• ZNFU SMS Trade Bid (CAMIS Cambodia)

• ZAMACE (Commodity Exchange)

• CSO retail prices

• AMIC – Ag Market Information Center• AMIC  Ag Market Information Center

• FEWs Net Markets (Use of CSO price data)

Page 4: Weber MSU, CIRAD 2010

Empirical Data on SmallholdersSmallholdersin Zambia – Nation Wide Random Surveys

Map of Central Statistical Office Statistical Enumeration Areas (SEAs) SampledMap of Central Statistical Office Statistical Enumeration Areas (SEAs) Sampled in the CSO/MACO/FSRP Post Harvest and Supplemental Surveys in 2001, 2004 and 2008 by Zambia’s Agro-Ecological Zones

Page 5: Weber MSU, CIRAD 2010

% of Small/Medium‐Scale Farmers G i CGrowing Crops

Att ib t C 1999/00 2002/03 2006/07 t dAttributes Crop 1999/00 2002/03 2006/07 trend

Maize 80 80 84

% Cassava 38 39 34

G d 36 42 38HH Growing

Groundnuts 36 42 38

Sweet potatoes

28 19 13potatoes

Cotton 6 10 10

Page 6: Weber MSU, CIRAD 2010

Under Appreciated Facts About Small & M di S l FMedium‐Scale Farmers 

Most rural farm households are buyers of maize (or net buyers)

28 % of smallholders are net mai e sellers‐‐‐28 % of smallholders are net maize sellers‐‐‐49 % of smallholders are net supplemental buyers of maize (11 % did not produce any maize); 

‐‐‐23 % produced but did not sell nor buy maizeHighly concentrated patterns of surplus generation 2% of farm households account forgeneration  ‐ 2% of farm households account for 50% of marketed maize surplusMaize market position is highly associated withMaize market position is highly associated with area cropped and household assets

Page 7: Weber MSU, CIRAD 2010

How to Help ‐Which Farmers & What I f i H l S l Th i P bl ?Information Helps Solve Their Problems?

2.502500.00

1.50

2.00

1500.00

2000.00

d ar

ea(H

a)

acha

.50

1.00

00

500.00

1000.00

an c

ropp

ed

000

Kw

a

.00-500.00

.00

Net sellers (28 0%)

Net buyers with maize

Net buyers with no maize

Not in market (23 4%)

Mea

(28.0%) with maize production

(37.9%)

no maize production

(10.7%)

(23.4%)

Maize Farmer Category

Net sales (not in 000 Kwacha) Gross value of maize productionValue of assets Cultivated land area

2008 (07/08 Crop Marketing Season)

Page 8: Weber MSU, CIRAD 2010

Disparities in Livelihoods Within Smallholder Agriculture, Zambia

Total hh gross income 

$

Gr. Rev., crop sales

(US$)

Gr. Rev., maize sales

(US$)

Asset values

(US$)

Farm size (ha)

N=

7,6243,3543,1993,7037.230,043

(2%)

Top 50% of small/medium    maize sales

(US$)

1,2722521722571.9388,795

(26%)

Rest of maize sellers

7565701291.11,083,395

(72%)

Households not selling maize

( %)

(72%)maize

Source: CSO Supplemental surveys, 2008

Page 9: Weber MSU, CIRAD 2010

Village Leader Indication of Maize Grain Shortages in Their Areas When HHs Want To Buy

Northern

LUA NW

CB Central

Eastern

Lsaka

Southern

Western

National

n

Number of Village Leaders Interviewed 179 119 67 41 61 238 27 163 158 1,053

% of Leaders saying there are months of year when hhs in 93 87 97 85 88 97 96 94 95 93 %village who want to buy maize but there is none available

93 87 97 85 88 97 96 94 95 93 %

Most Common Month 12 1 11 10 12 1 12 12 10 12

2nd Month 1 2 12 11 1 2 1 1 11 1

3rd Month 2 3 1 12 2 3 2 2 12 2

Page 10: Weber MSU, CIRAD 2010

Zambia ‐Maize Situation & Market Information for 2007/2008 Marketing Year

Type of Farmer

Number of 

Farmers

Production

Metric tons

Sales

Metric tons

Mean Farm‐Level Storage Home Use

Market Information Needs?

Commercial 1400 218,728 174,164 (80 %) Selling Prices, Buyers, Exports

S/M –Sellers (28 %) 418,802

[30,150]

1,319,774 762,093 (58%)

[381,046

1.3 mt Selling Prices, Buyers, Storage Information

/ ( ) ( )S/M – Buyers (38 %) 576,694 411,391 0 (0 %) 1.0 mt Stocks, Buying Prices, Storage Information, Wage Information,  Prices non‐farm goods/services

S/M –Buyer N

(11%) 159,507 0 0 (0 %) 0 Buying Prices, Wage i f ti P i N F–No 

Productioninformation, Prices Non‐Farm 

goods/services

S/M ‐Autarkic

(29 %) 347,194 229,527 0 (0 %) .8 mt Good years – Selling Price

Bad Years – Buying Price

Storage

Small/Med Tot. 

1,502,197 1,960,692 762,093 (58 %) .9 mt

Other Important Stakeholders to also Consider:Other Important Stakeholders to also Consider:

Small Trader/Assembly,  Trader/Wholesale,  Trader/Importer/Exporter,  

Millers/Feed Manufacture,  FRA Security Stock

Page 11: Weber MSU, CIRAD 2010

Discussion and Brainstorming• Many tools are becoming available for farmers with volumes to 

sell – this needs to continue & link to regional trade options

• In most years there seems to be too much maize leaving local areas – what information might help improve local stocks?

• In some years an increased number of smallholders may have• In some years an increased number of smallholders may have small quantities to sell.  How to serve them?

• In some years many more hhs may need to buy. What information helps inform this?  Crop forecast & buying forecast?

• A majority of hhs need to increase production, first for home consumption & to sell What information helps?consumption  & to  sell. What information helps?  

• Improved on‐farm storage for consumption and possible selling later seems to have potential – what to do to help with information on this front?

Page 12: Weber MSU, CIRAD 2010

Zikomo Kwambili, Natotela sana, L'i tumezi ahulu,Twalumba kapati, 

Thanks to Zambian smallholders, traders, consumers and to policy makers for 

opportunities to obtain/share information and ideasideas

Page 13: Weber MSU, CIRAD 2010

Other Slides for Background

Page 14: Weber MSU, CIRAD 2010

Maize Productivity Patterns &Trends Summary 

Increases in maize production have come largely from p g yarea expansion not yield improvements

Maize yield potential not being achieved even in the era of FSPFSPlarge portion of smallholder with declining maize yield over 03/04 to 07/08 

By 2007/08 only 35 % of smallholders have become fertiliser usersYi ld i f ili iYield improvements among fertiliser users is greatest among smaller land holding categoriesGenerally maize yield strongly associated with rainfallGenerally, maize yield strongly associated with rainfall both amount and timing

Page 15: Weber MSU, CIRAD 2010

Potential Market:   U b F d C ti P ttUrban Food Consumption Patterns

Overall the combined importance of meat, eggs fish & dairy has surpassed the role ofeggs, fish & dairy has surpassed the role of cereals/staples.  

F t l till d i tFor poorest, cereals still dominate

Vegetables important group, especially for poorest

Poultry & eggs have become very important & dominate the meats group outside Lusaka

Page 16: Weber MSU, CIRAD 2010

Potential Market:   Urban Food Consumption Patterns

Among staples, maize still dominates for lower income consumers, but wheat has become very important for all urban consumers. In Lusaka, wheat products dominate among staples except for the lowest expenditure groupsCassava important in Mansa & Kasama, esp. among low expenditure quintile of consumersPoultry & eggs have become very important & dominate the meats group outside Lusaka

Page 17: Weber MSU, CIRAD 2010

Urban Food Budget Shares For Key Products

Food Item ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐% expenditure share ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Lusaka Kitwe Mansa Kasama

Cereals & Staples 24.1 27.4 28.0 27.2

Dairy items 5 2 3 6 1 7 2 0Dairy items 5.2 3.6 1.7 2.0

Meat & eggs 16.8 15.6 12.7 14.5

Fish 7.6 8.4 12.4 12.5

Vegetables 13.7 15.0 11.4 14.2

Fruits 3.6 4 3.7 4.0

Other Foods 16 4 17 1 16 9 18 4Other Foods 16.4 17.1 16.9 18.4

Tobacco & alcohol 5.3 4.6 6.3 4.0

Food away from home 7.3 4.3 6.9 3.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0