PA00Z9PS

Agriculture Value Chain
Analysis
Takunda Resilience Food Security Activity
Study Authors: Sydney Zharare, Godfrey Mudimu, Kingstone Mujeyi,

Collen Matema, Alex Popi and Nyasha Chitaka
Date: December 13th 2021
Disclaimer
This publication is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of CARE and do
not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Conrad Murendo, Walter Mwasaa, Charmaine Chitate, Archibald
Chikavanga, Andrew Patterson, and CARE USA Technical Advisors for their review comments and
editorial support. The Takunda program staff and program participants are acknowledged for their
cooperation and support during the field work.
Takunda Resilience Food Security Activity: Award #72DFFP20CA00007 | Agriculture Value Chain Analysis,
submitted Dec 13 2021 |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of contents ....................................................................................................................................................... i
List of Figures............................................................................................................................................................ iv
List of Tables ...............................................................................................................................................................v
Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................................... vi
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................ viii
Specific Objectives Of The Study ............................................................................................................................ viii
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................. ix
Findings .......................................................................................................................................................................... ix
Value Chain Preferences ........................................................................................................................................ ix
Value Chain Constraints And Opportunities ...................................................................................................... x
Value Chain Actors ................................................................................................................................................... x
Risks ............................................................................................................................................................................ x
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................... xi
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Problem Statement And Justification........................................................................................................................1
Specific Objectives Of The Study: .............................................................................................................................. 2
Study Sites ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Literature Review ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
Contextual Background To The Study Sites ............................................................................................................ 4
Value Chain Analysis: Concept and Application .................................................................................................... 6
Review Of Other Value Chain Analysis Studies ...................................................................................................... 7

Indigenous Chicken...................................................................................................................................................7
Goats Value Chain Analysis Studies ..................................................................................................................... 9
Recommendation From The Various Studies Can Be Summarized As Follows: ........................................... 10
submitted Dec 13 2021 | i
Groundnuts .............................................................................................................................................................. 12
Sesame ...................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Trends in Demand and Supply: Implication for Takunda ............................................................................. 14
Study Design and Overall Methodology .............................................................................................................. 17
Sampling......................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................ 18
Methodology for the value chain analysis and program design exercise..................................................... 18
Value Chain Selection ............................................................................................................................................ 20
Value Chain Selection and Methodology .......................................................................................................... 20
Study Findings ..........................................................................................................................................................22
Description Of The Short-listed Value Chains Considered ............................................................................... 22

Value Chains Selected For In-Depth Analysis .................................................................................................. 24
Factors determining farmers’ current VC preference ..................................................................................... 26
Approach to Facilitation Activity Identification ................................................................................................... 32
Value Chain Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 35
Sorghum ........................................................................................................................................................................ 35
Core Value Chain..................................................................................................................................................... 35
Supporting Functions ............................................................................................................................................ 36
Policy and Regulatory Functions ........................................................................................................................ 38
Groundnuts ................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Core Value Chain..................................................................................................................................................... 39
Supporting functions ............................................................................................................................................. 40
Cowpeas ........................................................................................................................................................................ 43
Core Value Chain..................................................................................................................................................... 44
submitted Dec 13 2021 | ii
Indigenous Chickens .................................................................................................................................................. 46
Core Value Chain..................................................................................................................................................... 47
Goats .............................................................................................................................................................................. 51
Core Value Chain..................................................................................................................................................... 51
Value Chain Gender Dynamics Observed ............................................................................................................ 55
Criteria To Identify Market-based Solutions ..................................................................................................... 58
Analysis Of Prioritized Market-based Solutions ............................................................................................... 60
Recommendations to promote high priority market-based solutions ......................................................... 61
Masvingo ....................................................................................................................................................................... 61
Manicaland ................................................................................................................................................................... 63
General Facilitation And Beneficiary Support Activities.................................................................................... 64
Risks to Facilitation Activities .............................................................................................................................. 65
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................. 66
Annex .......................................................................................................................................................................... 73
Data collection tools ............................................................................................................................................... 73
submitted Dec 13 2021 | iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1- Market Systems Approach to Analyzing Value Chains in Manicaland and Masvingo .................... 31
Figure 2 Market System Development Continuum .................................................................................................. 32
Figure 3 Sorghum Value Chain in Buhera and Mutare Rural ................................................................................. 35
Figure 4 - Groundnuts Value Chain Map ................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 5 Cowpeas Value Chain in Buhera and Mutare Rural ................................................................................. 44
Figure 6: Poultry value chain map ............................................................................................................................... 47
submitted Dec 13 2021 | iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Geographical Targeting ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Table 2: Number of KII, FGD and IDI conducted ......................................................................................................... 17
Table 3: Value chain prioritization and revealed preferences in Masvingo Province ..................................... 23
Table 4: Value chain prioritization and revealed preferences in Manicaland Province ................................. 24
Table 5: Results for Gross Margin Analysis of the selected value chains .......................................................... 25
Table 6: Factors determining farmers’ current VC preference ............................................................................. 27
Table 7: Value Chain Maturity per District ................................................................................................................. 33
Table 8: Groundnut Value Chain SWOT Analysis ...................................................................................................... 42
Table 9: SWOT analysis for the Cowpea Value Chain .............................................................................................. 46
Table 10: SWOT analysis of the Indigenous Chicken ............................................................................................... 50
Table 11: SWOT analysis of the goat value chain...................................................................................................... 54
Table 12: Aligning Marketbased Criteria and CARE SuPER Principles .................................................................. 59
submitted Dec 13 2021 | v
ACRONYMS
AGRITEX Agricultural Technical & Extension Services
AGRIBANK Agricultural Bank of Zimbabwe
AMA Agricultural Marketing Authority
BACOSSI Basic Commodities Supply Side Initiative
BPC Bulawayo Projects Centre
DDC District Development Coordinator
DR&SS Department of Research and Specialist Services
DVS Department of Veterinary Services
EA Environment Africa
ENSURE Enhanced Nutrition Stepping Up Resilience and Enterprising
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FHI 360 Family Health International 360
GMB Grain Marketing Board
ICT Information Communication Technology
IDI In-depth Interviews
IYF International Youth Foundation
KII Key Informant Interviews
LFSP Livelihoods and Food Security Program
MFS Masvingo Farm Supplies
NAZ Nutrition Action Zimbabwe
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
submitted Dec 13 2021 | vi
OPV Open Pollinated Varieties
POSB Post Office Savings Bank
RFSA Resilience Food Security Activity
SuPER Sustainability Productivity Equity and Resilience
SA South Africa
SHF Small Holder Farmer
SWOT Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities and Threats
TOC Theory of Change
VCA Value Chain Analysis
VC Value Chain
WFP World Food Program
ZAGP Zimbabwe Agricultural Growth Program
ZRBF Zimbabwe Resilience Building Fund
ZRP Zimbabwe Republic Police
submitted Dec 13 2021 | vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An agriculture value chain analysis study was commissioned by CARE International-led, USAID-funded
Resilient Food Security Activity (RSFA) called Takunda and was conducted in four districts of Manicaland
(Buhera and Mutare) and Masvingo (Chivi and Zaka) provinces between September and November 2021.
The aim of conducting the VCA study was to guide intervention areas for the Activity by identifying current
and emerging crop and livestock value chain enterprises that are viable and exhibit scope for private
sector engagement and promote inclusive growth. This executive summary headlines key findings and
recommendations for the program and its stakeholders.
Specific Objectives Of The Study
1.) To assess and identify viable and the most important crop and livestock value chains preferred/and
or viable for women, men, boys, girls, and people living with disabilities in the project areas.
2.) Conduct value chain analyses for each of the selected commodities. The value chain assessments
will entail:
a.) the agronomic production profiles (e.g., agricultural management practices, land
ownership, and use practices).
b.) Value chain mapping (key stakeholders, the flow of supplies and products, flow of funds
and information, etc.).
c.) Functional analysis of each value chain (profiling of industry structure, adoption of skills,
technology, and innovation).
d.) Climate change implications – economic analysis of potential opportunities to add value
along the chain.
e.) Policy and institutional conditions are necessary to create a suitable enabling
environment for value chain development.
3.) To identify the key services and sectors that enhance or impede the competitiveness of the identified
crop and livestock value chains (e.g., extension, financial services, storage and transportation,
macro-economic conditions including inflation).
4.) To identify the constraints and opportunities for inclusive growth for the identified crop and livestock
value chains – including formal and informal regulations and rules and integration of women, men,
boys, girls, and people living with a disability.
This understanding of the market dynamics then informed the market-based recommendations to
Takunda in terms of interventions that provide solutions to smallholder agriculture, factoring in some of
submitted Dec 13 2021 | viii
CARE’s SuPER principles1. The agriculture VCA entailed engaging with value chain actors across the three
levels of the market system: core value chain, supporting functions, and policy and regulatory functions.
Methodology
Overall, the study adopted a descriptive survey design method which used both qualitative and
quantitative tools like Focus Group Discussions (FGD) and in-depth interviews (IDI) with adult men and
women and young men and women to capture their perceptions and constraints with regards to current
and preferred crops and livestock value chains. Key Informant Interviews (KII) were conducted targeting
local and distant input suppliers and dealers, buyers, aggregators, traders, transporters, formal and
informal financing institutions, processors, wholesalers, and retailers, as well as local governance bodies
like rural district councils, to better understand their quality and quantity expectations for different
products, financing models, value addition as well as operations of formal and informal rules and
regulations within specific value chains.
A gross margin tool was used to collect and analyze quantitative data. Data collection was done by
trained enumerators drawn from Takunda staff in eight (8) wards in Buhera, Chivi, Mutare, and Zaka
districts. The data collection process involved audio recordings, transcribed and analyzed using Atlas-ti,
with robust data quality assurance mechanisms. During the selection process, alignment of the
preferences with the SuPER principles was also considered, which meant that the value chains were
selected based on the need to promote inclusive market systems and value chain development that
benefit a wide range of actors, including vulnerable groups such as women and youths. For in-depth
analysis, the study considered those value chains which exhibited potential for commercialization and
for which incentives exist for local market actors (private companies and MSMEs) to engage commercially
with targeted communities and provide technical support services to farmers.
Findings
Value Chain Preferences
The participatory identification, selection, and prioritization of agriculture value chains produced almost
similar preferences for the different demographic categories of men, women, young men, and young
women. Revealed preferences confirmed that adult men prefer commercially oriented crop and livestock
enterprises while the choices and preferences for the other demographic groups are influenced by other
non-commercial considerations like the value chain’s potential for contribution to household nutrition
and gender (women’s empowerment). Takunda has the opportunity to promote those women favored
value chains that not only contribute to household income but also to the availability of diversified
nutritious foods by household members (IO 2.1.1). This aligns well with CARE’s women’s empowerment
1
, Focus is on promoting Sustainable, Productive & profitable, Equitable and Resilient (SuPER) agriculture practices
and technology dissemination
submitted Dec 13 2021 | ix
framework (She feeds the World), which puts women and girls at the center of development with great
potential to significantly contribute to the income, food, and nutrition security of the household.
Overall, smallholder farming households in the two provinces prioritized indigenous chickens, goats,
groundnuts, sorghum, and cowpeas. In Masvingo Province, sesame was identified as an emerging value
chain in Zaka District with potential for promotion under the Takunda Activity.
Value Chain Constraints And Opportunities
The analysis of the prioritized agriculture value chains reveals that the two livestock and three crop
value chains are currently not well developed. Still, they have massive potential for development if
properly promoted. Value chain performance is still deficient for all the prioritized value chains due to
various production and marketing constraints that the farmers have to grapple with. Accessibility of
finance, inputs, extension services, and viable markets are some of the challenges that are militating
against value chain performance for the smallholder farmers in the target districts. Although productivity
levels are still very low, value chain promotion and upgrading interventions by Takunda can enhance the
current crop and livestock production and marketing systems practiced by the smallholder farmers in
the four target districts.
Value Chain Actors
The study revealed the availability of buyers, input suppliers and dealers, financiers, and extension
service providers for the selected sorghum, cowpeas, groundnuts, indigenous chickens, and goat value
chains.
Risks
Risks to Takunda’s facilitation activities include the potential for disruption of bonafide private sector
engagement in market linkages and financial inclusion activities as a result of on-going government free-
inputs support programs such as Pfumvudza/Intwasa and command livestock, which may negatively
impact the Activity’s quest for market-based solutions to addressing challenges in the prioritized value
chains. Takunda needs to work with both government and private stakeholders through multi-actor
innovation platforms to promote inclusivity and fairness within the market system. Intensive livestock
breed improvement interventions for market development may result in high mortality rates and loss of
adapted genetics in indigenous breeds, resistant to diseases and prevailing climatic conditions in the
semi-arid regions. Takunda should therefore strike a balance between introducing new breeds and
promoting local breeds that are more adaptable. Local breed upgrading can yield desirable and
sustainable results in improving livestock productivity without damaging local and indigenous systems
in the communities. In its facilitation of market systems and value chain development in the target
districts, Takunda could also face risks associated with community structures, dynamics, and networks,
including resistance to change from traditional customary beliefs and norms. Participatory engagement
of communities and local systems and structures through the community visioning process is vital to
managing such risks. Furthermore, reliance on external markets, like sesame and legumes, can be
submitted Dec 13 2021 | x
seriously impacted in the event of international trade policies changing when local demand and markets
remain limited. Investment in market facilitation activities might be misconstrued for conventional free
handouts perpetuating donor-dependency syndrome.
Recommendations
The overall recommendation is that there is a need to improve agricultural value chain support systems
sustainably. This can be achieved through engagement and strengthening of the capacity of all relevant
stakeholders – like input suppliers, financial service providers, government extension workers, and
marketing agents – to effectively collaborate and offer market-based solutions that address identified
constraints and challenges, mitigate risks, and exploit available opportunities for improvement in value
chain performance.
Specific recommendations are as follows:
i. The shortage of service markets that are specifically designed to serve smallholders
presents opportunities for Takunda to capacitate groups of young people and emerging
individual entrepreneurs to fill the gap and provide essential services to the farming
communities. Specific “supporting” function opportunities for facilitation include:
• Supporting the establishment of VSLAs and an “agricultural production and

marketing fund” for enhanced financial inclusion.
• Capacity building of women- and youth-led farmer group enterprises with training
to embark on on-farm animal feed formulation to produce affordable supplementary
feeds using locally available resources such as crop residues, acacia leaves, and pods
to produce ‘bushmeal’.
• Matching grant facility to support the acquisition of appropriate scale mechanization

technologies such as 2-in-1 hammer mill.
ii. Takunda should facilitate the strengthening of farmers' groups for aggregated input
purchases and output marketing in the four districts for reduced transaction costs to
private sector partners, thus incentivizing them to participate.
iii. Market opportunities for goats and indigenous chickens can be increased through
breeding and breed improvement programs to enhance the quantity and quality of
supply.
iv. Takunda can leverage on Fivet-Agrosave’s day-old chicks and poultry feed business
initiative at Murambinda Growth Point to facilitate good agricultural practices in the
poultry value chain.
submitted Dec 13 2021 | xi
v. There is potential for Takunda to leverage the increasing mobile phone penetration and
increased use of smartphones and social media to promote ICT-based market
information and extension service provision, mainly targeted at young farmers.
vi. Takunda can leverage existing structures initiated under its predecessor program
(ENSURE) to scale up value addition capacity-building activities leveraging existing ward-
based market facilitators.
vii. Takunda can leverage the availability of localized market stalls, feedlots, and livestock
auction infrastructure established by predecessor projects to facilitate viable market
linkages. A good example is the recently established Zaka Agrihub at Gumbo Business
Centre.
viii. The Basic Commodities Supply Side Initiative (BACOSSI) van and container model being
implemented by Masvingo Farm Supplies (MFS) to bring inputs and groceries closer to
the farmers every first weekend of the month in mobile trucks needs to be promoted for
scaling up as a market linkage initiative that offers convenience to the smallholder
farming communities.
ix. There is scope in both districts to promote the adoption and use of improved
technologies, including improved seed and climate-smart agricultural techniques.
x. The newly constructed Marovanyati dam offers potential for the development of micro-
irrigation for communities around the dam. This presents Takunda with opportunities for
introducing interventions that enhance the viability of food and cash crops production
and market linkages for fish and high-value crops.
submitted Dec 13 2021 | xii
INTRODUCTION
Takunda, a 5-year program, is being implemented by CARE International in Zimbabwe together with its
partners Family Health International (FHI360), International Youth Foundation (IYF), Nutrition Action
Zimbabwe (NAZ), Bulawayo Projects Centre (BPC), Environment Africa (EA), and Sun Mountain
International (SMTN). Takunda is a USD 55 million USAID-funded Resilience Food Security Activity (RFSA).
The program serves more than 301,636 people in two districts in the Masvingo Province, Chivi and Zaka,
and two districts in Manicaland Province, Buhera and Mutare. The program seeks to increase on-farm
and off-farm incomes, improve nutrition, and work with women, men, girls, and boys to build resilience
to shocks and stressors. The program has cross-cutting components of gender, youth, social dynamics,
and governance. Takunda program utilized the Refine and Implement period (Year 1) to carry out
extensive formative research and community engagements, among other things, to better respond to the
opportunities and challenges in the local context.
The Agriculture Value Chain Study was therefore used to fill some evidence and knowledge gaps on the
Theory of Change (TOC), such as identification of current and potential crop and livestock value chain
enterprises, their viability, acceptance, and prioritization by women, men, boys, girls and people living
with disabilities to guide the Takunda intervention areas. Results from the analysis of the prioritized
agriculture value chains reveal that the two livestock and three crop value chains are currently not well
developed, but they have huge potential for development if properly promoted. Value chain performance
is still very low for all the prioritized value chains due to various production and marketing constraints
that the farmers have to grapple with. Accessibility of finance, inputs, extension services, and viable
markets are some of the challenges that are militating against value chain performance for the
smallholder farmers in the target districts. Although productivity levels are still very low, value chain
promotion and upgrading interventions by Takunda can enhance the current crop and livestock
production and marketing systems that are being practiced by the smallholder farmers in the four target
districts. There is a need to strengthen value chain support systems through the engagement of all
relevant stakeholders like input suppliers, financial service providers, government extension workers,
and marketing agents to collaboratively offer market-based solutions and address identified constraints
and challenges, mitigate risks and exploit available opportunities for improvement in value chain
performance.
Problem Statement And Justification
Participation of extremely poor and chronically vulnerable households in markets and value chains is
riddled with inefficiency and inequality between these socio-economic groups. This can be caused by
several factors such as limited access to critical market information inputs, business development
services, and finance. Takunda needs to contextualize and tailor its interventions based on a strong
understanding of the current market systems in the targeted areas. Discussions with BHA/PCS on
information gaps on the preferred and viable crop and livestock value chains also highlighted the need
to understand market requirements in terms of quantity and quality for different products. In addition,
there are information gaps on the existing formal and informal rules governing value chains and market
submitted Dec 13 2021 | 1
systems. All these information gaps require a market systems and value chain analysis to help refine the
Takunda Theory of Change.
The Takunda Agriculture Value Chain Study was commissioned to examine current crop and livestock on-
farm market conditions and actors and to inform more specific design interventions in Purpose 1 (P1) in
the Theory of Change, which seeks to increase household incomes from on-farm, off-farm, and non-farm
livelihoods activities. Findings of the Agriculture Value Chain study provided solid market and value chain
data to address gaps and validate assumptions in the Initial Economic Analysis. A detailed analysis of
selected value chains identified constraints inhibiting vulnerable households, women, men, young
women, young men, and people living with disabilities from participating in and/or receiving maximum
benefits from value chains. Market-based solutions addressing these constraints have been identified
and prioritized so that program facilitation activities are designed to have the maximum impact on the
ability of targeted households and vulnerable women, men, young women, young men, and people living
with disability’s to participate and compete in the selected value chains.
Specific Objectives Of The Study:
1. To assess and identify viable and the most important crop and livestock value chains
preferred/and or viable for women, men, boys, girls, and people living with disabilities in the
project areas.
2. Conduct value chain analyses for each of the selected commodities. The value chain
assessments will entail:
a.) the agronomic production profiles (e.g., agricultural management practices, land
ownership, and use practices).
b.) Value chain mapping (key stakeholders, the flow of supplies and products, flow of funds
and information, etc.).
c.) Functional analysis of each value chain (profiling of industry structure, adoption of skills,
technology, and innovation).
d.) Climate change implications – economic analysis of potential opportunities to add value
along the chain.
e.) Policy and institutional conditions necessary to create a suitable enabling environment
for value chain development.
3. To identify the key services and sectors that enhance or impede the competitiveness of the
identified crop and livestock value chains (e.g., extension, financial services, storage and
transportation, macro-economic conditions including inflation).
4. To identify the constraints and opportunities for inclusive growth for the identified crop and
livestock value chains – including formal and informal regulations and rules and integration
of women, men, boys, girls, and people living with a disability.
Study Sites
The study was conducted in eight wards across all four districts, namely, Buhera, Chivi, Mutare, and Zaka,
where Takunda is operating. As shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Geographical Targeting
DISTRICT WARD NUMBERS
Buhera 7 and 15
Chivi 10 and 12
Mutare 9 and 12
Zaka 14 and 27
Total # of Wards Targeted: 8 wards
LITERATURE REVIEW
This section gives insight into the relevant literature pertaining to the study areas and the value chain
assessment at hand. It starts by presenting a contextual background of the two provinces, where the four
study districts of Buhera, Chivi, Mutare, and Zaka are found. The literature review covers the concept and
applications of the value chain concept, value chain analysis giving insights on findings that are of
significance and relevance to the current study, for Manicaland and Masvingo Provinces in particular and
for Zimbabwe in general. Literature from elsewhere in Africa has been consulted, where necessary, to
augment information and findings relevant to Zimbabwe and the study districts.
Contextual Background To The Study Sites
Agriculture in Masvingo Province is characterized by livestock more than crop production rendering the
province a food deficit area, particularly as it pertains to cereal grains. The province is typically a medium
to low-intensity area in terms of crop production but exhibits a comparative advantage in livestock
production. As such, Masvingo is predominantly a livestock-producing province, where cattle contribute
19% (1,028,976), goats 17% (659,430), sheep 20% (109,675), and pigs 21% (58,417) of the national livestock
populations according to recent crop and livestock assessment reports2. Food insecurity is rampant in
the province mainly due to poor agro-ecological conditions that are characterized by poor soils and
rainfall. The province has a total land area of 5.8 million hectares (ha), of which 2.2 million ha are arable,
but only about 24% (521,000 ha) is put under crops (MLAFWRR, 2020b). Besides sugarcane grown
commercially as an estate and plantation crop, maize is the dominant crop grown by all categories of
farmers, accounting for 43% of the total provincial cropped area, followed by sorghum (17%), groundnuts
(9%), pearl millet (8%), cotton (7%) and nyimo/Bambara nuts (6%) 3. Other crops grown by smallholder
farmers include finger millet, soya bean, sunflower, sugar beans, sweet potatoes, cowpeas, sesame, and
rice. Average yields for cereal grain crops range between 280 and 540 kg/ha. As a result of poor
agricultural performance, households in Masvingo Province are reportedly abandoning agriculture-
based livelihoods for off-farm and non-farm opportunities 4. As a result of the dominance of cereal crop
enterprises, household diets are predominantly cereal-based, a situation that contributes to high
nutritional deficiencies5. Thus, the prevalence of undernutrition and malnutrition rates is high, resulting
in a relatively higher prevalence of food aid programs compared to other provinces.
2
Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Development (2021). First Round Crop and Livestock
Assessment Report
3
Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Development (2021). Second Round Crop and Livestock
Assessment Report
4
Chingarande D, Matondi P, Mugano G, Chagwiza G. and Hungwe M. (2020). Zimbabwe Food Security Desk Research:
Masvingo Province. Washington, DC: Research Technical Assistance Center.
5
Chingarande D, Mugano G, Chagwiza G and Hungwe M. (2020). Zimbabwe Market Study: Masvingo Province.
Research Technical Assistance Center: Washington, DC.
Chivi and Zaka districts are semi-arid districts located about 65km and 86km, respectively, southwest
and southeast of Masvingo Town. Chivi District measures about 351,000 ha while Zaka is 308,630 ha. The
districts are situated in the drought-prone Natural Regions V of the country, with an average rainfall of
450 mm per year. Most farmers in the Chivi and Zaka districts are smallholder and subsistence-oriented,
with marketing activities largely oriented towards meeting local consumption demands. The dominant
farming system is the “crop-livestock integrated model,” where livestock is kept for manure, draft power,
milk, and slaughter at social gatherings like funerals. In terms of ownership, large livestock like cattle
and goats are owned by men, while women own small livestock like chicken and goats for household
consumption and occasional/emergency sale. Whereas women may have ownership of the small
livestock, the marketing and decision-making on the use of money from these assets may still be in the
hands of men due to patriarchal arrangements/relations, thereby undermining the benefits that would
be expected to result from women’s ‘ownership’. The farming system practiced in the two districts is
characterized by low-input and low-output production dependent on manual and draft power. There is
a limited practice of crop rotation due to growing land pressure. However, crop and livestock
diversification are prevalent in the two, with over 20 types of crop and livestock value chains6 being
practiced by the farming households. Horticulture production is also practiced in irrigation schemes and
nutrition gardens, where a variety of green vegetables and high-value crops such as green mealies, sugar
beans, tomatoes, onions, and carrots are grown on very small portions of land for household
consumption and local sales.
Close to 80% of Manicaland Province’s rural population are farming areas located in agro-ecological zone
Natural Regions (NR) III to V, characterized by an annual rainfall of 450 to 750 mm, severe mid-season
(January to February) dry spells and high temperatures, and frequent seasonal droughts (one in three
years). In both Mutare rural and Buhera, the farming system is based on subsistence crop production and
semi-intensive livestock farming. The rural farming households grow mainly drought-tolerant crops,
namely sorghum, finger millet (rukweza), pearl millet (mhunga), that are suited to the drier and low
rainfall environment. Other major crops grown with surplus marketed within and outside the districts
are roundnuts (nyimo), groundnuts (nzungu). In both Buhera and Mutare, crop yields are extremely low
due to the low rainfall, which is exacerbated by the limited use of improved crop agronomic practices. As
a result, the households experience food deficits on an annual basis, with the food deficit severe in
October to December when households run out of harvested retained grain (maize, sorghum, millets).
Both Buhera and Mutare Rural have been devastated by tick-borne cattle disease that has decimated the
cattle heads leaving households without oxen draft power. Conservation farming has become dominant
but on small portions of the arable land, leaving a sizeable portion uncultivated annually.
6
Maize, sorghum, millet, Bambara nuts, cowpeas, sweet potatoes, sugar beans, cotton, sunflower, sesame, cattle,
goats, sheep, chickens, turkeys, ducks, guinea fowl, rabbits, and a variety of horticulture crops grown in gardens.
Value Chain Analysis: Concept and Application
A value chain is defined as a set of interlinked activities that work to add value to a product and consists
of actors and functions that improve the product while linking commodity producers to processors and
markets, which includes final consumers.7 Key elements of agricultural value chains include the following:
development and dissemination of plant and animal genetic material, input supply, farmer organization,
on-farm production, post-harvest handling, the provision of production techniques, handling and
grading criteria and facilities, cooling and packaging technologies, local post-harvest processing,
industrial processing, storage, transport, and feedback from markets.8
Development practitioners and researchers have undertaken value chain analysis in various ways for
selected value chains to (i) examine the inter-relationships between diverse actors involved in all stages
of the production, processing, and marketing of diverse commodities9; and (ii) to identify strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the selected commodities with a view to value chain upgrading,
capacity building, and business development interventions.
Value chain analysis has four main components. First, it systematically maps the actors participating in
the production, distribution, marketing, and sales of a particular product (or products). Second, it
highlights the governance of the value chain, that is, the form of formal and informal relationships and
coordination mechanisms that exist between actors in the value chain.10 The analysis of chain governance
is important for a policy as it allows for the identification of institutional arrangements that may need to
be targeted to improve capabilities, remedy distributional distortions, and increase value-added. Third,
it examines the impact of upgrading within the chain. Upgrading can involve improvements in quality and
product design, access to new markets, and diversification. An analysis of the upgrading process includes
an assessment of the profitability of actors within the chain as well as information on constraints that
are currently present—upgrading further addresses the innovation capability of actors, ensuring
continuous improvement in product and process. Finally, value chain analysis can play a key role in
identifying the distribution of benefits of actors in the chain. That is, through the analysis of value-added
within the chain, one can determine who benefits from participation in the chain and which actors could
benefit from increased support or organization. This is particularly important in the context of
development-oriented programs or interventions in agriculture, given concerns that the poor are
vulnerable to the process of market linkages.11 VCA has to be used to include vulnerable groups such as
7
World Bank (2007) Using Value Chain Approaches in Agribusiness and Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa: A
Methodological Guide: Tools That Make Value Chains Work: Discussion and Cases.
9
Kaplinsky, Raphael and Michael Morris (2000) A Handbook for Value Chain Research,” September 2000
10 World Bank (2007) Using Value Chain Approaches in Agribusiness and Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa: A
Methodological Guide: Tools That Make Value Chains Work: Discussion and Cases
11
Kaplinsky, Raphael and Michael Morris. “A Handbook for Value Chain Research,” September 2000.
people with disabilities, the elderly, women, and children, and adjustment to developments such as
climate change adaptation. Value chain analyses are conducted through a combination of qualitative and
quantitative methods, featuring a further combination of the primary survey, focus group work, rapid
participatory appraisals (RPAs), informal interviews, and secondary data sourcing.
Review Of Other Value Chain Analysis Studies
Numerous value chain analysis studies have been undertaken, as well as reports published,
characterizing value chains that are of interest in this study. In Zimbabwe, these studies were conducted
at both local (province, district) and national levels. This section reviews a number of these value chain
analysis studies that have been undertaken to understand and characterize the linkages and structure
of livestock and crop value chain as the basis for identifying constraints and opportunities and entry
points for interventions for inclusion of supporting smallholder farmers participation in value chain
markets. Most of these studies share common findings and give recommendations that are applicable to
the value chains across the different countries and regions in Africa. Given the substantial literature on
the various value chain analysis studies, this review will focus on those that give unique insights that are
of particular relevance to Takunda.
Indigenous Chicken
Most households keep flocks of indigenous chicken as the main source of protein in rural human diets,
supplement income through sales of eggs and birds, and access essential goods and services through
barter. Poultry production has a gender aspect in that women and children prefer poultry production as
it easily fits in with their other duties around the homestead. The Indigenous poultry value chain has
enormous potential for contributing to rural economic and national development. However, it has been
neglected as most policies on agriculture have been biased towards crop and large livestock
production.12 As a result, the indigenous poultry subsector is still highly underdeveloped, with poor
linkages between producers and consumers. Growth is constrained by a poor marketing system due to
a lack of information. The key findings and recommendations from the literature include:
i. Although over 95% of smallholder households keep indigenous poultry, these are kept
as a part-time activity, and there are few, if any, that are keeping indigenous poultry on
a commercial basis.
ii. Productivity and production are very low, leading to low and unplanned sales at the
farmgate level.
iii. The absence of processors along the chain means that chickens are sold live (in open
markets) and consequently cannot be retailed through formal channels like
supermarkets leading to the exclusion of potential customers in the middle- and high-
12
Kabwe Stephen and Kalinda, Thomson and Chirwa, Josephine (2012) Value Chain Analysis of Iindigenous Poultry
in Lusaka and Sounding Districts
income categories who normally shop from supermarkets. Non-availability and high
prices are generally cited as the main reasons households do not consume
indigenous chicken.
It is observed that with increases in the urban population as well as growing incomes due to the growing
economy, demand for indigenous chicken has been growing, especially among the high-income groups
who not only prefer it for its taste, but also for health reasons (due to its low-fat content). This indicates
the need for investment in the value chain.13 Based on these findings, the following are recommendations
from the various indigenous chicken value chain analysis studies:
• Capacity Development on Improved Production Process: Farmers need to be trained

on improved poultry production methods such as proper housing, provision of
medications, and supplementary feeding.
• Value Addition in the marketing process: Generally, since indigenous chicken are sold
live, they are never stocked in supermarkets and are mostly found in isolated
markets, making them highly accessible. This could involve slaughtering, dressing,
and packaging the chickens in such a way that they can be sold in formal retail
outlets such as supermarkets. This is not only going to bring the product closer to
consumers but also provide it in a more convenient form for those busy urban
households, increasing demand. Furthermore, this is likely to reduce the cost of
storage, as currently, the chickens are stored live and have to be fed, leading to
losses. This will also ensure a steadier supply as dressed, and processed chickens
can be kept in cold storage, avoiding the seasonality of supply.
• Group Marketing: Survey findings show that at the farm level, the best prices were
obtained when farmers marketed their chickens through cooperatives (bulking
centers). Group marketing not only gives the farmers bargaining power but also
reduces the search costs for the assemblers. These groups can also serve as avenues
for sharing information on improved production methods. These producer groups
can also play an active role in sharing and exchanging critical backward and forward
linkage information in collaboration with the various value chain actors.
Producer/marketing groups also provide an opportunity for gender mainstreaming in the value chain as
women and youth groups could be targeted. Some of the key intervention activities include:
a.) Incorporating indigenous poultry enterprises in women farmers’ groups' activities and
actively linking women’s groups with knowledge service providers (NGOs, universities,
13
Kabwe Stephen and Kalinda, Thomson and Chirwa, Josephine (2012) Value Chain Analysis of Iindigenous Poultry
in Lusaka and Sounding Districts
extension departments, and embedded services of large private sector enterprises such
as the case of Zimbabwe Irvines, Novatek, Masvingo Chicks).
b.) Although indigenous poultry is a low-cost enterprise, productivity in the sector can be
highly improved through modernizing the production system (i.e., provision of modern
veterinary drugs, proper housing, and supplementary feeding). One way in which this can
be addressed is to increase access to finance both at the production level (leading to
increased production) and the marketing level (leading to improved services).
Microcredit institutions could boost some of the traders who could then be able to
procure larger quantities and process (i.e., slaughter, dress, and package) the chickens
into a form that can be supplied through modern supermarkets.
c.) Infrastructure development – involving the development of feeder roads for linking the
farm with the main access road to market or growth centers. Lack of these roads
increases the cost for head load carrying and, at the same time, increases losses in
transit. Most markets do not have specialized places for keeping live chickens until they
are sold. They are normally kept in crowded cages under the sun with little food leading
to stress, weight loss, and consequently deaths. Provision of a live poultry section within
market structures where chickens could be received, tagged and treated for disease
while awaiting purchase would reduce losses due to deaths in storage.
d.) Creating linkages among value chain players is one way in which search costs for
assemblers could be reduced. This is possible when producers bring chickens in one
place during market days. This would not only benefit assemblers through reduced
search costs but also producers who are likely to get better prices as they would have
more choice of whom to sell to.
Goats Value Chain Analysis Studies
Using a dynamic systems approach, a study on the commercialization of smallholder goat production in
Mozambique yielded results that are of significance to Takunda14. Simulation results showed that
improving goat production and animal health practices alone, without concomitant improvements in
market access, had negative impacts on the financial performance of producers and no impact on other
value chain actors.15
In contrast, a study of goat commercialization projects in Shurugwi noted that because of contribution
to household food security, generation of income, and participation or ownership by resource-
14
Hamza, et al
Kamar H. Hamza, Karl M. Rich, A. Derek Baker, and Saskia Hendrick Commercializing Smallholder Value Chains for
15
Goats in Mozambique: A System Dynamics Approach
constrained households, development partners prioritized the goat value chain for its potential in
poverty reduction and benefiting women, other disadvantaged and vulnerable groups.16 The
interventions were designed to transform goat production and marketing from an informal activity to a
profitable enterprise through a business model that tapped into a growing market. The study makes the
assertion that the goat development interventions failed to make the expected impact on the livelihoods
of the targeted smallholder farming households due to beneficiaries having failed to access external
markets because of a lack of business knowledge, skills, and innovation and not making any investments
of their own. The take-home for Takunda is that facilitating business knowledge, skills, and innovative
entrepreneurial attitude is critical for commercialization to take hold among targeted beneficiaries, that
is women, other disadvantaged and vulnerable groups. (IO 1.1.3 Access to markets and business services).
Of relevance to Zimbabwe in general and the Takunda Activity areas is the impact of value chain
governance. An observation was made that farmers are prevented from engaging in goat trading in the
market by societal perceptions of trading in stolen livestock if they send their livestock to the market for
sale, and high transaction costs and costs of compliance force farmers to sell at the farm gate to
middlemen who offer lower prices for the livestock17
An interesting observation that applies to goat marketing and consumption in Zimbabwe and the study
areas is that consumers’ preferences for live goats are influenced by the color of the goat hair.18 It was a
widely held belief in the communities that goats with white hairs signify a good omen and therefore
attract higher prices than goats with other color types, while black hair-colored are used for ritual
purposes and are also more expensive. Traditionalists looking for goats to slaughter for ritual purposes
also demand the white and black colors for their purposes and pay whatever price that the goat is sold
at. This implies there is scope to produce goats of a given color, targeting specific buyers.
Recommendation From The Various Studies Can Be Summarized As Follows:
i. To achieve an increase in the profit margins realized by the smallholder farmers, it is

recommended that government institutes should use a standardized weighing system in
the marketing of goats, and this measure is also expected to counter the effects of
traditional and cultural beliefs in price determination as well as reduce transaction cost.
ii. Once the marketing of goats has been standardized, it is recommended that the private
sector, with the support of the government, facilitate the institution of direct sales as a
marketing option. This will be undertaken through facilitating the establishment of goat
sales points within the communities where farmer groups or individual farmers will
market their livestock, including through auctions to obtain competitive market prices,
16
Phiri, 2012. “The effectiveness of the Goat Value Chain on Poverty Reduction among Smallholder Farming
Households in Shurugwi District’s Ward 9””. MS Thesis, Midlands State University.
17
George Wooed. 2013. An Analysis of the Goat Value Chain as A Strategy fir Poverty Reduction in Ghana.
18
George Wooed. 2013. An Analysis of the Goat Value Chain as A Strategy fir Poverty Reduction in Ghana.
while the government provides the enabling environment to reduce the impact of social
barriers.
iii. There is also a need to organize farmers into farmer-based organizations (FBO). Key
functions of the FBO include sharing of information among the actors, engaging in bulk
buying of inputs, access to services, and marketing of goats on behalf of members. (1.1.3.2
Organization and capacity of producer farmers to engage with market systems
improved).
iv. FBOs that are open and inclusive of resource-poor and those living with disabilities are
better at facilitating the participation of these categories of producers in accessing
services and markets than when they are not members (when they are more likely to face
exclusion and or discrimination).
Trends in Goat Production and Consumption in Zimbabwe and Southern Africa
A strong and growing market for goats exists within the region, on the African continent, and
internationally (particularly in the Middle East). Emerging consumers of goat meat in Southern Africa, in
general, and Zimbabwe, in particular, include restaurants, hotels, institutions, and locals/individuals in
urban areas. Other huge end markets include traditional ceremonies as well as holiday celebrations and
festivities where live animals are the primary commodity. There are no clearly identified exports for goat
products in the region, with the few exports that exist being mainly live goats. At the moment, this market
is poorly regulated, organized, and largely inefficient.
Graph 2: Goat production trends in Southern African countries of Malawi, South Africa, Zambia, and
Zimbabwe between 2001 and 2011: Source Heifer International Value Chain Study, 2014
Groundnuts
Public and private sector contribution and participation in value chain development are important, as
observed in a value chain analysis of groundnuts in Zambia.19 The study assessed and identified
challenges, opportunities, and pathways for private sector involvement and contribution through
assessing the challenges affecting the full functioning of the groundnut value chain and interactions of
the key players. The value and relevance of this study for Takunda is in the outlining of the opportunities
and pathways for increasing the private and public sector participation at different stages of the
groundnut's value chain in order to improve production, trading and wholesaling, storage, processing,
and marketing. These include:
i. Supporting the development and strengthening of farmers’ organizations through

deliberate capacity-building programs is one way of upgrading the value chain through
encouraging bulking and coordination in negotiating prices and for facilitating collective
bulk selling, which in turn facilitates improved pricing in favor of individual farmers.
ii. Given that there is little processing of groundnuts into vegetable oil, private sector
investments in groundnut value addition into vegetable oil would stimulate production
as the value addition improves the value of the groundnuts, hence the prices that accrue
to the producers.
iii. Establishing a platform for coordination between value chain actors can result in
investment and strategies to increase productivity and improve quality.
iv. Improve productivity of smallholder farmers by enhancing their access to improved and
particularly certified and hybrid seeds. The private investment supported by the
government is critical.
v. Increase investment in research and extension to develop varieties that respond to the
needs of the manufacturing industry (e.g., varieties with high oil content) or preference
of export markets.
vi. Address the problem of aflatoxin contamination to improve quality. This will improve
prospects for increased assess to lucrative markets (domestic, regional, and
international). This will also contribute to addressing aflatoxin-induced liver cancer in
communities and consumers. In this regard, Takunda can work with the private sector to
19
Rhoda Mofya-Mukuka and Arthur Shipekesa (2013) Value Chain Analysis of the Groundnuts Sector in the Eastern
Province of Zambia. Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute. Working Paper No. 78
offer laboratory services for determining aflatoxin levels which would guide policy
measures to reduce the levels critical for groundnut exports.
vii. Promote better storage and post-harvest handling practices for groundnuts to minimize
the risk of aflatoxin contamination (e.g., promotion of drying on A-frame platforms and
trade-in shell groundnuts).
viii. Conduct awareness campaigns on the dangers of ingesting groundnuts contaminated

with aflatoxin to stimulate demand for reduction in aflatoxins.
ix. Explore and take full advantage of regional trade markets based on existing regional
trade protocols or agreements to facilitating sustainable markets
Sesame
Sesame is one of the oldest oil crops and is thought to have originated in Africa. It is widely grown in
tropical and subtropical regions. Its production is often concentrated in marginal and sub-marginal
lands20. Sesame is a warm-season annual crop that is primarily adapted to areas with long growing
seasons and well-drained soils. However, lack of wider adapting cultivars, shattering of capsules at
maturity, non-uniform maturity, poor stand establishment, lack of fertilizer responses, profuse
branching, and low harvest index were identified as the major constraints in sesame production
worldwide21. When the capsules mature, they split from the top downwards and shed their seeds if not
harvested in a timely manner, causing yield losses. According to FAOSTAT, India and China are the world’s
largest producers of sesame. Within Africa, Ethiopia, Sudan, Uganda, Nigeria, and Tanzania are among the
top producers. Of late, production has been increasing in Mozambique and Zimbabwe due to growing
demand in the confectionery industry. The just ended Livelihoods and Food Security Program (LFSP) also
promoted sesame production linked to private sector players like Sidella and Export Trading Group (ETG).
Some farmers have continued to grow the crop without project support targeting various market outlets,
including exports to Mozambique, where prices are favorably high. They are even reportedly attaining
comparatively higher yields than those attained in leading country producers. The production of sesame
was estimated to have reached 11,802 MT during the 2021 Second Round Crop and Livestock Assessment,
which is a more than a 100% increase from the 5,037 MT obtained during the 2019/2020 season22. By
weight, sesame seeds contain approximately 50% oil and 25% protein, and if oil is extracted by pressing,
the cake residue is a very high-protein (34-50%) feed for poultry and livestock23. An estimation done by
20
Ashri (1998)
21
Ashri (1994)
22
2021 Second Round Crop and Livestock Assessment Report
23
https://www.zimagrihub.org.zw/sites/default/files/documents/Sesame%20Production%20in%20Zimbabwe.pdf
ZimAgriHub in 2015 revealed that smallholder producers could attain average yields of around 600kg/ha
and realize profits of around USD 446.20 per hectare.
Trends in Demand and Supply: Implication for Takunda
Interventions that support or result in increased smallholder production of any value chain should be
underpinned by growing demand for the value and its by-products. A number of studies and reports give
indications of the trend in demand (and supply) and the associated determining factors for some
selected value chains of interest to Takunda. These are outlined below.
Groundnuts
The South African Bureau for Food and Agricultural Policy (BFAP) conducted a value chain study in 2019
with a focus on the trade competitiveness challenges faced in the groundnut value in South Africa.24 25
The following are findings of relevance to initiatives for promoting the commercialization of smallholder
groundnuts targeted at local and export markets.
• The quality and quantity of groundnuts produced to determine the marketing channel and
ultimate market. Higher quality groundnuts are either exported (Japan and the Netherlands
predominantly) or locally sold into the edible (flavored/roasted) snack and confectionary
markets. The Spanish-type groundnut is desirable in the European snack market due to its oval
shape and related favorable coating attributes.
• Groundnuts for groundnut butter production are largely sourced from ‘sundry’ quality
groundnuts as well as ‘splits’ from the local market but are also supplemented with imported
products from Argentina, the United States of America (USA), Brazil, China, and Nicaragua.
Imports occur partly due to the seasonality of local groundnut production, but in recent years
this is also due to a shortage of local groundnut supply as a result of the severe and persistent
droughts in the main groundnut producing regions. Prior to 2015, these were imported from
Malawi, but this stopped because of high aflatoxin levels.
• In South Africa, the groundnut area harvested has constantly been decreasing over time, notably
since 1990. While there has been an upward trend, though with fluctuations, in yields over the
same period, the increase in yields has not compensated for the loss in hectares. Consequently,
production levels have also been declining over time. As a result, South Africa has become a net
importer (from previously being a net exporter) of groundnuts to meet local demand.
24
Marion Delport 2020. Groundnut industry at a crossroads https://sagrainmag.co.za/2020/02/07/groundnut-industry-at-a-
crossroads/
25
Bureau for Food and Agricultural Policy. 2019.The Groundnut Value Chain –update 2019
Graph 1: South African supply and demand (USDA and BFAP).
The take-home is that South Africa is a latent market for local groundnuts and derived products, such as
peanut butter if the right varieties are produced and low aflatoxin levels are achieved.
The BFAP study identified three key factors that, if addressed, could make significant contributions to
the industry’s turnaround strategy. BFAP found that at an average production cost of R26,36/kg, it is R2,39
(10%) more expensive to produce groundnut butter locally than to import pre-packaged groundnut
butter.
Even though local groundnut production has dropped, South Africa has maintained demand for its
product due to the varietal choices (producing predominantly Spanish type groundnuts) that have
created a niche market opportunity. The take-home for Takunda is that if export markets are to be
targeted and maintained, it is crucial to maintain competitiveness at the primary production level (in
terms of cultivar adoption and yield achievement) to support the producers. The second crucial factor
contributing to competitiveness in the global market is a quality action plan, ensuring adherence to the
latest quality standards. Consistency in quality and quantity supplied to the international market are
vital for supporting local prices and the ultimate sustainability of the groundnut industry.
Cowpeas
In 2016 it was noted that in the Sahel region (Ghana, Nigeria, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger),
demand for cowpeas was growing at a faster rate than production.26 The increase in demand was due to
increased consumption in restaurants, fast food outlets, and supermarkets for cowpea and its products.
There was also an associated increase in demand for greater quality and consistency as consumption
was going up. This implies producers and other value chain players had to meet demands for greater
consistency and quality (consistent size grains, no insect damage, consistent variety, and no mixing of
varieties) of cowpeas they offer. Meeting this consistency and quality requires that farmers cooperate in
groups or associations to address these demands. Working in associations, farmers can agree to use a
common seed for a common variety and work together to learn about the use of other appropriate inputs.
This is something that Takunda will need to put in place from the onset of intervention in support of the
cowpea value chain.
26
USAID. 2016. Cowpea Value Chain Assessment. USAID Resilience and Economic Growth in the Sahel –Accelerated
Growth (REGIS-AG) Project
STUDY DESIGN AND OVERALL METHODOLOGY
Overall, the study adopted a descriptive survey design method which used both qualitative and
quantitative tools like Focus Group Discussions (FGD) and in-depth interviews (IDI) with adult men and
women and young men and women to capture the perceptions, constraints as well as preferred crops
and livestock value chains. Key Informant Interviews (KII) were conducted targeting local and distant
input suppliers and dealers, buyers, aggregators, traders, transporters, formal and informal financing
institutions, processors, wholesalers, and retailers. Local governance bodies like rural district councils
were also included as key informants. The purpose was to better understand their quality and quantity
expectations for different products, financing models, value addition, as well as operations of formal and
informal rules and regulations within specific value chains. A gross margin tool was used to collect and
analyze quantitative data.
Sampling
The study used a multi-stage sampling technique to select districts and wards. Districts of the study were
selected through purposive sampling to target all Takunda operational areas. Targeting also considered
differences in geographical location or remoteness (proximity to towns and growth points) and socio-
economic, gender, and life stage. Ward selection was based on agroecological regions (natural regions 4
and 5). From each district, two wards were purposively selected from each natural region. A total of eight
wards were selected for the study. In-depth interviews and focus groups, discussions targeting adult
men, women, and young men and women were used to capture their specific barriers, perceptions,
priorities and make recommendations to address the identified challenges for these priority groups for
Takunda. Individuals who did not participate in the FGDs were selected for in-depth interviews (IDI) using
a structured questionnaire. Stratified sampling methodology was used to identify a total of 30 people
per district, comprised of adult men and women and young men and women from the village list,
targeting those who would not have participated in the FGDs. This was followed by random sampling of
six individuals from each stratum for in-depth interviews. Sampling for key informant interviews and
observations went beyond the targeted geography of Takunda to capture supply and demand conditions
for both input and output marketing that can be accessed and utilized by the Takunda target participants.
These included distant input and output markets, financial services, and other business development
services that may be suitable for Takunda participants. Government officials from Agritex, district
development coordinators, and the Ministry of Women Affairs and Youth were also purposively sampled
for key informant interviews. The table below shows the number of people reached during the study:
Table 2: Number of KII, FGD and IDI conducted
DISTRICT FGDs IDIs KIIs
Buhera 8 30 11
Chivi 9 30 10
Mutare 8 30 7
Zaka 8 30 8
TOTAL 33 120 36
Data Analysis
The analytical approach was largely descriptive and exploratory to adequately capture the risks,
constraints, and opportunities for Takunda’s interventions, as well as the respondents’ perceptions and
aspirations as they pertain to their preferred crop and livestock value chains. Data collected was
analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. For qualitative methodology, all data
were transcribed and analyzed using Atlas-ti, with robust data quality assurance mechanisms. Financial
value chain viability was done with support from LEAP III, while value chain mapping was used to map
different value chains. Opportunities and challenges were analyzed through SWOT analysis for each value
chain, while risks were analyzed using a risk profile matrix. The analysis of the selected agricultural value
chains was not only conducted to identify the most profitable value chains but also to understand the
constraints and opportunities within the existing market systems. It is the understanding of these market
dynamics that enabled the recommendation of market-based solutions, which also factored in some of
CARE’s SuPER principles that focus on promoting Sustainable, Productive & profitable, Equitable, and
Resilient (SuPER) agriculture practices and technology dissemination.
Methodology for the value chain analysis and program design exercise
It is important to note that the analysis of agricultural value chains under this assignment was not only
conducted to identify the most profitable value chains but also to understand the constraints and
opportunities within the existing market systems. Understanding these market dynamics enabled the
recommendation of market-based solutions, while also factoring in some of CARE’s SuPER principles.
In line with the market systems approach (see Figure 2 below), the study sought to engage with value
chain actors across the three levels of the agricultural market system through:
• Core value chain- this is where farmers and the markets interact, i.e., demand and
supply. The objective here was to understand the constraints and opportunities at
the farmer/household and market level. Questions regarding production,
productivity, market access, and prices were asked to ascertain dynamics within the
core value chain.
• Supporting functions- these are ancillary services that support the effective
functioning of the core value chain. Examples include financial services,
transport/logistics, and information, among other services. The objective here was
to understand the maturity of the markets for services in the four districts and to
what extent these could support sustainable market-based engagements by
Takunda target households and beneficiaries.
• Policy & Regulatory functions- this represents the policy environment within which
the core value chain operates, i.e. what policies affect (positively and negatively) the
effective functioning of the core value chain.
To this end, the study adopted a participatory approach to data collection with participants being
involved through FGDs and IDIs in the identification, selection, prioritization, and ranking of the value
chains for analysis. The study also used a descriptive research design that involved both qualitative and
quantitative techniques for data collection and analysis. FGDs and IDIs with men, women, young women,
and young men were conducted to capture the perceptions, risks, constraints, opportunities, and
aspirations as they pertain to their preferred crop and livestock value chains.
Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) were also conducted targeting agro-dealers, such as input suppliers,
buyers, aggregators, traders, processors, wholesalers, retailers, and transporters as well as formal and
informal financing institutions and local government bodies like rural district councils (RDCs) and
government ministries and departments. The KIIs were conducted to better understand the expectations
of the value chain players and stakeholders in terms of quantities and quality for the different products,
value addition initiatives, financing models, and application of formal and informal rules and regulations
within specific value chains.
Data collection tools in the form of FGD, KII, and IDI guides and crop and livestock gross margin templates
were designed and administered to gendered farmer groups during FGDs and to individual adult female,
young female, adult male, and young male farmers to get an in-depth understanding of their gendered
market-related constraints in the sourcing of inputs, production techniques and preferences for crop
and livestock value chains. The data collected was analyzed qualitatively using Atlas-ti software.
Value Chain Selection
This section describes the approach taken to first identify a long list of value chains27 based on farmer
preferences. The long list was then narrowed down for in-depth analysis using both the market-based
criteria developed during the inception phase and the CARE SuPER principles. The study team then
recommended selecting value chains of focus based on “market-based” findings from the value chain
analysis.
Value Chain Selection and Methodology
A detailed description of selection criteria
While it is fundamental that maximum profit margins drive the selection of the
appropriate value chains, the approach used in this study recognizes the need for
incorporating the voices of men, women and youth in the selection of the value chain
enterprises of their preference over and above the profit margins. Profit margins may be
impacted by other factors, including the age, gender, life stage and social status of the
producer or market actor, her capacity to produce consistent quantity and quality of
various products for the market, how dietary practices influence market demand.
Source: TOR for Takunda Market Systems & Value Chain Analysis
To achieve the impact required, various parts of the agricultural market system must be functional and
well-integrated. Market-based solutions can focus on core support services or regulatory functions by
the private sector, public sector, or through collaborative governance. The criteria that were considered
to determine if a solution was indeed market-based and therefore compatible with CARE’s vision for
Takunda. The criteria were further juxtaposed with CARE’s SuPER principles to strike a balance between
purely private sector-led facilitation solutions and those that are sustainable, productive & profitable,
equitable, and resilient.
Aligning with the SuPER principles meant that the value chain selection process was therefore guided by
the need to promote inclusive market systems and value chain development which benefit a wide range
of actors, including vulnerable groups such as women and youths. Thus, while the “profit and
productivity” motive is important in market systems development projects, for Takunda, the aspect of
inclusivity was also prioritized to promote the inclusion of vulnerable groups and resource-constrained
households. The value chains were selected in such a way that the number of resource-poor smallholder
farmers, particularly women, are engaged in the market system and could potentially benefit from
improvements in the market system.
The most common value chains identified by other USAID-funded projects include sorghum, finger millet, pearl
27
millet, cow peas, sugar beans, groundnuts, bambara nuts, maize, sunflower, soya beans, tomatoes, potatoes, sweet
potato, watermelon, sugarcane, carrots, kale, onion, cabbage, spinach, banana, goat, beef and chicken
Overview of the Selection Process
The process of value chain identification and selection was conducted through focus group discussions
(FGDs), where the participants were asked to initially identify a long list of all crop and livestock
enterprises practiced in the area. From the long list, a short-listing of preferred value chains was done
using the criteria outlined above, encompassing market-based and SuPER principles. From the shortlist,
priority ranking was then done using a weighting procedure, where each participant chose their
preferences against each of the short-listed value chains in line with the criteria.
STUDY FINDINGS
The participatory identification, selection, and prioritization of agriculture value chains produced almost
similar preferences for the different demographic categories of men, women, young men, and young
women. Revealed preferences confirmed that adult men prefer commercially oriented crop and livestock
enterprises while the choices and preferences for the other demographic groups are influenced by other
non-commercial considerations like the value chain’s potential for contribution to household nutrition
and gender (women empowerment). Overall, smallholder farming households in the two provinces
prioritized indigenous chickens, goats, groundnuts, sorghum, and cowpeas. In Masvingo Province, sesame
was identified as an emerging value chain in Zaka District with potential for promotion under the Takunda
Activity. The culmination of the value chain analysis, taking cognizance of the market-based criteria and
the CARE SuPER principles, was the identification of potential facilitation activities for consideration by
Takunda to improve household level incomes, resilience, and foster sustainable linkages with local,
provincial, or national markets where feasible.
Results from the analysis of the prioritized agriculture value chains reveal that the two livestock and
three crop value chains are currently not well developed, but they have huge potential for development
if properly promoted. Value chain performance is still very low for all the prioritized value chains due to
various production and marketing constraints that the farmers have to grapple with. Accessibility of
finance, inputs, extension services, and viable markets are some of the challenges that are militating
against value chain performance for the smallholder farmers in the target districts. Although productivity
levels are still very low, value chain promotion and upgrading interventions by Takunda can enhance the
current crop and livestock production and marketing systems that are being practiced by the smallholder
farmers in the four target districts. Consistent with the Takunda Theory of Change, priority will focus on
strengthening of the livestock extension system through the paravet system which is linked to both the
private and public sector to improve animal health issues. Takunda can work with some private
companies like Coopers, which is very willing to work with farmers on animal health issues. Through the
resilience design interventions, Takunda will also facilitate establishment of water harvesting and local
ecosystem improvement and preservation with the intension of improving the capacity of the system to
support increasing agricultural productivity. Additionally, farmers need to be trained on improved animal
shelter, fodder production and local feed formulation with locally available materials, to improve
management of their current stock before bringing new or improved breeds. Where applicable, in some
areas, Takunda can establish water points for livestock watering at all water points that are to be
established or rehabilitated to increase livestock access to water. There is a need to strengthen value
chain support systems through the engagement of all relevant stakeholders like input suppliers, financial
service providers, government extension workers, and marketing agents to collaboratively offer market-
based solutions and address identified constraints and challenges, mitigate risks and exploit available
opportunities for improvement in value chain performance.
Description Of The Short-listed Value Chains Considered
For the two Masvingo Province districts, revealed preferences and prioritization for the identified value
chains were almost similar between the two districts. However, different categories of farmers had
slightly different priorities and revealed preferences, as shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Value chain prioritization and revealed preferences in Masvingo Province
FARMER CATEGORY REVEALED PREFERENCES FOR CHIVI REVEALED PREFERENCES FOR ZAKA
Adult women Maize, sorghum, groundnuts, cattle, Groundnuts, nyimo, horticulture, maize,
chickens chickens
Adult men Cattle, groundnuts, goats, chickens, Cattle, goats, groundnuts, maize,
and sorghum chickens
Young men Chickens, goats, sorghum, maize, finger Sugar beans, groundnuts, chickens,
millets maize, goats
Young women Maize, groundnuts, chickens, Sugarbeans, groundnuts, chickens,

vegetables (covo) and roundnuts maize, and cattle
The overall ranking of the value chains produced similar results for the two districts, with maize,
sorghum, groundnuts, goats, and indigenous chicken being selected as the top five prioritized value
chains in the province.
In Manicaland, revealed preferences and prioritization for the identified value chains were almost similar
between the two districts, a s shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Value chain prioritization and revealed preferences in Manicaland Province
FARMER REVEALED PREFERENCES FOR BUHERA REVEALED PREFERENCES FOR MUTARE

CATEGORY RURAL
Adult women Groundnuts, broilers, indigenous Groundnuts, roundnuts, goats, cowpeas,

chickens, millet sorghum, maize
Adult men Groundnuts, goats, broilers, roundnuts, Cattle, goats, groundnuts, roundnuts,
millet maize
Young men Groundnuts, goats, broilers, roundnuts, Groundnuts, goats, cattle, roundnuts,
indigenous chicken indigenous chickens
Young women Broilers, groundnuts, roundnuts, Broilers, groundnuts, roundnuts,

indigenous chickens indigenous chickens
Value Chains Selected For In-Depth Analysis
For in-depth analysis, those value chains exhibiting potential for commercialization and for which
incentives exist for local market actors (private companies and MSMEs) to engage commercially with
targeted communities and provide technical support services to farmers were selected. The potential for
Takunda to stimulate and facilitate increased investments by these private actors was also considered
during the selection process. As earlier noted, the SuPER principles of sustainability, productivity,
profitability, equity, and resilience were also considered in selecting value chains for in-depth analysis.
In Chivi, goats, chicken, and groundnuts were selected for in-depth analysis, while in Zaka, indigenous
chicken, goats, groundnuts, and sesame were selected for in-depth analysis. Although sesame did not
feature prominently during the FGDs and IDIs as a prioritized value chain, it was highlighted by some key
informants in Zaka as an emerging value chain with potential for substituting cotton, which used to be
the dominant cash crop in the district. Growing of sesame is already prevalent with some discernible
market linkages in the nearby districts of Chiredzi and Chipinge, taking advantage of the growing market
demand across the border in Mozambique.
Gross margin analysis was used to rank the selected value chains based on their profitability. Table 5
below summarizes findings from the gross margin analysis of the selected value chains in Manicaland
and Masvingo.
Table 5: Results for Gross Margin Analysis of the selected value chains
MASVINGO MANICALAND
chickens
Indigenous
Sesame
Goats
Groundnuts
Cowpeas
Groundnuts
Sorghum
cken28
IndigenousChi
Goats29
Item
Yield (kg/ha) 800 1,200 308.8 544.0 650.0 80 11 goats

8 birds
Price per kg ($) 1.00 0.68 0.33 1.20 0.425 7.00 37 per
per goat
bird
Revenue ($) 734.00 800. 225.0 810.0 142.7 652.8 276.4 560 406.88
00 0 0 0 0 4
Total Variable Costs 286.84 472. 234.3 1,013. 74.18 250.5 210.8 339.0 96.68
($) 00 2 00 0 9
Gross Margin ($) 447.16 328. -9.32 - 68.53 402.3 65.55 221.00 310.20
00 203.0 0
0
Cost per kg ($) 1.43 0.59 19.53 0.84 0.24 0.39 0.32 4.24 8.79
Break Even Yield 57 472 9 1,200. 222.5 208.7 0.50 48.42 8.39
(kg/ha) 00 3 5
Net Return per $ 1.56 0.69 - -0.20 0.92 1.61 0.31 0.65 3.20
invested ($) 0.04
Family Labor required 180.00 52 180 0 43.57 102.5 56.0 60.00 18,25
(days) 5
Return to family labor 2.48 6.37 -0.05 -$1.35 1.57 3.92 1.17 3.68 17.00
($)
28
(20 bird unit) x 5 per year
29
12 doe unit
In Masvingo, indigenous chickens exhibited the highest returns per dollar invested at $1.56, followed by
sesame ($0.69), goats ($-0.04), and groundnuts (0.20), as shown in Table 4. In Manicaland, goats exhibited
the highest level of return on investment at $3.20, followed by groundnuts ($1.61); while sorghum had the
least ($0.31). The smallholder farmers normally regard the use of family labor to be free of charge.
However, in this study, the opportunity cost of labor was regarded to be not equal to zero, contrary to
the farmers’ assertion. The imputed labor costs then contributed the greatest proportion to total variable
costs (TVCs) due to the use of shadow prices; TVCs ballooned as a result.
Despite featuring prominently in both districts as highly prioritized value chains, maize was not selected
for in-depth analysis due to the low productive potential and limited rainfall in the districts. However, it
is important to highlight that households will continue to produce maize nonetheless, irrespective of the
low yield potential in Natural Region IV and V. In that vein, there might be merit in facilitating activities
that educate households on the transition from maize to crops with higher-yielding potential in region
IV such as cowpeas and millet, for household use. In addition, the existence of the GMB as a key buyer
with attractive floor prices provides an incentive for farmers to keep producing maize.
Indigenous chickens were selected due to their high profitability, nutritional value, control by women,
and growing demand for chicken meat in the province. Like indigenous chickens, goats were also
selected for their profitability, relative control by women, and availability of local markets in the
province. Groundnuts were selected because of the availability of market opportunities both
domestically and regionally, particularly in South Africa (informal market channels), where local peanut
butter is said to be highly preferred by migrant Zimbabweans living and working there.
In Buhera, cowpeas, groundnuts, and sorghum were selected for in-depth analysis based on the
existence of some private sector market channels, albeit not fully developed. In addition, the ability to
increase household level resilience was considered in line with SuPER principles for sorghum and
cowpeas. These two were found to do well in the semi-arid conditions prevalent in the district.
In Mutare rural, goats, indigenous chickens, groundnuts, and sorghum were selected for further analysis.
As was the case in Masvingo, indigenous chickens were selected because of their relatively higher
profitability, nutritional value, control by women, and growing demand for chicken meat in the province.
Goats were selected for their hardiness and resilience, given that they can survive mainly on browsing
as opposed to cattle that require abundant grazing to be productive.
Factors determining farmers’ current VC preference
Table 6 presents factors influencing farmers’ current VC preference, as well as constraints influencing
the performance of the VCs and implications for their selection or prioritizing.
Table 6: Factors determining farmers’ current VC preference
VALUE FACTORS DETERMINING OR CONSTRAINTS TO CURRENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR

CHAIN CONSIDERED IN THE CURRENT PERFORMANCE CHANGES
SELECTION OF THE VC
Groundnuts 1. Local knowledge for 1. Lack or shortage of 1. Ready local and

production improved seed external markets
for the raw crop
2. Ease of establishment 2. Lacking knowledge of and value-added
gypsum application products
3. Contribution to nutrition
3. Requires early and 2. Both adult and
security as a protein source adequate soil moisture young female
in the household for optimum farmers grow the
germination crop
4. Versatile uses through
home value addition, i.e., 4. Labor intensive at 3. Good local
peanut butter for bread, in weeding, soil banking, knowledge for
porridge, peanut butter in and harvesting production upon
green leafy vegetables which to build
5. Prone to post-harvest
pest attack 4. Offers an
5. It can be eaten roasted,
opportunity for
boiled, in mutakura, fresh- value addition on
cooked, etc. and off the farm
6. Readily available local 5. Improved varieties

markets within the are available
community
7. It can be sold readily for

cash
8. Can be bartered for goods

or services
Round nuts 1. Local knowledge for 1. Lack of improved seed 1. Both adult and
production female youth
2. Shortage of selected farmers grow the
2. Ease of establishment improved seed crop
3. As a protein source 3. Easily infested with 2. Has ready local and

contribution to pests in post-harvest external markets
and storage that can be built on
SELECTION OF THE VC
nutrition security in the 4. Labor intensive at

home weeding, soil banking,
and harvesting
4. Can be eaten roasted,
5. Thin markets
boiled, in Mutakura,
fresh--cooked
Cowpeas 1. Local knowledge for 1. Use of selected 1. Both adult and

production retained seeds female youth
farmers keep on
2. Ease of establishment 2. Lack of improved seed the crop
3. As a protein source 3. Shortage of selected 2. Has ready local and

contribution to nutrition improved seed external (export)
security in the home markets that can
4. Easily infested by pests
be built on
in storage
3. Improved varieties
available
Indigenous 1. Easy start-up 1. Low productivity 1. The low initial

Chicken requirements, i.e., can be requiring upgraded investment can be
(Road started based on available management used to start the
Runners) stock or small start-up enterprise
capital 2. Housing and shelter
are not ideal for 2. Opportunity for
2. Low costs of production intense and or introducing
since they can survive on commercialized improved
scavenging and household production management
waste
3. High mortality due to 3. There is growing
3. Production is spread over diseases (Newcastle) demand and
an extended period market for
4. Left to scavenge indigenous
4. Can multiply quickly if chicken, which can
properly taken care of 5. No supplementary
be exploited
feeding
5. Women have control and
can make independent 6. Easy prey to predators
SELECTION OF THE VC
decisions regarding sale or 7. No cold chain so sold 4. Suited to collective

slaughter live aggregation and
marketing
Goats 1. Can be started with a local 1. High mortality of kids 1. There is a growing
stock of goats at the home demand in the
2. Poor housing and urban meat market
2. Adapted to local management and potential for
environmental and climatic exports
conditions 3.
Feeding practices do
not promote efficient 2. Suited to collective
3. Readily available to growth aggregation and
liquidate for cash marketing
4. Local breed inefficient
4. Occasionally slaughtered in feed conversion and 3. Breeds with high
for protein carcass quality productivity
available
5. No supplementary
feeding 4. Can be pen
fattened to attain
6. Uncontrolled breeding
desirable weight
and quality
7. Local demand is there
demanded in
but easily saturated
markets
8. The practice of letting
the goats free-range
brings conflicts with
neighbors
Sorghum 1. Local knowledge for 1. Use of retained seed 1. Improved varieties

production with low yield potential available
2. Grown to supply household 2. Agronomic practices in 2. Improved

food use are not ideal for agronomic
optimum yields practices for higher
3. It can be grown for specific yields available
households and market 3. Intense labor needs at
thinning, harvesting,
SELECTION OF THE VC
needs, i.e., beer brewing, and post-harvest 3. Can be produced

food processing for targeted
markets
Sesame 4. Highly adaptable to local 4. Lack of support from 4. Growing demand in

climatic conditions in Zaka local agro-dealers in the export market
District terms of supply of
certified seed and off- 5. Opportunity for
5. Relatively easy to produce take inputs agro-
by smallholder farmers dealership
5. Limited extension supplying farmers
6. Lucrative producer prices support that are switching
being offered by off-takers from cotton
6. The crop is intolerant production
7. High oil and protein to water logging
content as both food and conditions 6. Potential for
feed for livestock private sector
engagement in
local aggregation
and exportation
Figure 1- Market Systems Approach to Analyzing Value Chains in Manicaland and Masvingo
POLICY & REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
(Ag associations; Department of Agriculture &

Extension).
Policy, legal & regulatory conditions which influence the

functioning of the agricultural system
Farmers and traders require offtake markets for their
Farmers and traders could require relevant policies &
regulations such as:
INCREASED AG TRADE products
• Inter-provincial livestock movement • Increased resilience through linkages with

• Foot and mouth control regulations sustainable markets and information on
• Grades and standards of grains process/quantities
• Reduction in post-harvest loss increases with
market integration
Inputs Outputs
FARMER PRACTICES
and AGRIBUSINESS SMEs
Farmers and traders could require CSA relevant inputs Increasing resilience should be systemic across the
such as: (Farm Level Practices) entire agricultural market system:
• Weather information • On farm (inputs & practices)

• Drought resistant seed varieties YOUTH & WOMEN PARTICIPATION • Post-harvest (loss reduction & access to markets)
• Climate smart financial products • Supporting functions (finance; logistics;
SUPPORTING FUNCTIONS information)
• Water harvesting technology
• Precision farming (Post-harvest infrastructure providers; financial • Regulatory (policy predictability)
services; extension services; information; insurance).
These services enable the agricultural systems to work

effectively
Takunda Resilience Food Security Activity: Award #72DFFP20CA00007 | Agriculture Value Chain Analysis, submitted Dec 13 2021 | 31
Approach to Facilitation Activity Identification
Takunda uses a market systems approach that integrates “pull” strategies such as market facilitation
activities with “push” strategies, including direct transfers to participants30. The figure below outlines
the market maturity model, which recognized that different value chains/market systems in Manicaland
and Masvingo require different levels of facilitation (and direct transfers). The diagram illustrates the
different levels of maturity of the agricultural sectors of the two provinces. Market-based solutions in
some instances will be facilitative and, in some instances, involve direct delivery, depending on the
level of maturity within the provinces and districts.
The approach to facilitation activity identification, therefore, used a hybrid of market systems and direct
delivery based on the socio-economic profile of the districts of focus. However, the focus was more on
market-led value chain interventions in line with the understanding of Takunda’s priorities.
Figure 2 Market System Development Continuum
Type of Market Creation Market Market Facilitation End of Facilitation

Development
Intervention
No service supply, Limited supply, Supply available,

Status of Market no solvent demand nascent demand Supply of services
demand present meets the demand
for Services
but not connecting for the services
Therefore, during the analysis, an understanding was gained of the different levels of maturity within
each of these markets and how this affects the system’s ability to contribute to smallholder farmer
market linkages and improved household income and food security. Maturity cuts across both the private
and public sectors and refers to the “willingness and ability” of actors within these sectors to participate
gainfully in commercial agricultural activity. The table below (Table 7) illustrates the different levels of
maturity of the considered value chains and whether they lend themselves to market-based facilitation
activities or direct delivery type of activities.
30
TOR for Takunda Market Systems & Value Chain Analysis
Table 7: Value Chain Maturity per District
MANICALAND
VALUE CHAIN LEVEL OF TYPE OF ACTIVITIES

MATURITY
Buhera Cowpeas Medium Cowpeas have been produced in the district for
decades, but there is a need to support private sector
development on the offtake side
Groundnuts Medium Phytosanitary issues such as aflatoxin affect export

potential, but local and national markets are relatively
developed, so activities would be to improve quality
and productivity on the supply side
Sorghum High Local and national markets for sorghum are relatively
well developed. Consistency in quality, especially
post-harvest handling and storage, presents
challenges for smallholder farmer households
Mutare Goats Medium Supply and demand are there, but market-clearing
Rural conditions are not obtained due to lack of proper VC
facilitation
Indigenous Low There is growing market demand for chicken, and the
chickens supply base is not well developed to adequately
respond to market needs
Groundnuts Medium Phytosanitary issues, such as aflatoxin, affect export

potential, but local and national markets are relatively
developed, so activities would be to improve quality
and productivity on the supply side
Sorghum High Local and national markets for sorghum are relatively
well-developed. Consistency in quality, especially
post-harvest handling and storage, presents
challenges for smallholder farmer households
MASVINGO
Chivi Indigenous Low Supply and demand are there, but market-clearing
chickens conditions are not obtained due to a lack of proper VC
facilitation
Goats Medium Supply and demand are there, but market-clearing

conditions are not obtained due to lack of proper VC
facilitation
Groundnuts Medium Demand for groundnuts and byproducts is there and

growing, but there is a need for VC facilitation and
promotion for market growth
Zaka Sesame Low Willingness and production capacity are available

among farmers but local demand and market need
creation and development
Indigenous Low There is growing market demand for chicken, and the
chickens supply base is not well developed to adequately
respond to market needs
Goats Medium The presence of market demand is not matched with

supply capacity
Groundnuts Medium Available demand requires VC facilitation to ensure

adequate supply for market equilibrium conditions to
prevail.
Source: DevPact field observations
VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS
Sorghum
Sorghum is a climate-smart crop with drought-tolerant properties and is grown by smallholder farmers
in the target districts. Both subsistence and commercial cultivation is practiced in the four districts. The
value chain processes cover input supply, production, marketing, processing, and consumption. The
value chain mapping for sorghum shares the characteristics of the maize value chain, as the two are all
staples and ensure increased food security. The sorghum value chain in the target districts shows three
levels of chain actors and three major service providers, as depicted in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3 Sorghum Value Chain in Buhera and Mutare Rural
Core Value Chain
The supply of inputs is dominated by agro-dealer retail outlets, local agro-dealers, and the government
through its various support programs for farmers. Most sorghum farmers do not apply fertilizers in
sorghum production, and chemicals are mostly used for the control of weeds, insect, and fungi
infestations. For retail outlets, payment is on a “cash and carry” basis; the same applies for local agro-
dealers, though in some cases, they do have arrangements with development partners through which
farmers access inputs through voucher systems. While under the Pfumvudza program, where small grains
are included, distribution has been overshadowed by maize enterprises. In some cases, inputs are given
for free, depending on the source of the inputs. The seed that is mainly used is retained seed, though a
few purchases from the market or from a contractor (lead firm) are involved.
Production is carried out by communal farmers who have a limitation of small land sizes and poor
agricultural soils as major challenges. Sorghum is an ideal crop in all the target districts as it survives
under very harsh weather conditions. However, it also has its share of challenges, such as reduction in
yield due to quelea birds and lack of appropriate technologies to harvest. Sorghum is a short-season
crop and therefore unlikely to suffer from intermittent rains received in these districts. Feedback from
the FDGs showed that elderly household heads prefer the crop as well as farmers who major in livestock
production, as they use sorghum as an input in the production of stockfeed. On the other hand, younger
household heads are wary of the harvesting challenges and the often significant losses associated with
quelea birds infestation and tend to steer clear of producing sorghum.
The GMB is the biggest buyer of sorghum in the two districts. Middlemen, though not that significant, buy
the crop as they do local trading among households, which make substantial contributions. Since Chivi
and a greater part of Zaka are potentially high sorghum producing areas, the GMB purchased more small
grains (400 tons) in Chivi compared to maize (250 tons) during the 2020/21 marketing season.31. Some
farmers find it cheaper to use sorghum in livestock production as input in stock feeds production leading
to local trading among the communities.
GMB is the most significant player in this value chain, managing both the prices as well as the grades
(quality) of the product. Farmers are expected to conform to the quality standards set by the GMB, which
acts as both the buyer and the regulator.
Supporting Functions
Extension services are mainly provided by AGRITEX, and where commercial contractors are involved,
these tend to also have their own extension personnel. As is the case with maize, AGRITEX also works
with input suppliers to estimate demand for both inputs and produce and with GMB to arrange for mobile
buying points and grain movement. Although farmers indicated the visibility of AGRITEX, they also noted
that due to transport and increased extension worker to farmer ratios, officers are now resorting to
increased use of digital technologies for group extension service provision through social media such as
WhatsApp, which are increasingly being used for conveying extension advice.
The other service providers are private transporters. These transporters work with GMB to transport the
produce from the buying points; in some cases, they negotiate with farmers who would want to deliver
on time to depots. They also work with input suppliers for the delivery of inputs to retail outlets. The
major constraint for these transporters relates to low volumes of business in terms of quantities of
produce and inputs to be transported given the small production volumes, geographic dispersion, and
fragmented nature of the smallholder farmers. Thus, business is generally low and follows seasonal
trends for these transporters.
There are also financial services providers, including banks and mobile money transfer agencies. These
are involved in making payments for produce delivered and the inputs purchased. Except in a few
31
Information provided by the GMB Chivi Depot Manager
instances, the services are considered indirect; as for this type of service provider, there is no need for
physical presence, but they just play facilitator roles.32 Products and services are not properly structured
for smallholder farmers, who find them to be expensive and inaccessible.
In Zaka, there is a farmer-run agro-hub link managed by farmers whose responsibility is to ensure that
farmers engage in enterprises for which there is a market. While interest is waning due to lack of
supporting institutional arrangements and adequate incentives, the objectives are noble and are meant
to ameliorate livelihoods challenges faced through ensuring income-related production at the farm level.
As with maize, the agro-hub can also be used to promote the sorghum value chain, but its use is relatively
low because of the ready market for the crop through GMB.
The Government of Zimbabwe is promoting the production of resilience-enhancing crops such as

sorghum and is supporting these through input provision and market offtake via GMB. Farmers reported
a vast improvement in GMB’s payment schedule and now view this channel as a viable channel through
which to sell their sorghum. However, because of limited access to high-yielding seed varieties in the
local markets, farmers plant local open-pollinated varieties whose seed is sourced from fellow farmers
who retain and select the seed. The varieties mostly planted are open-pollinated local varieties.
Improved varieties are available from local agro-dealers who buy from the large seed houses in bulk and
repackage into smaller units (1kg, 2kg, and 5kg) for re-sale to farmers. The improved seeds are sold on a
cash basis compared to local varieties that are procured through the exchange for labor and community
networks. Although the germplasm for improved varieties is available in the country, improved sorghum
seed is not readily available as it is not stocked frequently by agro-dealers due to low demand. In
addition, the price of hybrid sorghum seed is much higher than that of OPV seed; hence farmers tend to
buy the cheaper OPV seed.33
Some farmers reported having accessed improved seed through a contract production arrangement with
Delta Beverages, which contracted some farmers to produce red sorghum with limited extension advice
from Delta. Other inputs required for sorghum production are compound D or cereal fertilizer and
ammonium nitrate. These are available in local agro-dealers/hardware shops, but farmers purchase and
apply limited quantities due to limited financial resources. Most of the farmers in the target districts do
not apply any fertilizer at all.
In terms of marketing, the sorghum producers use four main marketing channels, namely: (a) selling
directly to households in the local community buying for home consumption; (b) selling directly to GMB;
(c) selling to buyers in the local community buying for resale elsewhere; (d) wholesale traders procuring
32
From the FGDs conducted, it was indicated that Empowerment bank at some point supported sorghum farmers
through availing of loans to purchase inputs. The loans were then recovered by the bank from a stop order facility
through a lead firm managing this value chain. However, the bank operated only for a season and is not active in
the two districts. The GMB also makes payments for the delivery of produce through local banks and through
Ecocash.
33
Prices of OPVs range from USD 0.63-0.88 per kilogram whilst prices of hybrid seed range from USD 1.1-1.32 per
kilogram
to sell to large scale traders at popular markets such as Sakubva wholesale market, with some shipping
to Harare’s Mbare Musika.
Commercial sorghum producers in the target districts make use of production loans, mostly within
contract growing arrangements with companies like Delta beverages, which provide inputs upfront and
deduct when farmers deliver the sorghum after harvest. Delta Beverages (Chibuku Breweries) is the target
market for red sorghum intended for beer brewing. Of late, Delta Beverages has been supplying farmers
with only seed and without the other requisite inputs. The arrangement can be negotiated if Takunda
can intervene and make arrangements for guaranteeing repayment of input loans.
Policy and Regulatory Functions
The governance system in the sorghum value chain can be categorized more as modular. This is because
sorghum is, to a larger extent, a controlled product, and GMB sets the specifications for product quality
that, in most cases, are adopted by the other market players. However, when buying, the other buyers
take full responsibility for competencies surrounding process technology and use generic machinery that
limits transaction-specific investments. The regulations for maize and sorghum are the same as all are
considered staple foods. Seeds and agro-chemicals bought from retail outlets are regulated by the Seed
Services Unit under the Department of Research and Specialist Services (DR&SS). The GMB regulates
product prices, grading, and movement of the product.
Groundnuts
The groundnut value chain mapping shows four key stages for value chain actors (input suppliers,
producers, toll processors, and buyers), facilitated by supporting service providers. In short, the core
processes in the groundnut value chain in the target districts are input supply, production, buying (which
includes wholesaling and trading activities), processing, retailing, and consumption. The input supply
chain actors are households selling seed for cash or in exchange for labor and hardware shops selling
agricultural inputs. Production is done by the farming households. Buying is done mostly by commodity
traders as there are no established private sector buyers in the districts. Processing involves households
grinding groundnuts into peanut butter and roasting nuts into ready-to-eat snacks. Actors in retailing
and consumption include: women and men selling unprocessed groundnuts for consumption; small-scale
individual food vendors selling consumption products (such as salted peanuts); households and the local
inhabitants who are the consumers of their own produced groundnuts or those procured from neighbors
and others selling within the community (local markets).
Groundnut production is an ideal crop in natural region IV; it has a short season and survives under
relatively high moisture stress conditions. It is an enterprise preferred by women and is relatively less
labor intensive. Challenges can be found at the harvesting stage, where technologies are now being
developed to reduce the labor demand for this stage.
Figure 4 - Groundnuts Value Chain Map
Core Value Chain
The supply of inputs is dominated by agro-dealer retail outlets, local agro-dealers (at growth points),
and the government through its various support programs for farmers. Most groundnut farmers do not
put fertilizers in production, and the inputs most used are retained seed, lime, and agro-chemicals. For
this value-chain, there is limited interaction with input suppliers as most of the inputs used are obtained
through barter trade within the community or through retention of previous year produce. Within the
core value chain, on the input side, seed is the most important input for production. The source of seeds
can be classified into formal and informal sources. The formal sources provide certified seeds sold by
agro-dealers at Murambinda (Buhera) and Mutare City (Mutare Rural). The Murambinda based agro-
dealers source their stocks from larger agro-dealers and wholesalers such as N. Richards, Farm Shop,
Farm & City Centre, and MFS. The informal sources are retained seeds from farmers, open markets, and
seeds obtained in exchange for labor (maricho). The informal source is the most common source of
groundnut seeds in Buhera and Mutare Rural.
On the production side, three groups of groundnut producers were identified, namely: (a) farming
households cultivating small portions of land (a quarter of an acre and below) mainly for home use; and
(b) farming households who specialize in groundnut production, allocating large portions of land (up to
half an-acre) to the crop. These are grown with the aim of selling surplus to diverse markets. The third
group is farmers in the Marange irrigation scheme who grow groundnuts commercially, cultivating an
average of 0.5 ha. These specialize in growing groundnuts for the fresh market. According to the farmers,
there is little post-harvest value addition. Often the groundnuts are stored and sold unshelled as
shelling adds labor. The unshelled groundnuts are sold at farmgate to other farmers as and when there
is a cash need.
Supporting functions
Extension services are mainly provided by AGRITEX, and where commercial contractors are involved,
these tend to also have their own extension personnel. AGRITEX focuses only on farmers, though farmer
frequency contact has reduced over the years due to a myriad of challenges that the public extension
provider is facing. The group approach is now the major form of extension, and the greater part of it is
done through mobile platforms. In terms of extension, although the most prominent service provider in
the groundnuts value chain in the focus districts is AGRITEX, donor-supported programs implemented by
NGOs are also providing extension services. There is potential for some seed houses such as Zadzamatura
and Agri-seeds, which are active in providing support services such as market information, improved
varieties, and extension for improved groundnut seed production. Although both companies are not
currently active in the Takunda districts, they are in nearby districts such as Chipinge and Chimanimani,
where they contract smallholder farmers to grow groundnut seed for bulking. Takunda can engage these
companies for linkages with groundnut farmers in its target districts to venture into the lucrative seed
contract farming.
On the financing side, groundnut producers in the two districts generally do not seek agricultural finance
as they are not growing the crop commercially. There is also apprehension of seeking loans due to the
consequences of non-payment or not obtaining yields that will generate enough return to pay back the
loan.
The other service providers are private transporters. These transporters do carry the product, mostly for
the farmers, to the selling point. It must be mentioned that to a large extent, groundnut purchases are
made on a cash basis, and because of this, the enterprise offers better production incentives than most
other enterprises that farms in the area covered are engaged in.
Government programs for this value chain have been limited. However, because this is one traditional
crop that does well in this natural region, most farmers are engaged in this value chain. Also, prices tend
to be high relative to other enterprises, and this has sustained groundnut over the years. It is also
associated with women compared to men, and women tend to be more involved in agricultural
production; this is a self-sustaining system that has enabled groundnut production not to be affected
the way other enterprises have by the general low viability experienced over the past few years.
The Grain Marketing Board (GMB), whilst a significant buyer of groundnuts, does not have a sole
monopoly over purchasing of the produce. Middlemen and local traders are also major buyers of the
crop. GMB depots in the target are also major buyers of groundnuts, which are then delivered to GMB
Aspindale in Harare for shelling. The shelled groundnuts are then sold to various private sector
companies like Cairns and Lyons, who in turn process the commodity into peanut butter. GMB indicated
that groundnuts are one special crop where it can pay hard cash and not through money transfer
arrangement, indicative of the stiff competition for this produce. Additionally, because it is. a relatively
storable produce, prices tend to go up as the next growing season approaches.
Emerging from the focus group discussions, is the revelation that farmers toll-process the groundnuts to
peanut-butter34. Local processing of groundnuts into peanut butter is done by small-scale processors
usually located at business centers using hand-driven or electric drive processing machines. They
customize processes for clients who would have bought the shelled groundnuts from market traders.
These are entrepreneurs in the districts who process the peanut butter on behalf of the farmers for a
fee. The farmers then package the peanut butter and sell it to areas like Masvingo town, Beitbridge, and
some of the product crosses the border to SA through informal cross-border traders. Farmers also trade
among themselves either through cash or barter.
On the marketing side, buyers are mainly from the local community. External buyers are traders from
Mutare’s Sakubva market and Harare’s Mbare Musika. The wholesale traders bulk and transport in hired
trucks or lorries, and some farmers have standing arrangements with the wholesale traders who they
call when they have aggregated enough volumes for a full truckload. The frequency of buying by the
wholesalers is determined by sales of stocks bought, which in turn is determined by the demand for the
commodity in the destination markets. The wholesale traders are mostly self-financed from their buying
and selling business, although some have procurement loans from group lending and saving schemes.
Retailing of groundnuts is done by market traders at Sakubva market in Mutare, where urban households
buy groundnuts for home consumption, and small traders buy groundnuts for resale in their own
businesses. Traders, mainly women, who come to the market from the various suburbs in Mutare, buy
groundnuts and then return to the suburbs to retail the shelled groundnuts in gallon containers or cups.
Most of these market traders and food sellers are self-financed or sponsored by family; or, they access
revolving funds or loans from women groups.
The governance system can be categorized more as market-based since there is competition among the
players in the buying of the produce. This is because of limited monopolistic regulations, which allow
players to compete and obtain the best possible prices. Seed quality is regulated by Seeds Services,
although most farmers use retained seed. Currently, there are no regulations relating to the marketing
of groundnuts, and a lot of private players are involved. The GMB, whilst a significant buyer of groundnuts,
does not have a monopoly over purchasing of the crop, with middlemen and local traders also serving
as major buyers of the crop. GMB has indicated that groundnuts are one special crop where it can pay
through cash and not through money transfer arrangement, indicative of the stiff competition for this
crop. Additionally, because it is relatively storable produce, prices tend to go up as the next growing
season approaches.
34
Toll processing is when a processor produces a product on behalf of an owner, who maintains sole ownership of
the product. The processor charges for the services provided.
Table 8: Groundnut Value Chain SWOT Analysis
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
• Nitrogen fixation in the soil by the plant • Low production levels as a result of low
hence low N2 fertilizers is required, productivity attributed to extensive use of
making groundnut an ideal crop for low retained seed and application of low
resource farmers levels of input; farmers rely on low input
varieties which are saved from previous
• GMB has storage and processing season/harvests
capacity that can absorb increased
production • Supply of improved and certified seed is
generally inadequate as a result of low
• Local markets in rural communities and demand, which in turn does not motivate
growing demand in urban markets for local general dealers to stock the seed
peanut butter and snacks provide a
stable market • High incidents of pests and diseases, e.g.,
Rosette, Early Leaf spot
• With improved productivity, groundnuts
production offers relatively high returns • Challenges with postharvest handling and
to land and labor, which would storage may result in increasing aflatoxin
contribute to improved incomes for
producers • Roads that link farmers to input and
output markets are in a poor state and
• Groundnuts are suitably adapted to the impassable during the season
agro-ecological conditions of Chivi,
Zaka, Mutare Rural and Buhera • Not much market information is available
to producers on quality, storage,
• Versatile and multiple uses are the basis aflatoxin, and market prices
for domestic markets
• Extensive death in cattle due to tickborne
• It can be stored for an extended time disease results in loss of ox draught
period power, the lack of appropriate land
preparation machinery creates land
• Good source of protein, which is good for preparation bottleneck, which
improved household nutrition in rural contributes to delayed planting hence
areas yields
• Producers are quite knowledgeable of

production, making it an easy crop for
facilitating production
• Improved varieties suited to the target
districts are available
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
• Not much processing of groundnuts into • Pests and disease levels and incidents
vegetable oil and challenges with (leaf spot, aphids, thrips, Rosette) pose
production and importing of soya beans, threats to the production and supply of
the traditional source of vegetable oil, groundnuts, and chemical control pose
presents an opportunity for increased risks to consumers and may render the
ground processing targeting vegetable grounds not marketable to potential
oil processing external markets (outside Zimbabwe)
• Huge market potential in South Africa • Regular or frequent droughts and

due to its own shortfalls in production variability of rain due to climate change
are a threat to production and supply to
• Economic stability in Zimbabwe is likely markets
to result in increased disposable income,
which could see increased demand for • Aflatoxin, due to poor handling and
snacks, peanut butter consumption storage facilities for groundnuts threaten
local markets and potential exports
• Proximity to Mozambique and the porous

border presents opportunities for side
marketing, thereby threatening supplies
to internal markets
Cowpeas
The key actors in the cowpea value chain in the two Manicaland districts are farmers supplying retained
seed, the producer households, traders buying the dried crop for sale elsewhere, and final consumers.
There is not much processing beyond household use. Private sector involvement in processing is limited
as a result of limited consumer demand for cowpea products.
In both districts, cowpeas are widely grown and predominantly done so for own home consumption. It is
a versatile crop as it is a protein source, the pods can be boiled and eaten fresh, and the leaves are
cooked and eaten as a relish. The leaves can be harvested whilst fresh and tender for blanching and
drying to be stored and available throughout the year. Women are heavily involved in cowpeas
production, storage, and marketing, including processing for consumption, and the dried grain can be
stored for consumption and sale over months. In terms of SuPER principles, cowpeas, as a source of
protein, contribute to family nutrition and food security.
Cowpeas are drought tolerant, nitrogen-fixing, and are early maturing, so their production is over a
relatively shorter duration. They are labor intense at weeding, soil banking, and post-harvest processing
(drying, winnowing). This is one of the factors for why cowpeas are mostly cultivated on small patches of
land, marginal or at the periphery of land allocated to the bigger crops such as maize. Generally, the
cowpeas are sole cropped because of the need for soil banking.
Apart from allocating marginal and small land units, the growth limiting factor in cowpeas is farmers not
investing in yield-enhancing technologies and management practices. Much of the interest in the value
chain is derived from cash generated in the short period the cowpeas are sold as fresh pods for boiling
and selling fresh green leaves and the versatile aspects of home use, i.e. blanching and drying leaves
for eating. The demand for cowpea products outside rural production areas is limited and needs to be
developed, but it was highlighted as a crop that improves household-level food security and resilience.
Figure 5 Cowpeas Value Chain in Buhera and Mutare Rural
Core Value Chain
In the cultivation of cowpeas in both Buhera and Mutare Rural, seeds are the most important input for
farmers. The source of seeds can be classified into formal and informal sources. Mutare-based agro-
dealers such as Farm Shop and Farm & City did not have stocks of cowpea seed. They indicated that
cowpea seed is generally not available as it is not stocked due to lack of demand by the farmers who
prefer to plant retained seed. The informal sources are saved seeds from farmers and the open markets.
In terms of production, women are the main producers of cowpeas, which are essentially grown for
subsistence. Farmers use selected retained seed from their own production or buy for cash or in
exchange for labor (maricho). Informally, the farmers identified two local seed varieties, -- one referred
to as “the upright variety” and one as the “creeping variety.” The upright variety is preferred due to its
higher yield potential and ease of management in the field. Mukushi Seeds has improved varieties that
are drought tolerant and mature in about 85 days which is suitable to the growing environment in Mutare
Rural and Buhera.
Cowpea production is labor intensive at weed control, harvesting, post-harvest threshing, and bean
selection. Therefore, farmers do not plant it over a large hectarage. To cope with the labor demand,
cowpea farmers hire labor to augment available family labor, thus creating labor opportunities in the
community.
In terms of marketing, buyers are mainly from the local community and traders who buy and aggregate
for resale in Mutare and Harare. Not much is sold to GMB, which offers better prices and a guaranteed
market because farmers experienced delayed payments in the past. According to most of the farmers
interviewed, this is not the case anymore as GMB now pays on time, but the perception of delayed
payments persists. More importantly, farmers also avoid GMB because of its strict grading in terms of
size and color, which should not be mixed. Not planting mixed varieties and post-harvesting grading are
essential if farmers are to supply GMB.
In both Buhera and Mutare Rural, farmers access agricultural market information from three main
sources, namely (i) AGRITEX field officers, (ii) other farmers, and (iii) buyers or traders. Farmers learn
about what type or variety, grade, and quality requirements to grow through procurement patterns and
suggestions of buyers, based on prices they would have obtained or are likely to obtain when they sell
in the various markets. Farmers are not well informed about product quality and grade requirements as
there is no formal body that provides the information, and there are time lags in the information flow.
There is, therefore, information asymmetry and a market failure that requires intervention. Other
supporting functions, like finance and transport, were deemed unnecessary due to the reluctance of
households to borrow for fear of indebtedness and the fact that traders traveled to the districts to buy.
Post-harvest handling and lack of appropriate storage have a negative impact on product quality, in
extreme cases resulting in farmers losing up to 40% of stored output. The deterioration of quality during
storage prompts farmers to dispose of their produce immediately after harvest when prices are not
necessarily most favorable.
The government issued a directive that all grain be delivered to the GMB, effectively prohibiting buying
or selling to private traders. As a result, both farmers and buyers were reluctant to provide full
information about the marketing of cowpeas outside their own consumption.
Table 9: SWOT analysis for the Cowpea Value Chain
• Strong demand for cowpea at local, • Low level of productivity

national, regional levels • Poor soil fertility
• Enthusiasm by farmers to engage in • Lack of cash and limited access to credit for
cowpea production inputs
• Existence of improved varieties • Strong seasonal price fluctuations
• Favorable agro-climatic conditions • Limited access to market information systems
• Availability of labor • High cost of improved seeds
• Limited availability of improved seeds
• Inadequate organization of the value chain
actors
• Limited availability of suitable land for
cultivation
• Poor storage capacity
• Limited access to high-quality inputs
• Very limited diversification of income sources
• Farmers lack cash on hand
• Lack of draft to enable early planting and
weed control
• Diversification of processing • The danger of parasite infestation

opportunities • Climate change, variability in weather
• Possibility to modernize the processing • Drought
of cowpea into flour meal
• Depletion of soil nutrients
• Female groups involved in processing
and value addition, such as fritters
• Improved storage techniques (use of
PICS bags)
Indigenous Chickens
In both Manicaland and Masvingo provinces, the indigenous chicken value chain can be viewed as
consisting of five main categories of actors with various connections/relationships within and between
the categories. The value chain is similar across all the four rural districts assessed. The main actors
along this value chain are the households keeping the birds, buyers of live birds and live bird traders
and agents, wholesalers, and retailers. There are limited to no supporting activities along the marketing
chain such as slaughtering, dressing, and packaging in all four districts.
Core Value Chain
The majority of households in all the four rural districts own indigenous chickens for home consumption
as part of their livelihood. Occasional selling of the birds is done to raise cash income to meet household
cash needs such as paying school fees, getting bus fare for traveling on urgent family business (such as
visiting sick relatives or going to distant funerals of close relatives), and meeting hospital or medical
expenses. These are occasional sales, with the number sold usually being one or two depending on the
need. Generally, the birds are sold at $5 to $8 per bird, but the asking price depends on the urgency of
the cash needed. Women, particularly elderly women, are the most prominent producers in this value
chain for a number of reasons that include, but are not limited to:
i. Poultry is not considered a priority livestock value chain by most men in the target districts.
ii. Migration of youth to neighboring cities and countries leaves more women in charge of farming
activities at the household level.
As shown in Figure 6, the primary category of value chain actors consists of poultry producers, shown in
the figure anchoring the center of relationships and interactions in the value chain. They mostly produce
indigenous chicken breeds and eggs for both home consumption and sale, while some produce with the
main purpose of selling.
Figure 6: Poultry value chain map
There is little supplementary feeding provided, and the farmers use indigenous knowledge for managing
their flocks. Consequently, the mortality rate is very high due to poor management of diseases such as
Newcastle, which is highly infectious.
Indigenous chicken breeds are preferred among producers as they have relatively lower initial
investment capital, feed, and management requirements and can more easily contribute to household
food and income needs. The chickens are often fed some grains (sorghum) in the morning and evening
and free-range during the greater part of the day. Chicks are separated from hens to allow for continuous
breeding. The indigenous chicken breeds were also reported to be relatively less prone to diseases.
Most of the elderly women demonstrated a high level of skill in the rearing indigenous chickens. Some
younger women and men expressed interest in this value chain but felt that they would require capacity
building to enhance their husbandry skills. In some households, where poultry production is at a
relatively larger scale, the male counterparts often have oversight of the production and marketing
processes.
In terms of supply, it appeared unanimous from both producers’ and buyers’ perspectives that the
quantity of poultry products being supplied, particularly meat, are not commensurate with the quantities
required by buyers. This is one of the factors that affirmed the opportunity that the poultry value chain
has to alleviate poverty in the target communities. One particular woman entrepreneur, who owns
Phenes Motel in Zaka district, also runs a multi-faceted enterprise but has the poultry value chain as an
important part of her business model that includes education, catering, and community development.
She highlighted that she had failed to maintain a market that required 50 indigenous chickens weekly
due to inadequate or inconsistent supply from the producers. This further supports the opportunity
within this value chain and particular opportunities for services such as the hatchery/incubation
business in the value chain.
Supporting functions along the value chain such as slaughtering, dressing, and packaging the indigenous
chickens are nonexistent in both Buhera and Mutare Rural. There is a general lack of extension and
veterinary services in both districts, and consequently, producer knowledge of methods of disease
prevention and breeding practices is quite low. Farmers are still using traditional herbs for the
prevention of diseases, while chickens are housed in unconventional houses that expose them to adverse
weather elements such as rainfall and cold, leading to high mortality and seasonality of production. In
Buhera, Met Bank is reported to have supported the bushveld poultry value chain by providing credit for
production inputs and procuring the birds for its market.
In terms of marketing, there are three main marketing channels, namely: (1) from farming household to
consumer; (2) farming household to a retailer and then to consumer; and (3) farming household selling
directly for slaughter and meal preparation by food sellers or restaurants. Some traders buy from farmers
to supply to retail markets at local business centers and urban markets. The end market of indigenous
chickens is domestic consumption sourced through market retailers. Buyers and processors often
include households and institutions such as mines (Renco), schools in the local community, restaurants
like Tabika Tagocha, abattoirs like Molusi, butcheries, supermarkets, traders, and other poultry value
chain actors, e.g., those individual entrepreneurs providing hatchery services. While demand is both local
and external, the pandemic-induced movement restrictions and other disruptions in the transport
system have seen most interactions happening with local buyers. Most of the local buyers do not have
structured/well-defined quality or grading systems, though some common quality expectations between
the buyers and producers often influence prices and decisions to buy. The output markets work hand
and glove with other local institutions providing supporting functions such as financial support, capacity
building, among others.
Financial service providers that have the propensity and capacity to serve poultry producers in the target
districts and other relevant value chain actors include banks (such as Empower Bank), microfinance
institutions (e.g., Zimbabwe Women’s Microfinance Bank), government grants, and savings groups.
However, most respondents demonstrated a low affinity for formal credit due to unfavorable borrowing
conditions, specifically high-interest rates. The local presence of the formal financial service providers
is also still limited; for instance, Empower Bank did not have a branch in Chivi. The accessibility of
financial services is also linked to the state of other value chain-related services such as payment
services, transport, and market infrastructure.
The government, specifically through the Ministry of Youth, Arts and Recreation, also collaborates with
other service providers in the implementation of credit schemes for the youth in the form of revolving
funds. These have been implemented previously in the poultry value chain (broilers). However, various
challenges that include accessibility of the services, defaulting, and misappropriation linked to high
youth mobility, and lack of follow-up at district and ward level were encountered.
The main source of extension support is the government crop and livestock extension workers. On the
other hand, private sector actors selling feed and veterinary supplies also provide some form of
extension support over the counter or during interactions with producers. One of the main concerns from
the producers was the difficulty in accessing veterinary services as the workers were not residents in the
ward, and they reportedly did not have adequate vehicles and fuel to travel to the community. This was
a huge concern for producers who often then resort to their own traditional methods of treating livestock,
which are not scientifically verified.
There are currently no known regulations governing the indigenous poultry industry in Zimbabwe. This
presents a cost advantage to the producers since this will reduce the cost of compliance with regulatory
requirements.
Table 10: SWOT analysis of the Indigenous Chicken
• Interest by women, especially young • Limited knowledge and information on

women, to be involved in the value chain organized and commercial production and
• Availability of household flocks as start up marketing
capital • Lack of knowledge on management,
breeding and diseases control
• Expensive and scarce inputs (remedies,
vaccines, feeds)
• No practices of supplementary feeding
• Rudimentary shelter
• Farmers not in any organized groups
• Lack of business knowledge and skills for
commercial production
• Limited access to credit facilities.
• Locally available markets easily saturated
• Increase in demand for goats and goat • Competition among retail business
meat operators, especially food outlets
• Availability of high performing goat breeds • Animal disease outbreaks
• Potential to participate at export goat • Indigenous chicken markets not well
markets organized
• Presence of extension services • Crop production is rainfall dependent as
• Production of pearl millet offers option for district characterized by low and unreliable
supplementary feed rainfall and frequent droughts
• Hatching services could be availed • Stock thefts
• Animal predation
Goats
Goat rearing is a prominent livelihood activity in the target districts. Development organizations such as
Heifer International have invested in building the capacity of goat farmers in the target districts of
Masvingo. Specifically, farmers have been capacitated on ways to supplement goat feeding, for instance,
through fodder production in the form of Leucaena trees and pigeon pea. During the winter and dry
season, the goats free-range during the day and are penned at night, while during the summer, the goats
are tended during the day and then penned at night. Unlike cattle, goats do not directly contribute to the
cropping system, and farmers are more willing to dispose of them than cattle. Consequently, goats are
considered as a possible vehicle for introducing commercial farming in communal areas.
Core Value Chain
Low rainfall, which was noted as one of the key challenges for the farming community over the years, has
seen some animals such as cattle succumb to starvation or drowning in swamps whilst searching for
water. However, for goats, it proved easier to ferry water for them and to supplement the feed with
Leucaena trees and pigeon pea.
Although veterinary supplies for goats are accessible from agro-dealers in the district centers, for
instance, Chivi growth point, they are not available in the local community. The prices, however, were
reportedly prohibitive for everyone to buy their own supplies. As a result, farmers purchase the
veterinary medicines in groups of three or four and then share or take turns administering or using the
medicines.
In terms of marketing, local households sell goat meat among themselves, but food outlets/restaurants
in the local areas and district centers/growth points are also major buyers. Pandemic-induced transport
system disruptions have negatively affected the ability to access external markets. Specific regulations
on the movement of livestock are also in place to minimize theft. These also need to be adhered to in
the trading of goats.
Figure 7 Goat Value Chain Map
Goat production in the target districts can be characterized by farmers owning goats that they
occasionally sell to raise cash for immediate needs. Very few farmers raise goats as a commercial
business enterprise. As a result, production and productivity are very low at both the individual animal
and flock levels. Farmers’ goat management practices are not based on improved production
technologies. The goat breeds are mainly indigenous breeds with limited crossing with improved breeds.
Goats are left to roam around, browsing in grazing areas as well as around homesteads, with only a few
farmers having improved or suitable goat housing. The animals are therefore at risk of predators and
theft.
As similarly highlighted by poultry farmers, access to veterinary-related extension services in the local
communities is a challenge. Farmers are most likely to incur additional costs if they are to access the
veterinary extension services they need at the local level. Formal financial service providers such as
banks and MFIs remain open to provide services, though there was no clear demand for formal credit
from the goat farmers. The community-based financial services such as savings and lending groups or
associations appeared to be the most common among goat farmers with credit from such sources being
utilized, for instance, to procure veterinary medicines. Grants that are specifically provided through NGO
programs are also a source of financing, providing key inputs such as tree seedlings for supplementary
feeds. Extension services are provided mainly by AGRITEX with farmers indicating that they mainly seek
AGRITEX’s advice on diseases, animal health, and feed production, especially during periods of feed
shortages as a result of droughts. Oher key supporting actors include the Department of Veterinary
Services, which provides advice on good animal health and hygiene as well as establishing and
maintaining key infrastructure for animal disease control. The Livestock Production Department is also
involved in animal production extension services, including goats, but their services are hampered by a
lack of resources to travel into all wards in all districts. There are no private sector service providers in
both Buhera and Mutare Rural. It was indicated that DVS services are not easily accessible as they are
not available with reach.
In terms of business support services, the Ministry of Women Affairs, Community, and Small to Medium
Enterprises Development has been offering a wide range of value chain support services. They offer
financial support through the Ministry itself, through Empower Bank, and Zimbabwe Women’s Bank.
Goat farming is not taken as a business by most farmers, so they do not seek financial services from
banks or financial institutions for goat production but rather make use of savings and loans clubs for
production finance. However, formal banking services are provided by CABS, POSB, and AGRIBANK.
In terms of marketing, most of the goats produced in the two districts are marketed within the districts
through farmer-to-farmer transactions. Thus, the main goat market in both districts is the local market,
namely neighbors and other households in the district. Occasionally, traders and buyers from Mutare
and distant markets such as Chivhu and Masvingo (in case of Buhera) and Harare (for both Mutare rural
and Buhera) come to source live goats which they aggregate and ferry to these distant markets. Some
buyers linked to large meat processors such as Carswell Meats and Montana Meats procured goats (and
cattle) on arrangements with LFSP projects in Mutare. Retailers (supermarkets, butcheries, restaurants,
and food outlets) buy from farm gates or abattoirs as carcasses and package it for sale to final
consumers. Local butcheries, such as Mhumhi, noted that there is price competition with live goat buyers
from Harare and established meat wholesalers, so they have to offer higher prices to secure supply.
However, the high prices demanded by farmers is not consistent with the quality of goats.
Animal movement is regulated, and both farmers and government agricultural officers in both districts
revealed that under normal circumstances, farmers should have livestock movement permits. This is
facilitated by clearing their livestock with both the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) and DVS. The Animal
Health Act of 2001 stipulates specific regulations regarding the requirements for the movement of
livestock to control diseases and to minimize theft. However, DVS noted that few goat farmers follow the
procedure as most goat sales are within the communities and usually for slaughter. Farmers are of the
view that the cost of compliance with animal movement permits is unnecessarily high for goats relative
to the value of the animal. While it is important that these regulations are adhered to in the trading of
goats, the process of acquiring movement permits was reported to be costly and cumbersome for the
smallholder farmer, given the expected revenue and return from selling such a small animal, particularly
so for smaller quantities.
Table 11: SWOT analysis of the goat value chain
• Availability of large goat numbers in • Limited knowledge and information on

the district goat production and marketing
• Availability of markets like • Low prices offered by buyers
abattoirs and sale pens • Limited knowledge on fodder production
and utilization
• Lack of knowledge on management,
breeding and diseases control
• Scarcity of and competition for water with
cattle
• Farmers not in any organized groups for
collective action for marketing and
negotiations with other value chain actors
• Limited access to credit facilities
• Increase in demand for goats and • Animal disease outbreaks

goat meat • No dipping facilities and practices by the
• Availability of high performing goat farmers
breeds • Goat markets are not well organized
• Presence of extension services • Crop production is rainfall dependent as
• Presence of irrigation infrastructure the district is characterized by low and
in some areas – fodder production unreliable rainfall, and frequent droughts
and water availability threaten reliance on grazing crop residues.
• Potential to participate at goat • Veld fires threat to browsing trees
markets • Stock thefts
• Presence of locally-based abattoirs • Animal predation
with interest in investing in business
• High RDC levies are being charged
partnerships with local producers
VALUE CHAIN GENDER DYNAMICS OBSERVED
As a starting point, the qualitative analysis shows that less-resourced smallholder farmers are not fully
participating in the market value chains hence the continued persistence of food and income poverty.
Nonetheless, maize is the most produced value chain across all sex and age categories even though the
SHF's reported that it is not suitable for the climate conditions obtained in their localities. All sex and
age categories tend to have a strong inclination towards the production of maize, followed by groundnuts
and indigenous chickens. Interestingly, young men in the four districts have a stronger inclination
towards the production of groundnuts compared to the rest of the sex and age categories. This
contradicts a number of reports on African agriculture, which tend to view groundnuts as women’s
crops.35
Regarding gender and viability of value chains, data shows that across all sex and age categories,
groundnuts are perceived as profitable, although young women have the largest proportion that views
groundnuts as profitable, followed by adult women, adult men, and young men. It is important to note
that although young men have the highest inclination towards groundnuts production, their perceptions
of the profitability of the value chain are lowest. With maize, mostly young women view it as viable.
Regarding livestock, the gender divide on viability is clear. For instance, with the goat value chain, in
particular, it is mostly adult men who regard it as profitable, followed by young men. A very small
proportion of young women perceive goats as profitable.
The study also reveals the nuances underpinning value chains preferences. In gendered terms, the
largest proportion of adult men prefers maize, followed by groundnuts and cattle. On the other hand, the
largest proportion of adult women prefers groundnuts, followed by maize and Bambara nuts. The largest
proportion of young men prefers maize followed by groundnuts, while the largest proportion of young
women prefers groundnuts, followed by maize and indigenous chickens. Although food and income
considerations are key in the selection of the value chain, the decision-making process is quite crucial.
The decisions on which value chain to select are made by household members, and such decisions may
be inclined towards one or more of the SHFs’ household members. Invariably, most crop value chain
selection decisions are jointly made by the spouses in three districts, with only Buhera having the least
proportion of participants reporting joint crop value chain selection. This finding is quite revealing in as
far as it paints a clear picture of what is obtained on the ground based on everyday realities and practices
on SHF decision making. It also challenges the almost universal application of a patriarchal model of
decision making, which dominates both academic and development discourse.
In that regard, unpacking the subtleties shows that crop value chain selection in the households is highly
negotiable even under the circumstances where one of the spouses is regarded as the decision-maker.
This resonates with the social model of household gender analysis where a household is an arena of
complexities – negotiation, conflict, competition, collaboration, and compromise, not necessarily an
arena for male dominance and female subordination. That is rather a misleading dichotomy, as our study
shows that decisions seem to be based on the type of value chain in question and vary by household.
35
Curtis et al.2015, Sabine Homann-Kee Tui et al. 2018 Mugisha et al. 2019
While men are pronounced as decision-makers, the decision-making process reflects that there is some
degree of negotiation. Women participants reported that they give men space to make crop value chain
decisions as a way of showing respect. In other cases, women, as well as men, reported that men make
decisions because men have the skills with respect to the crop value chain(s) in question. Some men
further reported that while they make crop value chain selection decisions, they do it with close
consultations with their spouses though ultimately, they are reported to be the ones making the selection
decision.
In most of the reported cases where women make independent value chain decisions, the females reside
in rural areas while their spouses work in town and therefore become the sole crop value chain decision-
makers. In other cases, the respective females are either single parents or widows and therefore by
default, head of households and take the responsibility of making decisions regarding what crop to grow.
There is only one case where the husband had some (mental) disability, and the female became the sole
crop value chain, decision-maker. In a few cases, men reported that their wives are responsible for crop
value chain selection as they are more knowledgeable, while in other cases, polygamous relationship
empowers female spouses to make decisions about their sub-households. Where crop value chain
selection decisions were reported to be joint, the process involves one of the spouses initiating the
suggestion, followed by a discussion, and the pair reaching an agreement on whether to engage in the
production of the crop value chain or not. In some instances, SHFs reported that crop value chain
selection involves the whole family, including children. Thus, there is a lot of negotiation among gender
categories, a scenario that can further be upheld and encouraged by promoting crop planning that
involves all household members prior to the cropping season. As noted by some SHFs, joint crop planning
is critical to encourage labor investment throughout the cropping season and to take joint ownership of
the investment results.
With the livestock value chain, the selection is also joint and negotiable, although some variations exist.
In Mutare, a larger proportion of SHFs reported that livestock decisions are made by adult women. In the
Chivi District, the largest proportion of SHFs reported that decisions about which livestock to keep is
made jointly. As reported, joint management is also driven at times by the need to reduce or avoid
conflict between the spouses. In some cases, the decisions are also determined by the type of livestock.
For example, some female SHFs reported that they make decisions on small livestock such as chickens
and goats, while the traditional status quo still exists where men are expected to make cattle-related
decisions.
However, there are a number of constraints noted. Across all ages and sexes, lack of fertilizer, draught
power, and seeds emerged as the main crop production-related challenges. Only young men seem not
to be affected so much by seed challenges. Climate-related constraints were also noted. Both adult men
and young men had the highest proportion of those who reported erratic rains and lack of water
respectively to be both crop and livestock production constrains. Regarding livestock only, adult men
and young women shared equal sentiments on poor rains; adult women noted excessive rains and
diseases for cattle production. Poor pastures for cattle and chicken diseases were also reported by adult
men, but young men had the highest proportion of those facing inadequate water for cattle and chicken
diseases.
In terms of marketing, adult men reported that cattle marketing decisions resided with men, whilst young
women mostly thought it was a joint decision. Across all ages and sexes, poultry is sold in local markets,
including local schools, as the main outlets as reported by mostly adult men and women in all districts.
Crops are also sold locally in neighborhoods, with adult men having the highest proportion of those who
sell to GMB. However, the highest proportion of young women indicated that they do not produce enough
to have something to sell. Young men also tend to sell at provincial and district markets. Supporting
functions are also important for SHFs in order for them to thrive in any value chain. All sex and age
categories have almost equal access to crop extension services. Access to livestock extension is generally
low, with young women reporting the lowest access to the veterinary department. The proportion of SHFs
reporting no access to financial services is highest among young men and women. Only adult women and
young women reported having grain input support.
In selected religious communities, specifically the Marange Apostolic faith, gender dynamics are not so
different from the four districts studied under Takunda VCA. In terms of crop production, maize and
groundnuts are popular with young women, adult men, and women, a pattern similar to other
communities. However, livestock such as cattle and goats were recorded only among adult men and
women. Young women were reported to be only involved in poultry, which is consistent with young
women under Takunda VCA who are most inclined to the production of indigenous chickens. It was also
acknowledged by adult women that for a married woman, cattle are for the man; hence women have no
voice on those cattle because it is only the man who can decide. The absence of any reference to joint
decision-making in crop and livestock value chains is in sharp contrast to what is obtained in other
communities. Climate-related constraints such as droughts are also found in the communities. Young
women also noted constraints related to the livestock value chain they are involved in (poultry), such as
lack of fencing material and drugs. Across all sexes and ages, marketing is mostly done locally in tandem
with what is the case in other districts studied under Takunda VCA. Apart from some married women who
noted that they could not access outside markets because this is prohibited by their husbands, crops
and livestock are sold locally. It was also reported that access to financial services was generally low, not
because of the nature of religious affiliation but because there are no loan provisions from both
government and private sector, just as in non-Apostolic communities. All sex and age categories noted
self-financing (from crop or livestock sales), VSLAs, and married women sometimes get start-up capital
from their husbands. In particular young women noted that lack of collateral hampered access to loan
facilities.
CRITERIA TO IDENTIFY MARKET-BASED SOLUTIONS
As described in Section 1, the study used market systems-based criteria to identify market-based
solutions (see Table 1). However, these market-based criteria were used in conjunction with CARE SuPER
principles to try and include inclusivity and resilience in the solutions.
CARE’s approach to agriculture focuses on promoting Sustainable, Productive & profitable, Equitable,
and Resilient (SuPER) agriculture practices and technology dissemination. The SuPER approach
promotes:
• Sustainable agriculture systems that address climate and environmental impacts
• Productive, profitable, and nutrition-sensitive intensification that specifically addresses the

needs of women producers while ensuring maximum returns on investment
• Equitable outcomes in smallholder agriculture – right to food and access to nutritious food, equal
access to opportunities, resources, services, and rewards for women, men, young women, young
men, and people living with disabilities
• Resilience for communities and systems to be able to withstand and recover from climate-
induced shocks and stresses and other shocks and risks
The table below highlights how these SuPER principles were aligned with the market-based criteria
defined at inception.
Table 12: Aligning Marketbased Criteria and CARE SuPER Principles
MARKET-BASED CARE SuPER PRINCIPLES NOTES

CRITERION
Private sector- The identified solution must have an

led identified private sector company
leading the implementation.
Market is driven Productive, profitable, and nutrition- The solution must be responsive to value
(responsive to sensitive intensification that chain dynamics identified during the
market specifically addresses the needs of value chain analysis in terms of demand
dynamics) women producers while ensuring & supply dynamics, supporting
maximum returns on investment. functions, and regulatory functions.
Resilience for communities and Resilience as a function of the ability to
systems to be able to withstand and respond to changing market dynamics is
recover from climate-induced shocks a key consideration.
and stresses and other shocks and
risks.
Implementable The solution must be implementable

within the confines of the conditions
prevailing in the particular district and
value chain.
Systemic Sustainable agriculture systems that The solution must not be purely
address climate and environmental transactional but systemic, considering
impacts. Equitable outcomes in impacts on/from other parts of the value
smallholder agriculture – right to food chain. Whilst aspects of equity and equal
and access to nutritious food, equal access to opportunity do not necessarily
access to opportunities, resources, align with MSD dictates, these were
services, and rewards for women, considered in some of the value chains
men, young women, young men, and
people living with disabilities
Existence of The solution must have champions,

change agents to change agents, or enablers who are in
drive the the frontline and ready to help
transformation implement the initiative as quickly and
effectively as possible for
transformative change to happen.
Finding the right A market-based solution must not try to

entry points to solve everything. Instead, it should focus
reach scale on critical changes that are most likely
to stimulate agricultural trade, i.e.,
points of leverage.
ANALYSIS OF PRIORITIZED MARKET-BASED SOLUTIONS
To potentially increase the incomes of the targeted households, there is a need for Takunda to prioritize
emerging value chains like sesame, which present vast market opportunities for integrating
smallholders into export-oriented agricultural production. The profitability of the value chain and its
adaptability to local semi-arid conditions presents great potential for Takunda to offer market-based
solutions for enhancing incomes and livelihoods for the target beneficiaries. Sesame also affords the
farmers the necessary resilience to climatic shocks, given its drought-tolerant characteristics.
Given the limited availability of animal draft power due to livestock deaths, there is a need for Takunda
to consider the possibility of promoting appropriate-scale mechanization technologies such as two-
wheel tractors and implements, targeting youth groups for the provision of tillage and transportation
services in the communities. Youth- and women-led groups can also be assisted to acquire farm
production and post-harvest processing technologies such as egg incubators to offer hatchery services,
multi-crop shelling machines for grain threshing, and 2-in-1 hammer mills for grain milling and animal
feed processing.
Egg incubation and hatchery services present huge opportunities for the supply of fertilized eggs and
day-old chicks in all four target districts. There is also potential to introduce improved breeds like
Boschveld, Sasso, and Kroiler. The same applies to goats, where improved goat breeds like Matabele,
Boer, Savanna, and Kalahari Red can be introduced for increased live and carcass weight, which will result
in higher household incomes because most goats are sold using live weight in local markets, so the larger
the animal, the higher the potential for higher income.
These labor and time-saving technologies have the potential to encourage increased participation of
youth in agriculture and increased income generation for participating households. This will also reduce
manual labor and time requirements for undertaking farm operations, thereby freeing more time for
women to engage in other household activities such as nutrition-sensitive food preparation. However,
there is a need to minimize beneficiary dependency by avoiding direct hand-outs through encouraging
some form of cost-sharing when procuring the technologies, where the farmer groups will be encouraged
to use proceeds from their VSLA/ISAL activities.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO PROMOTE HIGH PRIORITY MARKET-BASED SOLUTIONS
Masvingo
The culmination of the value chain analysis, taking cognizance of the market-based criteria and the CARE
SuPER principles, was the identification of potential facilitation activities for consideration by Takunda
to improve household level incomes, resilience, and foster sustainable linkages with local, provincial, or
national markets where feasible.
1.) The shortage of service markets that are specifically designed to serve smallholders presents
opportunities for Takunda to capacitate groups of young people and emerging individual
entrepreneurs to fill the gap and provide essential services to the farming communities. The
opportunities exist across the agricultural value chains from financial markets for inputs supply to
post-harvest processing and outputs marketing. Specific “supporting” function opportunities for
facilitation include:
• Supporting the establishment of VSLAs in the four districts, specifically an

“agricultural inputs fund” to ensure that farmers have access to appropriate seed
varieties which are well adapted to the arid conditions prevalent in region IV.
• Capacity building of farmer group enterprises with training to embark on on-farm

animal feed formulation to produce affordable supplementary feeds using locally
available resources such as crop residues, acacia leaves, and pods to produce
‘bushmeal’ for farmers who may want to get into intensive livestock production
systems. A matching grant facility can be established to support the acquisition of
appropriate scales mechanization technologies such as 2-in-1 hammer mills from
suppliers (e.g., Appropriate Technology Africa, Kurima Machinery, and Tanroy
Engineering).
2.) Smallholder farmer market opportunities for goats and indigenous chickens can be increased
through breeding and breed improvement programs aimed at enhancing the quantity and quality of
supply. The introduction of improved goat breeds like Boer and Kalahari Red for cross-breeding with
local goats has the potential to enhance the quality of goat meat on the market, while egg incubation
and hatchery services have the potential to stimulate the supply of live birds and chicken meat on
the market. Potential offtake partners for goats include MC Meats which indicated that it had a
monthly unmet demand for goat meat and would be willing to collect if a full load could be
guaranteed. Suppliers of the breeding stock include Zvikomborero Farms, Mash Goats, and Mzilikazi
Kalahari Red Goat Breeders, who have previously partnered with large development programs such
as the Zimbabwe Agricultural Growth Program (ZAGP), Zimbabwe Resilience Building Fund (ZRBF), and
the Livelihoods and Food Security Program (LFSP).
3.) There is potential for Takunda to leverage the increasing mobile phone penetration and increased
use of smartphones and social media to promote ICT-based market information and extension
service provision, particularly targeted at young farmers. Emerging digital solutions such as SMART
Connect36, which provides real-time market information, can facilitate quicker and easier market-
based transactions, which can be cheaper, affordable, and more rewarding to the farmers compared
to traditional marketing channels. A potential private sector partner for this facilitation activity is
Cassava Smartech which currently provides digital business solutions through the Eco farmer
platform.
4.) Takunda can leverage existing structures initiated under its predecessor program (ENSURE) to scale
up value addition capacity building activities leveraging on existing ward-based market facilitators.
Specific value addition activities identified during this study include:
a.) In Chivi, there is scope to shell and package groundnuts in partnership with Empretec
Zimbabwe, which is promoting these value chains for export markets.
b.) In Zaka there is scope to aggregate indigenous chickens for slaughter in potential
collaboration with Phene’s Motel and Molusi Abattoir.
5.) Existing VSLA/ISAL groups initiated under the ENSURE program should be capitalized on to facilitate
group-based inputs procurement, production and marketing approaches for reduced transaction
costs and viability of promoted value chains. In particular, seed purchase for farmers in Chivi and
Zaka can be coordinated with a company like Zimbabwe Super Seeds (ZSS), which is already active in
the districts and is willing to support smallholder farmer development initiatives.
6.) There are a few localized market stalls, feedlots and livestock auction infrastructure established by
predecessor projects in the two Masvingo districts which Takunda can leverage to facilitate viable
market linkages. A good example is the recently established Zaka Agrihub, which is a market linkage
facility established by Heifer International for the farmers at Gumbo Business Centre. Takunda can
consider adopting the Hub and support revival of its initially intended purpose, which was to
facilitate market linkages for surrounding farmers in the district. The management committee
running the affairs of the hub need capacity building in leadership, group governance, business
management, financial literacy, fundraising and networking skills as well as lobbying and advocacy.
These skills will enable them to effectively run the affairs of the hub in a sustainable manner.
7.) Local institutions such as hospitals, schools and mines are also critical in facilitating viable market
linkages for the preferred value chains. The Basic Commodities Supply Side Initiative (BACOSSI) van
and container model being implemented by Masvingo Farm Supplies (MFs) to bring inputs and
groceries closer to the farmers every first weekend of the month in mobile trucks needs to be
promoted for scaling up as a market linkage initiative that offers convenience to the smallholder
farming communities in Masvingo. The farmers indicated during FGDs that the initiative also presents
36
Smart Connect is a platform that links farmers to markets and other agricultural services through a mobile phone
based application
them with an opportunity to sell various agricultural and non-farm products they may have as people
come to access the goods from the mobile shop.
Manicaland
1.) There is potential for production expansion given the vibrant demand in local and Mutare markets
for commodities such as cowpeas, groundnuts, and indigenous chickens. However, production
expansion requires access to good quality inputs and extensions. Takunda can therefore explore a
“farmer support and linkages” activity in Buhera and Mutare Rural to ensure that the increased
supply finds guaranteed off-takers so that farmers do not incur losses if their output is not sold.
2.) Strengthening of farmer groups for collective input purchase and output marketing (with increased
productivity and output). Agro-dealers and output buyers pointed to the high transaction costs
involved in aggregating cowpeas and groundnuts for resale in urban markets. On the other hand,
input suppliers also noted that smallholder farmer plots are far apart and distant, so this increases
their costs of input access. To address this, Takunda should consider facilitating the strengthening
of farmers' groups for aggregated input purchases and output marketing of cowpeas and groundnuts
in Buhera and Mutare Rural. This will lower transactions costs to private sector partners, thus
providing an incentive for them to participate. Potential partners identified in Buhera/Mutare include
LEAD-US Africa Development Foundation (ADF) for capacity building and organizational
strengthening of farmer producers’ groups, collective action, community-owned enterprise for
effective participation in commercial production and marketing as well as engaging private sector
partners. LEAD/USADF is currently involved in both Mutare Rural and Buhera and could potentially
partner with Takunda.
3.) Low levels of productivity in both crop and livestock value chains were evident during this study. This
makes farmers uncompetitive in commercial markets channels as their return on labor is much lower
than those producers achieving higher rates of productivity per unit cost. There is scope in both
districts to promote the adoption and use of improved technologies, including improved seed and
climate-smart agricultural techniques. This will increase productivity and overall crop outputs of all
crops. Ideally, this facilitation activity could focus on cowpeas in Buhera, which require less rainfall
than the maize that farmers are currently producing. In terms of partnerships, Takunda can support
local market development/organization because there is no fully functional private sector-led
market for cowpeas in either district, but rather traders and middlemen who buy and consolidate for
resale in urban markets. Potential private sector partners include seed houses such as Zadzamatura
and Agri-seeds, who are active in Chimanimani and Chipinge, where they contracted smallholder
farmers to grow groundnut seed for bulking.
4.) There is much interest and demand for indigenous chicken production in response to apparent
market demand. Women, especially young females with young and growing children, have much
interest in this value chain as they offer opportunities to generate cash income over relatively short
time periods and the startup investment is low. Takunda can support this value chain for women's
economic empowerment. Potential private sector partners include Mumhi abattoir and butchery, who
indicated an interest in working with goat and indigenous chicken producers in Mutare rural to
facilitate aggregation targeting meat markets through offering slaughtering, packaging services, and
marketing services for their goats and chickens.
5.) There was widespread death of cattle in Mutare rural and some parts of Buhera, leaving most
households without oxen for land preparation. Households are resorting to hiring oxen, conservation
farming practices, and reducing land under-cropping. Takunda can invest in activities to address the
shortage of oxen for draft power and for households to adapt to the shortage. A potential partner is
Kurima Machinery which is importing and assembling tillage machinery and implements targeted at
smallholder farmers.
6.) The newly constructed Marovanyati dam has potential for the development of micro-irrigation for
communities around the dam which presents Takunda with opportunities for introducing
interventions for viable food and cash crops production and market linkages for high-value crops
7.) Agrosave at Murambinda, an agent for Masvingo Fifet day-old chicks and poultry feed, is looking into
training on poultry production. Takunda can leverage this by partnering with Agrosave to facilitate
good agricultural practices in the indigenous poultry value chain.
General Facilitation And Beneficiary Support Activities
• Financial Health knowledge and information, particularly on cash flow budgeting and
analysis at households, community projects, loans, and savings groups
• Budgeting and financial planning at family and community project levels
• Recording of activities with financial implications
• Market planning and negotiations
• Identify and take advantage of changes brought about by COVID-19 measures
• Identify, work with, and facilitate innovative young women and men, agri-business
entrepreneurs, to engage with young women and mothers
• Build capacity for groups to qualify and apply for small grant facilities such as the
USADF (the United States Africa Development Foundation) organizational
development support grants (S$20 000 to $200 000).
Based on the value chain gender dynamic observations, the implication for Takunda is to be facilitative
of joint decision-making processes within households in the four districts. This will not only minimize
introducing potential conflicts within the beneficiaries’ decision-making processes and outcomes but
also reduce outward token acceptance of suggested interventions, thereby rendering them sustainable
over time. These processes offer fertile ground for equipping the households or family members with
skills, knowledge, and information on Farming as a Family Business, which will enhance family decision-
making.
RISKS TO FACILITATION ACTIVITIES
On-going government free-input support programs such as Pfumvudza/Intwasa and command livestock
may impact negatively Takunda’s quest for market-based solutions to addressing challenges in the
prioritized value chains. The intervention of the government usually results in disruption of bonafide
private sector engagement in market linkages and financial inclusion activities.
Intensive livestock breed improvement interventions for market development may result in loss of
adapted genetics in indigenous breeds, which are resistant to diseases and prevailing climatic conditions
in the semi-arid regions. Furthermore, mortality rates may increase due to limited compatibility between
local indigenous breeds and exotic ones and/or limited adaptability of the offspring crossbreeds to the
local conditions.
In its facilitation of market systems and value chain development in the target districts, Takunda could
also face risks associated with community structures, dynamics, and networks, which include resistance
to change from traditional customary beliefs and norms. For instance, community leadership structures
are male-dominated, and this may present challenges for Takunda to facilitate gender-sensitive value
chains and market systems with the potential to uplift women. The dominance of elderly people in terms
of ownership and control over productive resources such as land may present hurdles for the Activity to
promote value chain and market system interventions that include young people. This is particularly so
in the case of community gardens and irrigation schemes, where the youths highlighted challenges
related to their exclusion in terms of plot ownership and decision-making due to limited access. There
are also risks related to contested power dynamics in the communities, where political power may
override technical decision making, resulting in political activities being prioritized at the expense of
value chain development activities.
Social and cultural norms may impede the facilitation of preferred value chains. For instance, the
production of mhunga/pearl millet is banished in some traditional domains in Zaka despite it being
preferred as a good source of poultry feed, particularly in the indigenous poultry value chain most
preferred by women.
Takunda’s facilitation activities may result in the overproduction of value chains like indigenous
chickens, if the market fails to adequately respond to the production stimulus. Furthermore, reliance on
external markets, like in the case of sesame and legumes, when international trade policies can change
at any time for such crops when local demand and markets are limited. This has the potential to
negatively affect the farmers whose hopes for increased benefits from participation in cash crop markets
may have grown.
Investment in market facilitation activities might be misconstrued for conventional free handouts. Thus,
Takunda should discourage donor-dependency syndrome by promoting cost-sharing during the
acquisition of technologies for farming households and communities.
CONCLUSIONS
Production and productivity levels for the selected agricultural value chains are currently very low due
to a variety of reasons, chief amongst them the quality of inputs used and outdated husbandry practices
(not using GAPs). Takunda interventions at this level of the markets system should therefore seek to
either increase or aggregate SHF production to give them a better chance at entering mainstream offtake
markets.
Post-harvest processing and storage are also a significant challenge for SHF, especially post-harvest
cleaning and storage of small grains such as sorghum. Interventions in this regard must therefore seek
to link SHF to development-oriented service providers willing to adapt post-harvest and storage
technologies to the realities of SHFs in the target districts, i.e., low volumes and limited capacity to
operate sophistication technologies.
Market development and market linkage facilitation will be crucial under Takunda to align increased
supply from the SHFs with potential offtake markets. Facilitating SHFs to produce more without a proper
demand plan for offtake will lead to disillusionment and loss of capital for SHF households. Therefore,
all market-based Takunda interventions must be designed with an offtake market in mind. Where
markets are nascent, Takunda will engage in more direct delivery approaches in the first part of the
project, slowly transitioning to facilitation activities as market players mature in the later years of the
project
The key supporting service required by SHFs is a technical extension both for crops and livestock value
chains. Services such as production loans were not identified by the SHF as key at this stage in the farm
businesses, as they prefer to use informal savings groups through fear of non-repayment of commercial
bank loans.
A key player in the policy and regulatory space is the GMB, being a major buyer but also regulator for
most of the recommended crop value chains. Takunda will have to engage GMB, in addition to relevant
government departments such as AMA, AGRITEX, DVS, and DR&SS, to mitigate against risks identified and
facilitate the effective functioning of the core value chains.
To ensure improved access to veterinary services for the Indigenous chicken and goat value chains, there
is a need for Takunda to capacitate local agro-dealers, including in villages, wards, and district centers
to adequately stock appropriate vaccines, drugs, and medicines and to provide services to the farmers.
In summary, there is significant scope for Takunda to facilitate market-based solutions and support
beneficiaries in the four target districts to increase production and actively participate in semi-
commercial and commercial markets. Promoting the active participation of rural households in the
different types of markets (inputs, outputs, and services, including financial services) has the potential
to significantly build the resilience of at-risk rural communities and improve their livelihoods. However,
Takunda needs to factor in SHF and private sector market maturity, as these have a direct bearing on the
success or failure of market-based interventions. As noted earlier, Takunda uses a market systems
approach that integrates “pull” strategies such as market facilitation activities with “push” strategies,
including direct transfers to participants. Therefore, understanding that the recommended value
chains/market systems in Manicaland and Masvingo require different levels of facilitation (and direct
transfers) is essential in the design of Takunda interventions. Interventions in some instances will be
facilitative and, in other instances, involve direct delivery; depending on the level of maturity of the
SHF and private sector within the district and linked markets.
Appendix 1: Takunda Private Sector Engagements as of 09 November 2021
NO. NAME OF WHAT THEY WHAT THEY PROVINCE VALUE

PRIVATE DO OR AREA ARE PROVIDING CHAINS FOR
SECTOR OF TO ENGAGEMEN
COLLABORATI TAKUNDA/WILL T
ON PROVIDE TO
(SPECIALIZATI PARTICIPANTS
ON)
1 Molu's Meats Offtake and Market Manicaland Indigenous
slaughter chickens
services and goats
2 Leaverbord Offtake Market Manicaland Horticultura
Investments l produce –
Pvt Ltd t/a Baby corn,
Tsimba shelled
Produce. peas, Peas
(Mange-tout
and Sugar
snaps), and
Fine beans
(local and
export)
3 Agricultural Seed Training, Seed, Mash Cowpeas_
and Rural contractor, and Market; Central but CBC1, CBC2,
Development only providing Seed is through would love IT18,
Authority seed, mostly input loans to start with Sorghum
(ARDA) seeds cowpeas, and Mutare
sorghum Rural
4 Zimbabwe Seed Training and Manicaland maize, sugar
Super Seeds contractors seed offtake Masvingo, beans,
(ZSS) and farmers Midlands cowpeas,
should source sorghum,
inputs for pearl millet,
themselves Bambara
Production, nuts, and
processing, groundnuts.
packaging,
marketing
with national
distribution
networks
through Farm
and City as
well as MFS,
among others
5 Coopers Input Training All Drugs for all
suppliers livestock,
disinfectant
s, etc.
6 Zimbabwe Provision of Training, All Indigenous
Free Range capacity- technical chickens
Poultry building support, and
Association initiatives, market
technical linkages (input
support, and and output)-
Market for members
linkages to its only upon
members. payment of
membership
fees
7 Afrideli - a Offtake Training at a All Bambara
subsidiary of cost-sharing Nuts
Cluster condition and
Agricultural Market
Development
Services
(CADS)
8 SCOPE – Welt Bambara Nut Training Referred us Bambara
Hunger Hilfe offtake and farmers in Chivi to Bambara nuts
(WHH) Project export wards nuts local
Promoting market
Marula and actors
chilis (Afrideli,
production Shasha
market, and
Peak
Trading)
9 Shasha Market Seed supplier Market All Bambara
and Offtake Nuts
10 Redsphere – Financier Pre- All Financial
Commercial disbursement services
Bank of training provider
Zimbabwe
(CBZ)
subsidiary
11 ECONET ICT Provider – Services All E-extension
e-extension provision at a services
cost
12 VIAMO ICT Provider Services at a All E-extension
cost services
13 Steward Bank Financier Still deciding All Financial
on possibilities services
for provider
engagements
Previous private sector engagements under the Enhancing Nutrition, Stepping Up Resilience and
Enterprise (ENSURE) Project
NO. NAME OF PRIVATE WHAT THEY DO WHAT THEY WERE VALUE CHAINS FOR
SECTOR PROVIDING TO ENSURE ENGAGEMENTS
OR
AREA OF COLLABORATION
(SPECIALIZATION)
1 Contractor, input supply Market Indigenous

National Organic
and offtake Chickens -
Produce (NOP)
boschvelds
2 Financier Input loans – feeds and Financial services

chicks (had a tripartite provider
Metbank
relationship with the
farmer and NOP)
3 Contractor, input supplier, Market Michigan peas

CAIRNS
and market
4 VIRL Financial Services Financier Input loans and support Sugar beans and
(Microfinance) Village Savings and groundnuts
Lending Associations
(VSLA) Income Generating
Activities
5 A buyer for white sorghum Market White sorghum

World Food Program under the Purchase for
(WFP) Progress (P4P) program –
BHA funded
6 ICT Provider Market information Market

Emkambo provision information
services
7 ICT Provider – E-extension services E-extension

ECOFARMER services
e-extension
8 Montana Carswell (MC) Offtake Market Goats

Meats
9 Vantos Meats Offtake Markets Goats
10 Pilchards Investments Offtake Market Groundnuts
11 Hotels (Chevron and Offtake Market Indigenous

Flamboyant); chickens and
goats
Local restaurants –
Tabika tagocha
12 Sidella Offtake; contractor Input and output market Sesame
13 Financier Financial services Financial services

CBZ
provision
14 Masvingo chicks an Input supplier Provision of chicks for Boschveld chicks

agent for Novatech production
15 Input supply Input market Maize seed
Seed Houses – ZSS,
Agriseeds, SeedCo,
NUA 45 beans -
Panna, and Pioneer
ZSS
ANNEX
DATA COLLECTION TOOLS
Focus Group Discussion
Province: ________________ District: Ward: _______________ VIDCO/Cluster: ………………Village: ___________________
Date of Focus Group Discussion: ____________________________________________
Venue: ___________________________________
Name of Farmer Group: ____________________________________________
Number of Adult men: ____ Young men: ______Adult women: ______________ Young women: _____
Facilitator: _____________Note Taker: ________________ Audio file number: ___________________
Supply side
FGD Question Guide for farmers (Adult women, adult men, young women and young men, people living with disability) (lead farmers/ordinary farmers/poor
farmers/) Minimum 7 Maximum 9 participants (can be mixed or FGDs adult men and women, young men and women, adult women and youth women, and people
living with disability FGD if many).
Theme Questions Comments

General information 1. Please provide a brief history of your community, how it was founded, Make the question as open as
ownership/access status of land, leadership structure, tradition, religion, social possible. Probe to understand the
cohesion/social capital, and any important information etc general relational structure (usually
intricate)
2. What are the people’s main livelihoods (crops, livestock, business, employment, Probe for how the community
etc.)? perceptions on community poverty status, general land fertility, classify itself in terms of wealth
experiences of rainfall regimes/patterns, disasters, migrations, etc status – poor, middle, better off;
community experiences in general
Objective 1: To assess and identify viable and most important crop and livestock value chains preferred and/or viable for adult women, adult men, young
women and young men and people living with disability in the project areas.
Crop/livestock value 3. Which cash and food crops and livestock (including field/horticulture) are Can be carried out as a value chain
chains mainly grown/reared in the community and why? and institutional mapping exercise.
4. Who in the households decide which crops to grow and livestock to rare and Probe for general experiential and
sell? And why? Adult women and Men, young women and men, disabled cultural practices and separate
members of the family between food and cash crops.
5. What are the farming practices in the community? Which crops/livestock are Probe for cultural, economic,
preferable to adult women, men and young women and men and why? sociological etc
6. Which crops/livestock are viable/profitable for your community, why? What is Probe input/output market
the community experience with each identified value chain? relations,
Objective 2: Conduct value chain analyses for each of the selected commodities. The value chain assessments will entail: A. the agronomic production profiles
(e.g. agricultural management practices, land ownership and use practices)
Crop production 7. How much land does a typical household in this community possess and how Probe history of land acquisition
systems much on average is fully utilised? Probe for variability in land
8. Is there unused or underutilized land and why? utilisation and reasons thereof.
9. Who in the community own/ has access to/ and control of arable land for crop Probe for farming system on
production? Adult women/men, young women/men? different patches/parcel of
10. Which farming systems do households in this community practice? community land
11. Which pests and diseases are experienced in this community? Do households (conservation/smart/rotation
here use modern technology/fertilisers/insecticides, costs, affordability, and agriculture and which household
availability? members)
12. Who are the major suppliers of inputs for crop production in the area?
13. Are there any arrangements and terms that exist between farmers and input
suppliers in the area for the supply of inputs? explain
Probe for the main inputs, suppliers
14. Where is finance for production sourced from? (Farmers’own savings, VSLA, and distance to nearest outlet?
Borrowing, Remittances, Micro-finance institutions, Contractor, Banks, NGO,
Government, etc.)
15. What type of machinery and equipment is required for crop production and
harvesting in the area/community, and how accessible to women, men, youths?
How much does it cost?
16. What are the major constraints faced and opportunities in production of these
crops in terms of: (Establish constraints for women, men, young men and young
women)
i. Input supply and services?
ii. Production?
iii. On-farm post-harvest processes?
iv. Markets and marketing?
17.
Post-harvest practice 18. Do people in this community practice post-harvest treatment (which chemicals, Probe for traditional postharvest
availability, affordability, source), storage and value addition, grading, what are management
the experiences of losses (proportions) and reasons
Gardens 19. Do community members have equitable access to a community/individual Probe for informal and formal rules
gardens (adult women and men/young women and men? and why? What crop and regulations in access to
(and cash crops) do they grow? Why? What can be done to enhance access for land/water, and practices Probe why
all? How are community gardens managed? Land and water (sources & others have no access. What can be
adequacy during wet and dry periods). done to enhance access for all?
Irrigation schemes 20. Do community members have access to irrigation schemes, which schemes and Probe for historical nuances over
ownership status? History of the schemes? Which members of the community management and cropping systems
have access (adult women, adult men, young women and young men), how and
why? How are the schemes managed and by who? How much land and which
crops? Who decides which crops to grow? Men women youths market, gvt
extension, private sector.
Livestock production 21. Which livestock (small & large) systems is practised in the community? (Free Probe for historical changes noting
system range, communal grazing, intensive, semi-intensive etc). Pasture quality and milestones
water availability/sources in dry and wet seasons within the community?
22. Which livestock pests and diseases are experienced in the community?
23. What is the status of use of modern production technology/vaccines/dipping,
fodder, costs, affordability and availability, suppliers
B Value chain mapping (key stakeholders, flow of supplies and products, flow of funds and information, etc.);
Crop value chain SUPPLY AND DEMAND Probe for total for
24. What quantities do you produce and supply to the market per annum, including community/average for household
horticulture crops? for each identified value chain?
25. What time of the year do you supply and which market and are they markets
accessible to women, men both old and young?
26. ? Probe for historical changes of
27. Who are the buyers & final consumers of your crop commodities? (Specific buyers/off-takers, demands, market
names) information
28. What are the requirements of the market per annum? (Quantities and quality for
each value chain.)
29. Do you think there is surplus or deficit of the commodity/ies? Why do you think
so?
30. Is there any grading system used in buying the commodity/ies? If Yes, who
decides the market grade and what are the grades and related prices?
31. On average, how much income does a household in this area earn from the sale
of each crop?
32. What proportion of total agricultural income does each crop contribute?
33. What proportion of total household income (including off-farm) does the crop
contribute?
34. Does the community access crop value chain market information, how and from
where/who? How easy and any cost implications? Usefulness of market
information? Opportunities for improvement?
35. Are there other preferred markets which you fail to access? If yes, what are the
reasons for failure to access such markets? Why do you prefer such markets
over others? What do you think need to be done and by who for you to access
such markets?
Livestock value chain 36. Do community members sell livestock/products, what proportion of the Probe for historical changes of
community, buyers/off-takers, demands, market
37. Who are the buyers for different livestock and livestock products, from where? information
(probe for specific names of each livestock value chain)
38. What livestock or products quality do the buyers demand?
39. Do community members (women, men, youth) access livestock value chain
market information, how and from where/who? How easy and any cost
implications? Usefulness on market information to the community?
C functional analysis of each value chain (profiling of industry structure, adoption of skills, technology, and innovation);
Skills 40. What skills do people in the community have for crop and livestock production, Probe for skills dynamics and utility
value add, marketing (adult women, men, youths)? From whom and with what
benefits? Are they using the skills, if not why?
What more skills and what support does the community need to improve productivity and
market participation? Are people willing to pay for skills training services?
D climate change implications; economic analysis of potential opportunities to add value along the chain
Crop/livestock 41. How has climate variability, economic changes-inflation impacted Probe milestone impacts and
crop/livestock production and marketing in the community? If so, can you opportunities
explain how much this affects production?
42. How can the community improve income from crops/livestock under these
climate/economic regimes?
E policy and institutional conditions necessary to create suitable enabling environment for value chain development
Crops/livestock 43. What are the local/regional rules/regulations/institutions for the marketing of Probe for dynamics in regulations
field/horticulture crops/livestock in the community? What is their impact on and associated value chain
crop and livestock marketing? developments
44. Are there any rules (formal and informal) and regulations that influence
agriculture production and marketing in this area/district?
45. Do you have a commodity-based organization or farmer group? (Names)
46. If YES, what services does it/they provide to farmers?
47. Are there any rules governing members in relation to production and
marketing? Explain
48. Are there any specific gender roles in (i) production, (ii) marketing and (iii)
membership of farmer organizations? and how are the roles organized?
Objective 3: To identify the key services and sectors that enhance or impede the competitiveness of the identified crop and livestock value chains (e.g.
extension, financial services, storage and transportation, macro-economic conditions including inflation).
Extension services 49. What crop and livestock extension services do you have access to in this
community, how do you access them? Do they respond to community needs?
What are the cost implications of getting extension services, and how beneficial
are they for improved crop and livestock production and marketing in the
community?
50. What are the challenges around access to extension services for women, men,
youths? What can be done to improve access?
51. At what stage is the producer price announced to the farmers and with what
implications? (At the start of production, at the time of marketing the crop etc).
Financial services and 52. What financial services does the community access for crop (field & Probe for experiences past ten or
economic conditions horticulture) and livestock production, value addition and marketing? How five years
useful and affordable are they to community people? Do they respond to
community needs? (disaggregate by sex and age)
53. Which MFIs are supporting /supported farmers in this community?
54. Who in the community/households decides which financial services to access?

55. How has economic conditions/inflation affected community crop and livestock
production and marketing, what opportunities are there?
56.
Infrastructure, 57. What is the infrastructure status in the community? Roads, bridges, markets, Probe how transportation is
Transport and logistics water, etc organised,
58. Do community people provide own or contract transport to markets for your
cash crops and livestock? How affordable, reliable are transport services in the
community?
Gross Margin Guide for Crops
I hectare
Input Quantity Unit Currency Unit cost Cost
Seed (list type - OPV, hybrid, certified/improved))

Nursery bed
Land prep (plough costs)
Basal fertiliser
Top dressing fertiliser
Manure
Herbicides (specify)
Pesticides (specify)
Labour (…people*….hrs*……days)
Planting
Weeding
Spraying
Harvesting
Grading and Packaging
Packaging material costs
Transport to market
Transport inputs from markets
Total Variable Cost (TVC)
Gross Margin Guide for Livestock
Input Quantity Unit Currency Unit cost Cost
Livestock (list type Goats/cattle/poultry/– improved or

indigenous breed)
Feeds
Vaccines (specify)
Housing
Labour (…people*….hrs*……days)
Feeding/cleaning/grazing
Other (specify)
Total Variable Cost (TVC)
Supplier_Agrodealer Key Informant Interview
Province: ____________ Ward: _______________ Village:___________________ VIDCO _____________________
Date of KII Interview: ____________________________________________
Venue: ___________________________________
Name of interviewee: ____________________________________________
Sex : ___________ Age _____________(Adult/Youth): ________ Disability: _____
Value chain: _________________Company name: ______________________
Facilitator: ___________ Note Taker: ______________ Audio file number: _________
Demand side
Key Informant Interview (KII) Guide for Input Suppliers & Service Providers

General information 1. Please provide a brief history of yourself/organisation, when it started operating, location, Make the question as
– and your participation in this crop or livestock value chain. open as possible.
2. What is the key objective of you and your organisation in this (specific) value chain?
Agro-dealer 3. What is your key business? If input supplier, which range of inputs do you supply for crop Probe the pricing
• and/or livestock production, and what are the prices ranges? model for the inputs
4. Who are your main target market and their location/distance?
5. How many farmers do you think you service?
6. Who are the main buyers (large commercial/smallholder farmers/adult
women/men/youths)?
7. What is the demand for your products? Are you able to meet the demand, what are the
demand fluctuations?
8. Where do you get information about what inputs are required by crop/livestock farmers?
Do you interact/communicate with extension staff or farmers and other input suppliers?
Where do you get your supplies from? (name and location)
• 9. What is your marketing strategy – over the counter, deliver to individual farmers, part of
contract farming? (Probe for 4Ps, product, price, promotional,)
10. Which stakeholders do you work with in the crop/livestock value chains? Do you have
contracts with clients, which specific clients? What are the terms of the contracts?
Extension service providers 1. Which extension services do you provide? To who, when, at what cost? Service cost
(gvt and private sector) model?/Service delivery model?
2. Which areas do you serve and how?
3. What is the demand for your service by your clients?
4. Do you work with other service providers (gvt/private sector/NGOs? Which ones and with
what advantages for you and the crop/livestock producers, and merchants? If not why?
Infrastructure services 1. Describe the infrastructure services you provide, and to who?
(irrigation/road etc) 2. How does it benefit crop and livestock producers, merchants, etc?
3. How sustainable is your service provision? What has been your experience working with
crop/livestock producers?
4. Do you work with other service providers in the district? Which ones, and how does that
help infrastructure maintenance and development?
5. What are the key challenges in the interactions and infrastructure service provision?
Financial service providers 1. Describe the financial services you provide to crop/livestock value chain(s)? Probe for any
2. What is the premium for loan repayment if any? Repayment model/period? Are your conscious inclusion of
clients able to repay on time/penalty for non-compliance? How accessible for poor servicing the very poor
resourced producers/adult women/men/youths and disabled? producers and whether
• 3. What is the financial service demand-uptake level (and for poor producers? How viable is this is a viable niche
your business, sustainable? market.
4. What challenges have you or are you facing in dealing with crop/livestock value chains
actors/producers/especially poor resourced smallholder producers? What are the options
going forward?
5. Do you work with other stakeholders, which ones and why? Which ones are key, and why
so? Do you have any contractual arrangements with them?
6. What are the benefits/challenges from the interactions? What can be done to improve
your benefit stream from working with other players in the industry and area?
7. Which other players do you think need to be part of the network?
Market place minders 1. What services do you offer to crop/livestock producers/merchants etc? Probe for how the
2. What are the requirements/rules/regulations/penalties for crop/livestock value chain services allow
players to participate in marketing their products here? Cost and payment participation of poorly
methods/participation of poor farmers/quality expectations? resourced producers
3. What has been the demand for your service (market place)? Are you able to accommodate (adult women/men,
all clients, including poorly resourced producers? youths and disabled)
4. What are the key challenges in your service delivery? What support needs to be put in
place to ensure increased participation of crop/livestock producers especially the
vulnerable adult women, men, young women & men and the disabled?
5. Of what benefit to your organisation is the participation of crop/livestock value chain
players? What programmes are in place to promote continued participation of your
clients?
Policy, rules & regulation 1. Are there any policy or regulatory challenges in running your business e.g. taxation, VAT,
certification of certain inputs etc
2. If yes, have there been any initiatives to work with the relevant Government department to
address these?
Buyer Key Informant Interview
Province ____________ Ward: _______________Village______________VIDCO/Cluster__________
Date of KII Interview: ____________________________________________
Venue: ___________________________________
Name of interviewee: ____________________________________________
Sex: ___________Age _____ (Adult/Youth) ________Disability_____
Value chain _______________________________________
Facilitator___________ Note Taker ______________ Audio file number _________
Demand side
Key Informant Interview (KII) for buyers/offtakers/wholesalers

General 1. Please provide a brief history of yourself/organisation/company when it started Make the question as open
information operating, location, – and your participation in this crop or livestock value chain. as possible.
2. What is the key objective of you and your organisation/company in this value
chain?
Objective 1:. To understand demand side dynamics in the value chain based on the buyers experiences, market need and product availability
Value chains 3. How viable do you think is the (respective crop/livestock) value chain for adult Probe for personal
(respective) women/men, youths and disabled in this district? experiences of interacting
4. How is the uptake of the value chain in the area? What impact has the uptake rate with farmers (poor
had on your business and its viability? resourced smallholder
5. How much (quantities) of the crop/livestock do you require per producers –
(month/season/year), and what prices range do you offer? What determines the women/men/young
price? (price model) women and men, people
6. Do you get the quantities you demand and from where and who – adult with disability).
women/men/youths producers? If not why, and how have you in the past closed
the deficit, and going forward how do you plan to close the gap?
7. How do you get, and prefer to get your products (through middlemen, farmers
groups etc).
Objective 2: Conduct value chain analyses for each of the selected commodities. The value chain assessments will entail:
• the agronomic production profiles (e.g. agricultural management practices, land ownership and use practices)
Crop/livestock 8. Which production system for the respective value chain is commonly practiced in Probe for suitability of the
production the area? production system in
systems 9. How appropriate is the system in meeting your product demand (quality & assuring demanded
quality)? If not, what need to improve, what would attract you more? products
10. Which crop or livestock/crop or livestock products are in most demand in your
area?
11. Where do you buy most of this crop or livestock/product?
12. Are you getting enough volumes based on the demand from your customers?
13. Are you getting the right quality of product?
14. If not, what is your deficit and how are you meeting it?
15. What is the profile of your normal suppliers i.e., smallholder farmer (less
resourced women, men, youths, people with disability), trader/middleman,
commercial farmer etc?
16. How do you determine the price you offer to farmers, and what currency do you
pay for the produce? (do you consider viability for the (less resourced)
producers?
17. Are your customers using predominantly ZWL cash, USD cash or swipe to pay for
their products?
18. What are the major challenges you are facing in sourcing crops or
livestock/products for your business?
•
• a) Value chain mapping (key stakeholders, flow of supplies and products, flow of funds and information, etc.);
19. Apart from you, who are the other buyers/takers for the value chain? Probe for historical
20. Do you and other players get enough/viable quantities? If not why? changes of buyers/off-
21. How is the competition, and how are you managing it? takers, product supply,
pricing shifts and
strategies
• b) functional analysis of each value chain (profiling of industry structure, adoption of skills, technology and innovation);
Industry profile 22. How is the value chain (respective) industry organised? Producers, Regulatory
body(ies)/authority, merchants, markets (primary/secondary), manufacturers,
final products, consumers, locations of each
Skills 23. Are the value chain producers have the requisite skills as demanded by your Probe for opportunities for
industry? If not, Which specific skills are lacking? what is being done to ensure skills improvement
product improvement through skills training, what are the constraints, and
opportunities for skills improvement? Do you have any skills challenges/needs
that if addressed will improve your business and that of less resourced
producers? Are you willing to support less resourced
women/men/youths/disabled smallholder producers?
24. Who do you think can come in to assist?
• c) climate change implications; economic analysis of potential opportunities to add value along the chain
Climate change 25. How has climate variability, economic changes-(inflation) impacted your value Probe milestone impacts
impact chain? (Quantities and quality supplied). and opportunities
26. What opportunities are presented by climate change and variable economic
conditions? How are you (and suppliers/farmers) prepared for the impact of
climate and economic conditions variability - resilience?
27. What need to be done to improve producer and your resilience to these shocks?
• d) policy and institutional conditions necessary to create suitable enabling environment for value chain development
Crops/livestock 28. What are the local/regional rules/regulations/institutions for the marketing of Probe for dynamics in
your respective value chain (field/horticulture crops)? regulations and associated
29. What is their impact on respective (crop and livestock) marketing? value chain developments
30. What changes need to be done to improve product (crop and livestock) value for
your sustained participation? How do you relate with the different institutional
structures, and what are the incentives for the interactions?
Objective 3: To identify the key services and sectors that enhance or impede the competitiveness of the identified crop and livestock value
chains (e.g. extension, financial services, storage and transportation, macro-economic conditions including inflation).
Other services 31. Do you provide any other services apart from buying e.g. extension to farmers? Probe as many services as
Which services? possible
Extension services 32. Do you supply/support (crop and livestock) extension services? What is the
model of your extension support? What are the cost implications for
you/organisation, and how beneficial is the support for you and product
producers especially less resourced men/women/youths producers?
33. What are the challenges in offering extension services? What need to be
improved, by who?
34. How do you relate with government extension services in the value chain market
development?
Financial services 35. Do you offer financial services (loans, input support (cost recovery), open market Probe for experiences past
and economic etc) and why? ten or five years, any
conditions 36. Who are your target producers for financial service support and why? (Adult support changes over the
women, men, youths, people living with disability). years
37. Any interaction with other financial service providers for the (specific) value
chain?
38. Do you use commercial bank finance (credit) to run your business?
39. If so, which financial institutions do you deal with and are they in your area or in
Mutare/Masvingo/Harare?
Infrastructure, 40. Do you provide logistics/transport support to markets for your value chain (crops Probe how transportation
Transport and and livestock)? How affordable, reliable are (your) transport services? If not, are and logistics is organised,
logistics farmers (including less resourced producers) able to supply the value chain?
41. What is the state of infrastructure (roads, access bridges, bulking storages etc;
what effect has this on product market development?
42. What are the opportunities and bottlenecks?
43. What interactions/support do you render to infrastructure service providers?
Information 44. Do you provide adequate communication and market information to your product Probe for more interactive
technology producers, and how? How useful has been the information and communication attempts by the
on product market development? merchant/organisation
45. How has IT improved value chain quality/quantity? and incentives thereof
Policies and 46. Which policies regulate your business activities?
regulations 47. Are there any challenges that you experience on the policy/regulatory side?
48. Which government departments do you interface with and for what purpose?
49. What policy changes would you like to see to facilitate growth of your business
and viability for less resourced producers (adult women, men, youths and people
living with disability?
In-depth Interview Guide
Province: ____________District: _______________Ward: _______________Village:___________________ VIDCO/Cluster: ____________
Date of In-Depth Interview: ____________________________________________
Venue: ___________________________________
Name of participant: ____________________________________________
Sex: _Age _______ (Adult/Youth) ________Disability_____
Facilitator: ____________Note Taker: __________Audio file number: _____________
Supply side
In-Depth Interview Guide for farmers (Adult men and women, young men and women, people living with disability) (lead farmers/ordinary farmers/poor farmers)

General information 1. Please provide a brief history of yourself– birthplace, age, educational background, Make the question as open as
marital status, how many children you have, how long you’ve lived in the current possible. Probe to understand
community, etc the relationship (usually
intricate)
2. What is your main livelihood (crops, livestock, own business, employment, retired etc.)? Probe for how they classify
Do you have other sources of income (e.g. remittance, pension, rents? themselves in terms of wealth
status – poor, middle, better
off?
Objective 1: To assess and identify viable and most important crop and livestock value chains preferred and/or viable for women, men, young women and
young men and people living with disability in the project areas.
Crop value chains 3. Which cash or food crops (field/horticulture) do you grow and why? Probe for as more personal
4. Who in your household decide which crops to grow? And why? Adult women and Men, reasons as possible. Make it
young women and men, disabled members of the family open and as exhaustive as
possible.
5. Which crops do you prefer as an individual and which crops are preferred by other Probe for cultural, economic,
household members and why? sociological etc
6. Which crops are viable/profitable for your household, why?
Livestock value 7. Which livestock (small and large) do you or household members keep as Probe for cultural interference
chains income/business projects or for consumption? Who decides which livestock to keep and
who owns the livestock? Adult women, men young women etc
8. Which livestock types do you prefer as an individual, and which ones are preferred by Probe for economic, cultural,
other household members and why? Which livestock types are viable/profitable for skills reasons
your household, why?
Objective 2: Conduct value chain analyses for each of the selected commodities. The value chain assessments will entail:
a) the agronomic production profiles (e.g. agricultural management practices, land ownership and use practices)
Crop production 9. How much land do you own/ have access to or control for crop production? Who owns? Probe for variability in land
systems Adult women/men, young women/men? How did you/they obtain it? utilisation and reasons
10. How much/what proportion of the land do you utilise for each commodity? thereof. Probe for farming
11. Which farming systems do you practice? Pests and disease experience. Use of modern system on different
technology/fertilisers/insecticides, costs, affordability and availability patches/parcel of land
12. Who are your suppliers of inputs for crop production? Give the main inputs, suppliers (conservation/smart/rotation
and distance to nearest specific outlet? Are there any arrangements and terms that agriculture and which
exist between you and your input suppliers? Explain the arrangements and terms? household members)
13. Where do you get finance for crop production?
14. What type of machinery and equipment is required for your crop production and
harvesting, Do you have access to these, and if so at what cost?
15. .
16. What are the major constraints you face in production of these crops in terms of:
i. Input supply and services?
ii. Production?
iii. On-farm post-harvest processes?
iv. Markets and marketing?
17. What opportunities do you perceive in these value chains you produce?
18. What are the major inputs and costs of production for XXX crop? (see annex 1)
Post-harvest practice 19. Post-harvest treatment (which chemicals, availability, affordability, source), storage and Probe for traditional
value addition, grading, experiences of losses (proportions) and reasons postharvest management
Gardens 20. Does your household members have access to a community/individual garden? Which Probe for informal and formal
household members, and why? What crop (and cash crops) do you grow? Why? How is rules and regulations in access
the community garden managed? Land and water (sources & adequacy during wet and to land/water, and practices
dry periods)
Irrigation schemes 21. Does your household members have access to an irrigation scheme? Which members, Probe for historical nuances
how and why? How is the scheme managed and by who? How much land and which over management and
crops do you grow? Who decides which crops? Men women youths market, gvt cropping systems
extension, private sector
Livestock production 22. Which livestock (small & large) systems do you practise? Free range, communal grazing, Probe for historical changes
system and intensive. Pasture quality and water availability/sources in dry and wet seasons?
23. Who owns and who decides what livestock to own? Adult women/men, young
women/men? How did you/they obtain livestock? With what objectives?
24. Pests and disease experience. Use of modern production technology/vaccines/dipping,

fodder, costs, affordability and availability, suppliers
Value chain mapping (key stakeholders, flow of supplies and products, flow of funds and information, etc.);
Crop value chain SUPPLY AND DEMAND Probe for historical changes of
25. What crops and quantities do you supply to the market per annum, including buyers/off-takers, demands,
horticulture crops? market information
26. What time of the year do you supply and which markets?
27. Who are the buyers of your crop commodities? (specific names). Who are the final
consumers when processed?
28. What are the requirements of the market per annum? (Quantities and quality for each
value chain.)
29. Do you think there is surplus or deficit of the commodity/ies? Why do you think so?
30. Is there any grading system used in buying the commodity (ies)? If Yes, who decides the
market grade and what are the grades and their prices?
31. On average, how much income do you earn from the sale of each crop and livestock
commodity?
32. What proportion of total agricultural income does each crop contribute your household
income?
33. What proportion of total household income (including off-farm) does the crop
contribute?
34. Do you access market information, how and from where/who? How easy and any cost
implications? Usefulness on market information?
Livestock value chain 35. If you sell livestock/products who are the buyers of the different livestock and from Probe for historical changes of
where? (specific). What products quality do they demand? buyers/off-takers, demands,
36. Do you access livestock market information, how and from where/who? How easy and market information
any cost implications? Usefulness of market information?
Functional analysis of each value chain (profiling of industry structure, adoption of skills, technology, and innovation);
Skills 37. Are you or any household member (adult women, men, youths) trained in crop or Probe for skills dynamics and
livestock production, value addition and marketing? If so from who and with what utility
benefits? Are you using the skills, if not why?
38. What more skills and what support do you need to improve your productivity? Are you
willing to pay / spend time for skills training services?
climate change implications; economic analysis of potential opportunities to add value along the chain
Crop 39. How has climate variability, economic changes-inflation impacted your crop and Probe milestone impacts and
livestock production? How can you improve your income from crops under these opportunities
climate/economic regimes?
40.
Policy and institutional conditions necessary to create suitable enabling environment for value chain development
Crops/livestock 41. What are the local/regional rules/regulations/institutions for the marketing of Probe for dynamics in
field/horticulture crops in the community? What is their impact on your crop and regulations and associated
livestock marketing? What policy changes need to be done to improve your crop and value chain developments
livestock value chains?
42. Do you belong to a commodity-based organization or farmer group? (Names), and what
services do you get?
43. Are there any rules governing members in relation to production and marketing?
Explain.
44. Are there any specific gender roles in (i) production, (ii) marketing and (iii) membership
of farmer organizations?
Objective 3: To identify the key services and sectors that enhance or impede the competitiveness of the identified crop and livestock value chains (e.g.
extension, financial services, storage and transportation, macro-economic conditions including inflation).
Extension services 45. Do you get crop and livestock extension services and who are the providers? What are
the cost implications of getting extension services, and how beneficial are they ? What
are the extension delivery methods and how would you rate the quality of the extension
services?
46. What are the challenges with extension services? What need to be improved?
Financial services 47. What financial services do you access for crop (field & horticulture) and livestock Probe for experiences past ten
and economic production, value addition and marketing? Kindly name the financial service providers if or five years
conditions any? How useful and affordable are they to you?
48. Who in the household decides which financial services to access?
49. How has economic conditions/inflation affected your crop and livestock production and
marketing, what opportunities are there?
Infrastructure, 50. Do you provide own/contract transport to markets for your cash crops and livestock? Probe how transportation is
Transport and How affordable, reliable are transport services? organised,
logistics

PA00Z9PS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PA00Z9PS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PA00Z9PS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agriculture Value Chain

Study Authors: Sydney Zharare, Godfrey Mudimu, Kingstone Mujeyi,

Table of contents ....................................................................................................................................................... i

List of Tables ...............................................................................................................................................................v

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................ viii

Specific Objectives Of The Study ............................................................................................................................ viii

Problem Statement And Justification........................................................................................................................1

Specific Objectives Of The Study: .............................................................................................................................. 2

Study Sites ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Literature Review ...................................................................................................................................................... 4

Contextual Background To The Study Sites ............................................................................................................ 4

Value Chain Analysis: Concept and Application .................................................................................................... 6

Review Of Other Value Chain Analysis Studies ...................................................................................................... 7

Recommendation From The Various Studies Can Be Summarized As Follows: ........................................... 10

Study Design and Overall Methodology .............................................................................................................. 17

Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................ 18

Study Findings ..........................................................................................................................................................22

Description Of The Short-listed Value Chains Considered ............................................................................... 22

Approach to Facilitation Activity Identification ................................................................................................... 32

Value Chain Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 35

Value Chain Gender Dynamics Observed ............................................................................................................ 55

Criteria To Identify Market-based Solutions ..................................................................................................... 58

Analysis Of Prioritized Market-based Solutions ............................................................................................... 60

Recommendations to promote high priority market-based solutions ......................................................... 61

General Facilitation And Beneficiary Support Activities.................................................................................... 64

Risks to Facilitation Activities .............................................................................................................................. 65

Data collection tools ............................................................................................................................................... 73

Figure 2 Market System Development Continuum .................................................................................................. 32

Figure 3 Sorghum Value Chain in Buhera and Mutare Rural ................................................................................. 35

Figure 4 - Groundnuts Value Chain Map ................................................................................................................... 39

Figure 5 Cowpeas Value Chain in Buhera and Mutare Rural ................................................................................. 44

Figure 6: Poultry value chain map ............................................................................................................................... 47

Table 1: Geographical Targeting ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Table 2: Number of KII, FGD and IDI conducted ......................................................................................................... 17

Table 6: Factors determining farmers’ current VC preference ............................................................................. 27

Table 7: Value Chain Maturity per District ................................................................................................................. 33

Table 8: Groundnut Value Chain SWOT Analysis ...................................................................................................... 42

Table 9: SWOT analysis for the Cowpea Value Chain .............................................................................................. 46

Table 10: SWOT analysis of the Indigenous Chicken ............................................................................................... 50

Table 11: SWOT analysis of the goat value chain...................................................................................................... 54

AGRITEX Agricultural Technical & Extension Services

AGRIBANK Agricultural Bank of Zimbabwe

AMA Agricultural Marketing Authority

BACOSSI Basic Commodities Supply Side Initiative

BPC Bulawayo Projects Centre

DDC District Development Coordinator

DR&SS Department of Research and Specialist Services

DVS Department of Veterinary Services

ENSURE Enhanced Nutrition Stepping Up Resilience and Enterprising

FGD Focus Group Discussion

FHI 360 Family Health International 360

GMB Grain Marketing Board

ICT Information Communication Technology

IDI In-depth Interviews

IYF International Youth Foundation

KII Key Informant Interviews

LFSP Livelihoods and Food Security Program

MFS Masvingo Farm Supplies

NAZ Nutrition Action Zimbabwe

NGO Non-Governmental Organization