baseline study final report - Kilimo

AGRICULTURAL SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM-LIVESTOCK 

BASELINE REPORT 

Prepared by ASDP-Livestock in collaboration with Centre 

for Microfinance and Enterprise Development (CEMIDE) 

i 

Zanzibar 

January 2009

List of acronyms 

ASDP 

ASSP 

IFAD 

FGD 

DALDO 

LFS 

PADEP 

SACCOS 

MFIs 

ROSCAS 

TASAF 

Agricultural Sector Development Programme-Livestock 

Agricultural Sector Support Programme 

International Fund for Agricultural Development 

Focus Group Discussions 

District Livestock Development Officer 

Livestock Field School 

Participatory Agricultural Development Project 

Savings and Credit Societies 

Microfinance Institutions 

Rotating Savings and Credit Associations 

Tanzania Social Action Fund 

i

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1: Introduction 

1.1 Background 1 

1.2 Study Objectives 2 

1.3 Scope of the Study 2 

1.4 Organization of the report 4 

1.5 Limitations of the study 5 

Chapter 2: Methodology of the study 

2.1 Study Approach 6 

2.2 Selection of survey sites and sampling methods 6 

2.3 Data Collection methodologies 7 

2.4 Data variables 7 

2.5 Validation of instruments 8 

2.6 Data entry and processing 9 

2.7 Data Analysis 10 

Chapter 3: Study Findings 

3.1 Livelihood status 11 

3.1.1 Demographic characteristics 11 

3.1.2 Literacy level 13 

3.1.3 HIV/AIDs 14 

3.1.4 Housing 15 

3.1.5 Ownership of productive and domestic assets 17 

3.1.6 Landholding and use 19 

3.1.7 Sources of livelihood 22 

3.1.8 Incidences of food shortage and coping mechanism 22 

3.1.9 Household income 28 

3.1.10 Incidences of economic stress and copping mechanism 30 

ii

3.1.11 Access to finance 30 

3.2 Type of livestock 33 

3.2.1 Type of livestock owned and sold 33 

3.2.2 Type of livestock keeping 35 

3.2.3 Grazing land 35 

3.2.4 Grazing land versus veterinary clinic 37 

3.3 Institutional, regulatory and Policy issues 37 

3.3.1 Extension services 37 

3.3.2 Livestock Field Schools 43 

3.3.3 Technology Development and adoption 44 

3.3.4 Farmer groups and their management 47 

3.3.5 Production and marketing 50 

Chapter 4: Conclusions and Recommendations 52 

Annexes: 

iii

Table of figures 

Table 1 

Table 2 

Table 3 

Figure 1 

Figure 2 

Table 4 

Table 5 

Table 6 

Table 7 

Table 8 

Table 9 

Table 10 

Table 11 

Table 12 

Table 13 

Table 14 

Table 15 

Table 16 

Table 17 

Table 18 

Table 19 

Table 20 

Table 21 

Table 22 

Table 23 

Table 24 

Table 25 

Table 26 

Population by District 

Sex of head of household by district 

Average household size-male and female headed 

Type of marriage in Unguja 

Type of marriage in Pemba 

Literacy level by district 

HIV/AIDs affected households 

Roof type by district-main house 

Construction material –main house 

Construction material-livestock shelter 

Roofing animal shelter 

Ownership of productive assets 

Ownership of documents assets 

Land used by household inn acres in 2006/7 by district 

Land sufficiency by district 

Land use for agriculture 

Type of livelihood 

Level of food sufficiency from household production 

Main sources of food for the household in the last 12 months 

Copping strategies 

Income from crop farming 

Income from livestock 

Income from fishing 

Sources of credit in Unguja and Pemba 

Main sources of credit by district 

Loan repayment 

Reasons for default of loans 

Type of livestock owned today 

iv

Table 27 

Table 28 

Table 29 

Table 30 

Table 31 

Figure 3 

Figure 4 

Table 32 

Table 33 

Figure 5 

Table 34 

Table 35 

Table 36 

Table 37 

Table 38 

Figure 6 

Figure 6 

Table 40 

Table 41 

Type of livestock sold during the year 

Type of livestock kept by district 

Where livestock are grazed by district 

Distance between grazing land and veterinary clinic by district 

Distance between grazing land and veterinary clinic by District 

Extension service received by livestock keepers in Pemba 

Extension services by livestock keepers in Unguja 

Type of livestock message 

Sources of extension services 

Payment for services 

Quality of advisory services 

Livestock extension services staff by district and their qualifications 

Membership to Livestock field schools 

Services offered by Livestock Field schools 

Indicators and baseline values of information systems 

Percentage of households aware of new technology in Pemba 

Percentage of households aware of new technology in Unguja 

Services received by members of Livestock groups 

Type of livestock products 

v

Chapter 1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background 

The Agricultural Sector Development Programme – Livestock (ASDP-L) is a 15 

years programme to be implemented in two phases of eight and seven years 

respectively. The programme will be coordinated at the Ministry of Agriculture, 

Livestock and Environment with target beneficiaries being the livestock farmers, 

processors and traders. Total programme cost is US$ 6.5 million that will be 

financed by beneficiaries (0.9%), RGoZ (6.1%) and IFAD (93%). 

The goal of the Programme is poverty reduction, improved food security and 

increased incomes among communities with a high level of livelihood 

dependence on livestock. 

The programme’s objectives are: a) to improve the livelihoods of the poorest 

agro-pastoralists, b) to strengthen the capacity of livestock communities, both 

institutionally and technically; c) to enhance the delivery of livestock 

development services to smallholders; d) to improve marketing infrastructure 

and marketing systems for livestock products; and e) strengthen national and 

local government institutions to provide services to the livestock sub-sector. 

The ASDP-L Zanzibar Sub-Program has four main components namely: A) 

Empowerment; B) Technical Support to Livestock Development; C) Support to 

Policy Dialogue, Legal and Regulatory Frameworks and Institutions; and D) 

Programme Management. 

The programme shall cover all nine rural districts of Zanzibar targeting rural 

population with special emphasis to promote active participation of women 

whom are at present deprived of access to the economic means of production 

1

such as land, ownership of assets, education and purchase of inputs, including 

government support services. The total number of the beneficiaries of the ASDP- 

L is estimated at 22,511 households 

The programme shall cover all livestock farmers and fisher-folks who have a 

significant livestock element in their livelihoods, it uses specific targeting 

instruments and supports particular self-targeting activities to reach its primary 

beneficiaries, who are small livestock-dependent farmers, in particular the poor 

(falling below the basic needs poverty line), the most poor (falling below the 

food poverty line) and women. 

1.2 Study Objectives 

The purpose of this baseline study is to establish a comprehensive system for 

measuring changes of Programme intervention in target districts. The study will 

capture the baseline information and report on the socio-economic status of 

beneficiaries in the Programme area before project intervention. This survey will 

provide the milestones in which future performance of the ASDP-L will be 

measured. The description of the socio-economic status will inform and assist 

subsequent assessments of Programme impact. 

The Baseline Study Report is expected to provide information and data on the 

current status of agricultural resources governance, benefits to community as 

well as reporting on livelihood status of the target beneficiaries of ASDP-L. 

1.3 Scope of the Study 

The scope of the study is described in the Terms of Reference (ToR) given as 

Annex 1. The study included all nine districts of Zanzibar, 5 in Unguja and 4 in 

Pemba. It also involved the review of existing Government documents related to 

the agricultural/livestock sector including, the Agricultural Sector Policy, 

2

Agricultural Strategic Plan, MKUZA, and Food Security Policy. Based on the 

findings of the baseline report, the consultant was expected to firm-up the logical 

framework indicators at the goal, purpose and output levels. 

To capture the actual impacts of the programme at baseline and mid-term, 

participating Sheias and subsequent Sheias were expected to be assessed. The 

survey was also expected to recognize past and present interventions (both 

government and non-government) in the Programme area while laying the 

foundation for future assessment. 

More specifically the baseline study has generated both qualitative and 

quantitative information on the socio-economic situation for the target area with 

specificity on (but not limited to) the following areas: 

Quantitative 

• Household characteristics and description 

• Number of existing livestock groups and the total group beneficiaries 

per district 

• Number of existing livestock groups with bank account and deposits 

per district, and where possible an indication of the current balance 

• Incidences of food shortage and coping mechanisms 

• Incidences of economic stress and coping strategies 

• Household income sources and amounts and the role of ongoing 

Programme interventions 

• Household clusters by livelihood categories 

• Household expenditure patterns by livelihood categories 

• Resources/assets control and ownership 

3

Qualitative 

• Performance, capacities and leadership qualities of farmer/livestock 

groups with respect to access to, and use of, relevant agricultural 

knowledge and technologies responsive to their needs and improvement 

in farmer/livestock groups’ incomes. 

• Farmer/livestock groups capacity to assess service providers performance 

• Governance mechanism of farmer/livestock groups with respect to 

transparency, accountability and participation. 

• Policy environment and level of farmer/livestock group’s engagement on 

advocacy and implementation 

• Level of partnerships with agricultural service providers 

• Gender roles in production and ownership of productive livestock 

resources 

• Linkages between researchers, extension staff and farmer groups 

The Baseline Study Report will serve to inform on the current status of 

agricultural resources governance, benefits to the communities as well as 

reporting on the livelihood status of the target beneficiaries. 

1.4 Organization of the Report 

This report focuses primarily on the quantitative results, however it does provide 

qualitative results that reinforce, or help explain the derived statistics. The 

report is divided into four chapters as outlined below: 

• Chapter 1: Introduction, which gives a background on ASDP-Livestock 

programme and the baseline study 

• Chapter 2: Methodology, which outlines the study design and approach, 

coverage, data variables, data collection and data analysis. 

4

• Chapter 3: Findings, which shows for each study output, baselines values 

of identified indicators, the information needs and constraints identified. 

• Chapter 4: Conclusions and recommendations, which sums up the 

conclusions on major findings, recommendations regarding ASDP- 

Livestock implementation and indicators for impact assessment. 

1.5 Limitation of the Study 

The conduct of the survey presented several challenges. First, some District 

Commissioners and Sheias did not receive an advance notice on the study. This 

resulted into delays on starting the survey in some Districts and Sheia. The high 

level of coverage of mobile telephone network helped to minimize the problems 

and made it possible to accomplish the survey as planned. However, data 

collection in Pemba took more days than the planned six days. Second, 

recruitment of women enumerators was difficult. Despite this limitation, there 

was a strong gender balance to the study team. 

5

Chapter 2 

2.0 METHODOLOGY 

2.1 Study Approach 

The study mixed quantitative and qualitative methods and used the two to 

support each other. The aim was to develop livelihood profiles, promote insights 

into problems and opportunities, elicit linkages with institutions, and analyze 

perception issues on services that support the livestock industry in Zanzibar. 

2.2 Selection of Survey Sites 

The quantitative survey was carried out in ten sheias from each of the nine 

participating districts as per the term of reference. The sampling was purposive, 

as it could be in this type of study. The Districts which were covered include; 

Unguja 

• North A District 

• North B District 

• South District 

• Central District 

• West District 

Pemba 

• Wete District 

• Micheweni District 

• Chake 

• Mkoani 

List and code numbers of Sheia are attached as annex 8. 

6

2.3 Data Collection Methodologies 

The study methods included use of participatory methods for data collecting 

through interviews, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), observation through field 

visits and review of documents. A list of documents reviewed is in attachment 2. 

Attachment 3 shows details of each of the instruments used in the study. 

2.4 Data Variables 

Data was collected from a range of respondents, as follows: 

• District and extension staff provided data on identified farmer groups, 

agricultural plans, and agricultural advisory services, extension service 

delivery, technology transfer and adoption, information management and 

research. 

• Farmer groups provided information of group activities , membership 

group management and level of savings 

• Households provided information on household structure, household food 

security, livestock marketing, quality of extension services delivery, 

technology adoption, farming and, livestock activities, access to finance 

and extension services and information. 

Participants for household data collection were randomly selected with the help 

of the Sheia of the sheia. Each sheia people representing ten household were 

selected, however in some sheias one or two households were not available for 

the interview. In each district, as specified in the terms of reference, ten Sheias 

were selected. The total number of people interviewed was 910 including 35 

District Livestock and extension officers. 

7

2.5 Validation of Instruments 

The instruments were reviewed for content validity in various ways, namely: 

The research team constituted a panel of experts who reviewed the draft 

instruments developed by the team leader. The panel consisted of a veterinary 

expert, a microfinance expert, and a statistician. They reviewed the instruments 

for relevance to the study, making suggestions for content and structure of 

questions. The instruments were then adjusted accordingly. In order to ensure 

that all the verifiable indicators are covered by the survey, the logical framework 

was reviewed by comparing with the ToR with a view of identifying gaps that 

have to be covered in the survey. The logical framework for the project (year 1 

to 8) is given as Annex 2. 

The instruments, as part of the inception report were further reviewed by the 

client and adjusted before permission was granted to proceed with the field 

work. Approved instruments are presented in the following Annexes: 

Annex 3: 

Annex 4: 

Annex 5: 

Annex 6: 

Annex 7: 

Household Questionnaire 

Data Collection Sheet For Livestock Groups: Groups Profile 

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) Guide: 

Data Collection Sheet for Livestock Group 

(Members) 

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) Guide 

Data Collection Sheet for Livestock Group 

(In-Depth Interview Leaders) 

Interview Guide for District/Sheia Livestock or Agricultural 

Department Officials 

8

After the approval of the instruments by the client, they were then translated 

from English to Kiswahili. This was found necessary in order to get common 

understanding of the questionnaire by enumerators since data collection exercise 

was to be done in Kiswahili. 

The instruments were further reviewed for content validity, language and ease of 

administration during the training of enumerators/data collectors. The training 

lasted for two days, first day was classroom type training and the second day 

was field data (pre-testing) collection in North “A” District Unguja and Micheweni 

District in Pemba. 

Data was collected during 17-29 October 2008 in Unguja, and 23-29 October 

2008, in Pemba. A letter introducing the Consultant to the District officials was 

obtained from ASDP-Livestock Coordination Office Zanzibar and Pemba sub 

office. 

The study team collected data from the various sources described in 2.4 above 

and at the end of each day, the supervisors and team leader reviewed the data 

and cleaned it up as necessary. 

2.6 Data entry and processing 

Supervisors and the team leader rigorously checked data collected by 

enumerators. Data was ready for entering in the computer only after it had been 

verified by supervisors. A data mask of questionnaire on Entry Data Builder of 

SPSS was developed by CEMIDE’s experts in order to systemize data processing. 

9

2.7 Data Analysis 

Data from this study was analyzed using statistical package for Social Scientists 

(SPSS). The following data were used in this analysis 

• 875 completed questionnaires from households interviewed 

• Completed questionnaires from the DALDOs 

• Oral interview with Agricultural Extension Staff 

10

Chapter 3 

3.0 Study Findings 

3.1 Livelihood Status 

3.1.1 Demographic Characteristics 

The nine districts hold 775,883 people, according to the 2002 census. Among the 

nine districts, the highest number of people is recorded in West District in Unguja 

Island and Wete District in Pemba (table 1). 

Table 1: Population by District 

District Male Females Total 

North A 40,580 43,567 84,147 

North B 26,302 26,190 52,492 

Central 30,200 32,191 62,391 

South 15,476 16,377 31,853 

West 91,118 93,086 184,204 

Chake 40,223 42,775 82,998 

Mkoani 45,191 47,282 92,472 

Micheweni 40,733 42,533 83,266 

Wete 49,784 52,276 102,060 

379,607 396,277 775,883 

Source: United Republic of Tanzania, 2002 Population and Housing Census 

The quantitative data includes data on 875 households in the nine districts. Of 

the total sample, 86% of households are headed by a man while 14% are 

headed by a woman. 

Table 2: Sex of Head of Household by District 

District/Sex Male (%) Female (%) 

North A 84 16 

North B 96 4 

Central 85 15 

South 85 15 

West 78 22 

Wete 90 10 

Micheweni 86 14 

Chake 90 10 

Mkoani 78 22 

11

West District has the highest incidence of female headed households (22%) 

while the least incidence of female headed households is in North B District. 

(4%). This large variation by district has implications for dealing with gender 

issues when designing and implementing interventions. 

The average household size in the survey is 6 individuals. Household size varies 

slightly by district. The smallest households are female headed, which is 3 

members in North A. There is no significant difference in size among male 

headed households with an average of between 7 and 6 persons. 

Table 3: Average Household Size-male and female headed 

District Male headed Female headed 

North A 7 7 

North B 7 3 

Central 6 6 

South 6 5 

West 7 5 

Wete 7 6 

Micheweni 7 4 

Chake 7 4 

Mkoani 6 6 

The survey results show that 65.5% of households live under monogamous type 

of marriages in Unguja while in Pemba it is 64.9%. 

12

Figure 1: Type of Marriage in Unguja 

35% 

65% 

Monogamous Marriage 

Polygamous Marriage 

Figure 2: Type of Marriage in Unguja 

35% 

65% 

Monogamous Marriage 

Polygamous Marriage 

3.1.2 Literacy Level 

In terms of education, in Unguja 10% had not had any formal schooling, while 

in Pemba those with no schooling were 5.6% of the sample. However, education 

levels of heads of households also varied by district with the highest level of no 

schooling recorded in Mkoani District which is 18%. 

13

T able 4: Perce nt of Litera cy by Dis 

trict 

Highest level 

education 

reached 

North A 

North B 

Centr 

al South West Wete Micheweni Chake 

Mkoani 

Not attended 

formal 16 6 10 8 10 1 8 1 18 

school 

Std I 5 4 28 1 4 1 2 0 14 

Std II 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 29 

Std III 2 0 1 3 1 2 5 1 33 

Std IV 7 2 1 3 1 2 3 1 20 

Std V 3 4 0 1 2 2 4 1 22 

Std VI 7 4 3 5 2 16 4 3 12 

Std VII 14 14 13 27 12 13 16 23 8 

Std VIII 3 6 5 4 8 2 3 5 6 

Std IX 10 8 9 3 11 8 11 20 6 

Form I 19 16 19 18 34 14 6 5 13 

Form II 5 14 3 9 8 9 8 6 16 

Form III 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 40 

Form IV 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 33 

Form VI 0 2 1 5 1 7 0 0 0 

University & 

other tertiary 

education 

Adult 

education 

2 0 0 3 1 7 3 0 13 

7 20 5 8 3 12 20 32 12 

3.1.3 HIV/AIDs 

Table 5 reveals the frequency and percentage of sample households which are 

affected by HIV/AIDS. The results suggest that in Unguja 2.2% of the 

households are affected by HIV/AIDs while in Pemba only 0.8% is affected. The 

affected households had either a patient or orphans whose parents died from 

HIV/AIDs related complications. 

14

Table 5: HIV/AIDS Affected Households 

District Location Percent 

North A Unguja 3.0 

North B Unguja 0 

Central Unguja 1.0 

South Unguja 1.0 

West Unguja 7.3 

Wete Pemba 3.0 

Micheweni Pemba 0.0 

Chake Pemba 0.0 

Mkoani Pemba 0.0 

3.1.4 Housing 

Households in Unguja which participated in the survey dwell primarily in houses 

roofed with GI s heets(74.2 %), thatch (25.4) and clay titles (0.4%). A slightly 

similar situation was found in Pemba where 

houses were roofed with GI sheets 

(69.8%) and thatch (30.2%). 

Table 6: Roof Type by District 

District 

Corrugated 

Thatched iron sheet Clay tiles 

North A 40 60 0 

North B 34 66 0 

Central 26 74 0 

South 19 79 2 

West 11 89 0 

Wete 37 63 0 

Micheweni 43 57 0 

Chake 19 81 0 

Mkoani 21 79 0 

28 72 0 

Overwhelmingly, these dwellings are constructed of cement block or mud. In 

Unguja, houses constructed of cement blocks represent 51.9% while in Pemba it 

is only 17.3%. Majority of the houses in Pemba are constructed of mud ( 62.4). 

15

Table 7: Construction Material-main house by district 

Mud Wood & mud 

Cement 

blocks Others 

North A 32.0 0.0 61.3 6.7 

North B 30.00 0.00 60.00 10.00 

Central 21.21 1.01 48.48 29.29 

South 15.15 0.00 12.12 72.73 

West 11.11 0.00 79.80 9.09 

Wete 82.00 1.00 12.00 5.00 

Micheweni 50.51 0.00 22.22 27.27 

Chake 73.00 0.00 27.00 0.00 

Mkoani 44.00 0.00 8.00 48.00 

Similarly, there were substantial differences in roof type and construction 

materials for livestock shelter between Unguja and Pemba. 

Majority of the 

livestock shelters were constructed by mud (Unguja 51.9%, Pemba 61.2%). 

Other materials used for construction of livestock shelter are shown in table 6. 

Table 8: Construction Material-Livestock shelter 

Construction material-animal shelter 

District Mud Wood & mud Cement blocks Others 

North A 63.64 0.00 6.82 29.55 

North B 94.55 0.00 3.64 1.82 

Central 62.50 5.00 25.00 7.50 

South 14.29 0.00 4.76 80.95 

West 22.41 1.72 34.48 41.38 

Wete 51.61 12.90 3.23 32.26 

Micheweni 73.33 6.67 6.67 13.33 

Chake 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Mkoani 17.65 5.88 0.00 76.47 

Table 9: Roofing-animal shelter by district 

16

Thatched 

Corrugated iron 

sheet 

others 

District 93.18 6.82 0.00 

North A 98.18 1.82 0.00 

North B 72.50 25.00 2.50 

Central 65.85 29.27 4.88 

South 56.90 43.10 0.00 

West 67.74 32.26 0.00 

Wete 93.33 6.67 0.00 

Micheweni 95.45 4.55 0.00 

Chake 82.35 17.65 0.00 

Mkoani 78.64 20.43 0.93 

3.1.5 Ownership of Productive and Domestic assets 

The ownership of productive and domestic assets was part of data collected 

during the survey. Table 9 below shows that the most common productive asset 

owned by the household is a hand-hoe. Other productive agricultural tools such 

as ploughs, sprayers, motorized water pumps, mechanical water pumps, and 

motorized grain mills, are rarely found. 

The table on assets shows just how vulnerable the households are, and how 

depleted their assets base is. Normally a household asset acts as buffer against 

unexpected shocks. If cash is required by the household, then an asset might be 

sold and later re-purchased. This is a coping mechanism among the rural poor. 

17

Table 10: Ownership of Productive Assets by Households 

Geographic Area 

Unguja 

Pemba 

Productive assets 1 2 3 4 5+ 2 3 4 5+ 

Axe 28.4 12.2 3.4 0.0 3.2 45.1 15.9 1.1 2.8 4.3 

Dhow 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Motorized boat 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.9 0.0 2.8 0.0 

Hoe 15.8 54.7 84.3 82.8 74.2 16.1 75.0 90.9 80.6 78.3 

Spade/shovel 21.9 20.0 6.7 0.0 3.2 13.5 4.1 4.5 2.8 4.3 

Rack 9.5 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 

Hand sow 5.3 2.4 0.0 6.9 6.5 4.4 2.3 0.0 2.8 4.3 

Traditional beehive 0.3 0.0 0.0 6.9 12.9 0.5 0.5 1.1 5.6 8.7 

Modern beehive 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Knapsack chemical 

sprayer 2.2 0.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Motorized water 

pump 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Mechanical water 

pump 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Motorized grain meal 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Cart (animal pooled) 10.4 2.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Other 4.3 4.9 3.4 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.5 1.1 2.8 0.0 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

The proportion of households owning five or more assets was limited to essential 

domestic items such as beds whereby 80.5% of the households surveyed owned 

more than one bed. 

Table 11: Ownership of Domestic Assets 

Domestic 

Assets 1 2 3 4 5+ 1 2 3 4 5+ 

Bed 1.9 12.8 45.2 73.1 80.5 0.6 8.4 35.6 71.5 87.4 

Chair/bench 5.8 8.8 13.0 7.5 11.4 4.6 13.1 20.9 20.6 9.8 

Table 12.8 14.3 10.3 5.6 1.3 13.5 14.5 11.5 1.8 0.0 

Cupboard 10.0 10.3 5.0 3.1 1.3 8.8 5.5 1.0 1.2 0.5 

Radio 17.3 12.0 5.7 3.1 2.0 20.4 11.7 4.7 0.6 0.5 

Cassette/CD 

player 2.5 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 

Clock/watch 8.0 5.5 3.1 3.1 0.7 8.8 10.4 5.8 0.6 0.0 

Charcoal stove 4.1 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Kerosene stove 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Electric cooker 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

18

Thermos flack 13.5 19.6 8.0 2.5 1.3 14.8 24.3 15.2 2.4 0.5 

Kettle/tea pot 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

TV 4.1 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 

Bicycle 14.5 12.3 7.3 1.9 1.3 16.6 9.2 4.2 1.2 0.5 

Scoter/motor 

cycle 1.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Car 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Other 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

3.1.6 Landholding and Use 

Nearly all households have access to a least some cultivated land. For those 

households with land in Unguja, 57.6 % hold land of one acre or less and less 

than one percent of the households surveyed hold more than five acres. A similar 

pattern was found in Pemba where 59.2% hold land of one or acre or less and 

less than one percent hold land of more than five acres. 

The households normally own the agricultural land they cultivate. Cultivable land 

is rarely mortgaged or rented to another household. Households without land 

holding or with insufficient land normally are granted free access to land. The 

survey established that during the farm season 2006/7, land used by households 

varied in size (table 12) among the nine districts covered in the study. 

Table 12: Land used by the household in Acres in 2006/07 by District 

Land used by Household in 2006/07 

District/percent < 1 

1.00- 

1.99' 

2.00- 

2.99 

3.00- 

3.99 

4.00- 

4.99 5.00+ Total 

North A 30 19 20 13 7 11 100 

North B 8 16 29 12 15 19 100 

Central 2 26 22 22 11 16 100 

South 46 18 11 8 5 11 100 

West 28 27 29 9 3 3 100 

Wete 2 29 34 12 12 11 100 

Micheweni 1 15 28 27 11 17 100 

Chake 2 11 31 33 11 12 100 

Mkoani 0 24 31 24 9 11 100 

Total 13 21 26 18 10 13 100 

19

Land for agricultural purpose was found to be insufficient. There is some 

variation for land insufficiency among the nine districts. Seventy nine percent of 

the households in North B district considered that land was not sufficient while in 

Chake, 98% considered land to be sufficient. 

Table 13: land Sufficiency by District 

Do you consider you have sufficient land for the 

Household 

District Sufficient Not sufficient Total 

North A 29 71 100 

North B 21 79 100 

Central 39 61 100 

South 71 29 100 

West 33 67 100 

Wete 58 42 100 


Chake Chake 98 2 100 

Mkoani 23 77 100 

Across the survey sample, land was mainly used for crop farming. Other uses of 

the land are as shown in table 14. Most of the land in Zanzibar us fully used by 

all standards. In Unguja, only .1% of the cultivable land remains uncultivated 

while in Pemba it is .5% of similar land. 

Table 14: Land use for Agriculture 

Geographic 

Area 

Land use for Agriculture 

Percent 

Unguja Area under permanent mono crops 10.4 

Area under annual/periodic crops 40.7 

Areas under permanent/temporary 23.3 

Areas under permanent mixed crops 10.2 

Areas under temporary/mixed 11.9 

Areas under pasture 1.7 

Area under fallow .7 

Area under natural trees .1 

Areas under planted trees .6 

Areas rented to others .1 

Area of uncultivated useable land .1 

20

Pemba Area under permanent mono crops 14.2 

Area under annual/periodic crops 36.9 

Areas under permanent/temporary 16.4 

Areas under permanent mixed crops 4.3 

Areas under temporary/mixed farming 23.8 

Areas under pasture .5 

Area under fallow 2.6 

Area under natural trees .1 

Areas under planted trees .5 

Areas rented to others .1 

Areas unusable (e.g. swamp) .1 

Area of uncultivated useable land .5 

The study looked into land use planning particularly in relation to major uses of 

land, and key land issues. The survey identified and ranked major uses of land 

as follows: 

In terms of key land issues, the following were identified and are relevant in 

Unguja and Pemba: 

• Existence of conflict between farmers and livestock keepers 

• Agricultural land is reducing year after year due to increased demand for 

residential areas. 

• Existence of conflicts on land among family members 

• Fertility of land is declining 

• Major development of beach land creates conflict between property 

owners and farming communities. 

21

3.1.7 Sources of Livelihood 

The data gathered shows that the farming system found in Unguja and Pemba is 

traditional rain feed agriculture combined with livestock rearing. Within this 

farming system, however, different livelihood systems can be identified. In 

Unguja, mixed farming, (a combination of crops and livestock, with crops being 

more important) and agro-livestock keeping (a combination of livestock and crop 

activities, with dominance from livestock were identified as the most important 

livelihood activities. A similar situation was found in Pemba, see table 15. 

Table 15: Type of Livelihood 

Location Type of livelihood Value in 

% 

Unguja Mixed farming (livestock, crops) 26% 

Agro-livestock keeping 25% 

Permanent crop farming 11.8% 

Income generating (micro enterprises) 10.2% 

Fishing 6.6% 

Dairy cows keeping 5.4% 

Remittances from relatives 5.2% 

Seaweed farming 4.9% 

Tree/forest resources 4.6% 

Pemba Mixed farming (livestock, crops) 34.7% 

Livestock keeping 31.7% 

Income generating (micro enterprises) 11.3% 

Remittances from relatives 11.1% 

Permanent crop farming 5.7 

Fishing 3.7% 

Seaweed farming 1% 

Tree/forest resources .4% 

Dairy cows keeping .3% 

3.1.8 Incidences of Food Shortage and Coping Mechanisms 

Of those households that participated in the survey, 65.8% and 53.7% in Unguja 

and Pemba respectively, do not produce enough food and suffer food deficits 

22

during some months. Of those households that have insufficient production of 

own food, most off them have food deficit of between three-nine months (table 

16). 

Table 16: Level of Food Sufficiency from Household Production 

Months/ District 

North 

A 

North 

B Central South West Wete Micheweni Chake Mkoani 

Enough 61 84 66 81 64 86 67 42 73 

Not enough 39 16 34 19 36 14 33 58 27 

October Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Enough 38 60 54 60 60 68 56 24 71 

Not enough 62 40 46 40 40 32 44 76 29 

November Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Enough 22 36 29 42 43 59 39 3 64 

Not enough 78 64 71 58 57 41 61 97 36 

December Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Enough 20 15 21 33 36 49 37 22 52 

Not enough 80 85 79 67 64 51 63 78 48 

January Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Enough 14 13 12 29 40 43 34 19 51 

Not enough 86 87 88 71 60 57 66 81 49 

February Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Enough 11 13 11 33 46 42 31 8 41 

Not enough 89 87 89 67 54 58 69 92 59 

March Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Enough 11 19 12 34 52 42 36 8 48 

Not enough 89 81 88 66 48 58 64 92 52 

April Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Enough 11 31 18 33 53 47 37 21 35 

Not enough 89 69 82 67 47 53 63 79 65 

May Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Enough 30 56 49 41 57 64 56 44 53 

Not enough 70 44 51 59 43 36 44 56 47 

June Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Enough 55 78 74 56 87 83 69 55 78 

Not enough 45 22 26 44 13 17 31 45 22 

July Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Enough 72 94 89 75 84 86 86 88 86 

Not enough 28 6 11 25 16 14 14 12 14 

August Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

September Enough 77 96 84 84 81 91 87 71 91 

Not enough 23 4 16 16 19 9 13 29 9 

23

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Enough 35 49 43 50 58 63 53 34 62 

Not enough 65 51 57 50 42 37 47 66 38 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Interestingly, table 16 shows that no household is able to meet 100% of its food needs 

in any particularly month. The qualitative data gathered indicate that most households 

consider rice to be the staple food. Table 17 shows the primary and secondary sources 

of food consumed over a period of twelve months. 

Table 17: Main sources of Food for the Household in the last 12 years 

Month 

October 

November 

December 

Classification 

of source 

Source 

District 

North 

A 

North 

B Central South West Wete 

Mich 

ewen 

Chake 

Chake 

Own production 82 99 98 76 34 85 65 43 76 

Purchased 18 0 2 23 66 15 34 57 24 

Relief 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 

Primary Other 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Own production 27 0 36 63 15 32 57 20 

Purchased 70 100 98 64 34 85 65 41 80 

Gifts 

from 

family/neighbours 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 

Relief 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 

Secondary Other 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 


Purchased 30 0 4 29 66 30 44 72 28 

Relief 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 

Primary Other 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 


Purchased 77 100 98 68 33 69 55 27 77 

Gifts 

from 


Relief 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 


source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 


Purchased 41 0 6 38 83 39 61 97 36 

Relief 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 

Primary Other 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Secondary Own production 17 0 0 28 78 40 54 97 29 

Mkoani 

24

January 

February 

March 

April 

source 

Purchased 81 100 99 72 18 60 42 3 71 

Gifts 

from 


Relief 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 

Other 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 


Purchased 46 0 8 46 89 48 63 78 46 

Relief 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 0 0 

Primary Other 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 


Purchased 80 99 99 76 12 50 39 22 65 

Gifts 

from 


Relief 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 


source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 


Purchased 54 0 20 48 90 51 63 80 49 

Relief 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 0 

Primary Other 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 


Purchased 77 99 93 76 11 47 38 19 65 

Gifts 

from 


Relief 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 


source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 


Purchased 62 0 6 44 81 54 69 91 58 

Gifts 

from 


Relief 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 

Primary Other 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 


Purchased 80 99 92 75 21 46 34 7 56 

Gifts 

from 


Relief 2 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 


source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Primary 

source 


Purchased 53 0 12 41 74 58 66 91 46 

Relief 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 

Other 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

25

May 

June 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 


Purchased 82 99 93 79 26 42 37 7 66 

Gifts 

from 


Relief 3 0 3 0 2 0 0 2 0 


source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 


Purchased 47 0 9 43 73 53 60 78 58 

Gifts 

from 


Relief 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 3 0 

Primary Other 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 


Purchased 84 99 95 78 27 47 40 19 55 

Gifts 

from 


Relief 3 0 3 0 2 0 1 1 0 


source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 


Purchased 18 0 4 33 66 37 44 53 44 

Relief 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 

Primary Other 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 


Purchased 87 98 94 82 35 63 56 46 62 

Gifts 

from 


Relief 0 0 4 0 2 0 2 1 0 


source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 


Purchased 0 0 1 25 49 16 29 44 24 

Relief 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 

July 

Primary Other 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 


Purchased 93 100 87 79 49 84 71 56 78 

Gifts 

from 


Relief 2 0 3 0 1 0 3 1 0 


source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

August Primary Own production 100 99 100 83 51 88 90 89 86 

26

September 

Total 

source 

Purchased 0 0 0 17 49 12 10 9 13 

Gifts 

from 


Relief 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 

Other 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 


Purchased 94 100 76 79 49 88 86 87 87 

Gifts 

from 


Relief 3 0 6 0 0 0 2 0 0 


source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 


Purchased 0 0 1 18 55 9 7 25 8 

Gifts 

from 


Relief 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 

Primary Other 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 


Purchased 97 100 81 69 45 91 90 73 92 

Gifts 

from 


Relief 0 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 0 


source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 


Purchased 23 0 3 32 70 35 46 65 36 

Gifts 

from 


Relief 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 

Primary Other 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 


Purchased 83 99 94 75 30 64 54 34 71 

Gifts 

from 


Relief 1 0 3 0 1 0 2 1 0 


source Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Tables 16 and 17 show that food sufficiency varies by district and month. Qualitative 

and quantitative analysis show that the majority of the households have small land 

holdings. 

27

The survey found various strategies that households employ in the wake of food 

deficit. These include 

• Sell productive assets 

• Eat food that normally the household does not eat 

• Borrow cash or grain 

• Eat fewer meals 

• Skip meals 

Table 18: Coping Strategies 

District 

Sold 

productive 

asset 

Not 

True true 

Ate food we 

normally do 

not eat 

Not 

True true 

Borrowed 

cash or grain 

Not 

True true 

Ate 

meals 

True 

fewer 

Not 

true 

Skipping 

meals 

Not 

True true 

Others 

North A 7.89 92.11 50.00 50.00 13.16 86.84 68.42 31.58 76.32 23.68 0.00 100.00 

North B 6.67 93.33 3.33 96.67 3.33 96.67 3.33 96.67 96.67 3.33 0.00 100.00 

Central 8.70 91.30 69.57 30.43 21.74 78.26 78.26 21.74 73.91 26.09 0.00 100.00 

South 3.17 96.83 31.75 68.25 26.98 73.02 46.03 53.97 69.84 30.16 0.00 100.00 

West 8.16 91.84 4.08 95.92 4.08 95.92 24.49 75.51 70.00 30.00 2.04 97.96 

Wete 13.33 86.67 30.67 69.33 10.67 89.33 37.33 62.67 41.33 58.67 21.33 78.67 

Micheweni 37.50 62.50 10.00 90.00 25.00 75.00 62.79 37.21 55.56 44.44 11.63 88.37 

Chake 73.91 26.09 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 4.35 95.65 13.04 86.96 0.00 100.00 

Mkoani 31.15 68.85 9.84 90.16 24.59 75.41 52.46 47.54 52.46 47.54 0.00 100.00 

Total 18.41 81.59 22.64 77.36 15.67 84.33 42.96 57.04 60.05 39.95 5.43 94.57 

The most common strategies include skipping meals followed by eating few 

meals and eating food which normally members of the household do not eat. 

True 

Not 

true 

3.1.9 Household Income 

The survey collected data on the sources of the household’s income and level of 

income from each source. Income levels have been put into groups with the 

minimum from each source being Tshs 130,000 or US$ 100. The results indicate 

that crop farming, livestock and fishing are the main sources of income. Other 

sources of income include paid employment (household’s members employed by 

public and private sector and income generating activities). Income from crop 

28

farming was found to be high in Pemba with 44.5% of the household earning 

above Tshs 520,000 or US$ 400 from fishing. Earnings from livestock were better 

distributed among the income groups in Pemba compared with Unguja. 

Information from qualitative data established that the high income from crop 

farming in Pemba came mainly from cloves. 

The data also identified PADEP, TASAF, ASSP and MANCEP programmes as the 

main source of increased production in livestock and agriculture. The 

programmes have increased access to extension by farmers, funding for group 

activities and availability of new breeds of goats, chicken and cattle. 

Table 19: Income from Crop Farming 

Income range Pemba Unguja 

Up to Tshs 130,000 7.8% 30.3% 

Tshs 100,001 – Tshs 260,000 12.7% 28.5% 

Tshs 200,001- Tshs 390,000 14.7% 15.5% 

Tshs 390,0001- Tshs 520,000 20.3% 14.1 % 

Above 520,000 44.5% 11.6 % 

Table 20: Income from Livestock 


Up to Tshs 130,000 23.7% 42.9% 

Tshs 100,001 – Tshs 260,000 19.5% 22.8% 

Tshs 200,001- Tshs 390,000 13.3% 11.2% 

Tshs 390,0001- Tshs 520,000 10.4% 7.9% 

Above 520,000 33.9% 15.2% 

Table 21: Income from Fishing 


Up to Tshs 130,000 10.9% 29.8% 

Tshs 100,001 – Tshs 260,000 15.1% 14.1% 

Tshs 200,001- Tshs 390,000 8.7% 10.3% 

Tshs 390,0001- Tshs 520,000 15.2 % 15.8% 

Above 520,000 50.1% 29.6% 

29

3.1. 10 Incidences of economic stress and coping mechanism 

Shocks define, in part, how households experience economic stress to their 

particular circumstances. The top four shocks and incidences which result into 

economic stress identified by households during FGD sessions were: 

• Major illness in the family 

• Poor agricultural production 

• Month of Ramadan (fasting expenses) 

• Meeting education expenses 

• Food shortage 

The qualitative analysis found that in an event of major illness of a member of 

the household, both financial and human resources are diverted to address the 

shock. Major illnesses are treated at Mnazi Mmoja Hospital or Muhimbili in Dar es 

Salaam (Mainland Tanzania). Poor agricultural food production makes majority of 

the households depend on purchased food particularly rice. 

The initial coping strategies that households employ in the wake of these shocks 

were primarily in the form of financial assistance from relatives and loans from 

SACCOS and MFIs. 

3.1.11 Access to Finance 

Households in Zanzibar borrow money during difficult times in order to meet 

basic needs or invest in productive endeavours. The households also do save in 

various forms for the purpose of meeting future financial needs. People borrow 

either as individuals or through groups. During the past two years, majority 

(80.8%) of households surveyed in Unguja did not borrow from any source. 

Those who borrowered money as group or individuals accounted for 14.9% and 

3.6% percent respectively. In Pemba, 93% did not borrow money from any 

30

sources. The main sources of loans includes relatives and friends, money 

lenders, SACCOS, MFIs, government projects and banks. 

Table 22: Sources of Credit in Unguja and Pemba 

Geographical area Credit Provider Loan source (%) 

Unguja Relatives and friends 34.1 

SACCOS & ROSCAs 27.3 

MFIs 19.3 

Money lenders 4.5 

Banks 9.1 

Government Project 1.1% 

Others 5.5 

Pemba Relatives and friends 31.1 

ROSCAS 3.4 

SACCOS 31.0 

Government Projects 10.3 

Banks 13.8 

Others 6.9 

Some households borrow money to pay for school fees or meet hospital 

bills/expenses or other consumption needs. Other households borrow money to 

buy farm inputs, start or expand an income generating activity or to meet 

expenses related to Ramadan, festivals and wedding. 

Table 23: Main source of Credit by District 

Source of Credit 

District 

North A North Central South West Wete Miche Chake Mkoani Avera 

B 

weni 

ge 

None 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 1 

Relatives 67 12 0 50 43 33 17 50 29 33 

ROSCA/Upatu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 1 

SACCOS 0 32 46 32 14 42 33 0 29 28 

MFI 27 44 0 4 14 0 0 0 0 15 

Money lender 0 4 8 4 14 0 0 0 0 3 

Government 0 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 29 3 

project 

Bank 0 8 31 7 0 8 50 0 0 10 

Others 7 0 8 4 14 0 0 25 14 5 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

The most common uses of loans include: to meet consumption needs, pay school 

fees and finance income generating activities. 

31

With regard to loan repayment, 83% of the households who borrowered money 

had repaid their loans. The highest level of loan repayment was reported in West 

District (table 24). 

Table 24: Loan Repayment 

Did you repay your loan 

District Repaid Not repaid Total 

North A 80 20 100 

North B 92 8 100 

Central 85 15 100 

South 82 18 100 

West 100 0 100 

Wete 73 27 100 


Chake 67 33 100 

Mkoani 57 43 100 

Total 83 17 100 

The survey also looked into the reasons for default by some households. Table 

25 provides some reasons for loan defaults or failure to meet loan obligations. 

Table 25: Reason for Default of Loan Repaid by District 

Reasons for loan defaulting given by households 

Illness or 

District Crop loss 

Loss of 

animal/livest 

ock 

Price fall 

death of 

member of 

hhold Other Total 

North A 73 13 7 0 7 100 

North B 84 8 4 0 4 100 

Central 69 23 0 8 0 100 

South 79 4 0 0 18 100 

West 71 29 0 0 0 100 

Wete 55 27 0 0 18 100 

Micheweni 40 20 0 0 40 100 

Chake 67 0 0 0 33 100 

Mkoani 0 29 0 57 14 100 

Total 68 14 2 4 11 100 

32

3.2 Livestock 

3.2 .1 Type of livestock owned and sold 

All surveyed households own some livestock. However, only percent own 

improved stock. Table 27 describes the number and type of livestock owned and 

sold in the previous year. The most common livestock owned is indigenous 

chicken. Districts which had the highest percentage of indigenous chicken include 

Mkoani (74.8%), Micheweni (70%), North A (60.6%) and Chake (59.9%). 

Raising indigenous goats is more common in North A (16.5%), South (10.9%) 

and Chake (9.6%). Improved breeds of cattle are more common in West District 

(4.4%) than any other district 

With regard to type of livestock sold during the last year, indigenous chicken 

ranked number one (table 27) in all the districts covered in the survey. The 

second in percentage was chicken (layers) and third was ducks. 

33

Table 26: Type of Livestock Owned Today 

Type of livestock 

North 

A 

North 


% % % % % % % % % 

Indigenous Cattle 11.0 18.4 23.1 15.3 9.4 18.5 20.6 16.0 10.7 

Improved breeds of 

milk cattle 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 4.4 2.4 0.9 0.9 0.7 

Indigenous Goats 16.5 3.7 5.5 10.9 4.9 1.6 5.3 9.6 4.0 


goats - 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 2.0 - - 0.6 

Sheep - - - - - - - - 0.2 

Donkeys - - - 0.8 0.1 - - - - 

Indigenous chicken 60.6 54.4 52.6 48.9 40.3 52.9 70.0 59.9 74.8 

Chicken (broilers) 1.9 - 1.5 7.4 7.5 . 1.0 1.1 . 

Ducks 5.1 4.6 3.9 0 10.1 1.5 1.7 1.3 5.5 

Turkey - 0.9 0.3 - 0.1 - - .- 0.2 

Horses - - - - 0.1 - - - - 

Rabbits . . . . 0.1 . . . 2.4 

Chicken (Layers) 4.5 16.3 10.2 . 21.8 21.2 . 11.2 . 

Beehives 0.0 . . 8.0 . . . 0.0 0.2 

Others 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.7 

Table 27: Type of livestock Sold During the Past Twelve Months 

Type of livestock 

North 

A 

North 


% % % % % % % % % 

Indigenous Cattle 5 9 16 12 3 6 8 9 7 


milk cattle 

. 0 3 1 1 . 1 . 1 

Indigenous Goats 5 2 4 14 2 1 5 6 2 


goats 

. . . . 0 1 . . 0 

Sheep . . . . . . . . 0 

Donkeys . . . 4 0 . . . . 

Indigenous chicken 54 43 56 47 41 43 75 82 77 

Chicken (broilers) 13 . 19 11 8 . 4 3 . 

Ducks 4 13 2 6 22 1 8 0 9 

Turkey . . . . . . . . . 

Horses . . . . 0 . . . . 

Rabbits . . . . . . . . 6 

Chicken (Layers) 19 32 . . 22 48 . . . 

Beehives 0 . . 6 . . . 0 . 

Others 0 . . 0 0 0 . 0 . 

34

3.2.2 Type of Livestock Keeping 

The survey collected data on how livestock are current kept. The results indicate 

that there are two types of grazing found in both Unguja and Pemba. The types 

include zero grazing whereby animals are kept and fed in a shed or livestock 

shelter, and open grazing. The results indicate that in all the districts covered in 

the survey, open grazing is the most common with the highest percent (98%) 

found in Wete. Zero grazing was commonly found in Wete and West districts. 

This type of grazing is mainly common for dairy cattle and improved breeds of 

chicken. 

Table : 28 Type of Livestock Keeping by District 

Type of livestock keeping 

District Zero grazing Open Grazing Total 

North A 10 90 100 

North B 4 96 100 

Central 5 95 100 

South 6 94 100 

West 24 76 100 

Wete 27 73 100 


Chake 2 98 100 

Mkoani 14 86 100 

Total 13 87 100 

3.2.3 Grazing land 

Majority of livestock keepers graze their animals on communal land with little 

variation among the nine districts covered by this survey (table 29). West 

District had the highest percent (22%) of livestock keepers who graze in their 

own land. In Central District, 41% of the respondents graze on neignbours land. 

The survey also collected data on the distance between grazing land and 

homestead. Patterns of variations between districts exist (table 30). Livestock 

keepers who graze their animals within 100 meters from the homestead were 

recorded high in Chake (90%), North A (68%), Micheweni (55%) and Wete 

35

(50%). West District had the highest percent of livestock keepers who had the 

longest distance between homestead and grazing land. 

Findings from qualitative data (obtained through Focus Group Discussions) and 

interviews with extension staff indicate that there is a growing number of 

problems related to grazing land. Participants in the FGDs reported that there are 

conflicts between farmers and livestock keepers which result from lack of grazing 

land. 

Table 29 : Where Livestock Grazed by District 

Where do you graze your livestock 

District Own land 

Communal 

land 

Neighbour 

land Others Total 

North A 14 59 21 6 100 

North B 11 52 5 32 100 

Central 8 45 41 5 100 

South 8 86 5 2 100 

West 22 62 12 4 100 

Wete 12 87 1 0 100 

Micheweni 8 76 16 0 100 

Chake 1 99 0 0 100 

Mkoani 2 58 40 0 100 

Total 9 69 16 5 100 

Table 30: Distance Between Grazing Land and Veterinary Service/office 

District Below 100 Meter Meter 

5-10 

More 

than 10 

meters 100-500 501-1 km 1-2 kms 2-5 kms kms kms 

North A 17 64 8 11 0 0 0 

North B 68 10 2 20 0 0 0 

Central 14 62 22 2 0 0 0 

South 26 67 5 0 2 0 0 

West 28 12 38 5 12 2 3 

Wete 50 29 18 2 0 0 1 

Micheweni 55 13 18 10 2 0 2 

Chake 90 2 4 0 1 0 3 

Mkoani 19 6 32 42 1 0 0 

Total 45 23 18 11 2 0 1 

36

3.2.4 Grazing Land versus Veterinary Clinic 

Veterinary clinics are very important for the health of livestock and their location 

plays an important role in determining the level of access to such services. The 

results of the survey indicate that North B District has the shortest distance 

between grazing land and location of veterinary clinic (between 100-500 meters). 

Table 31 shows the distances between grazing land and veterinary clinics by 

district. 

Table 31: Distance of Grazing Land from Veterinary Clinic by District 

District 

Below 100 Meters Meter 

More than 

meters 100-500 501-1 km 1-2 kms 2-5 kms 5-10 kms 10 kms 

North A 0 3 11 44 11 8 22 

North B 0 45 5 5 2 24 19 

Central 0 0 16 50 4 28 2 

South 0 2 14 5 2 12 65 

West 0 0 2 2 18 2 77 

Wete 1 3 0 0 40 0 56 

Micheweni 1 0 20 5 14 0 60 

Chake 17 0 48 2 10 10 13 

Mkoani 0 0 5 0 0 0 95 

Total 3 4 15 8 13 7 50 

3.3 Institutional, Regulatory and Policy Issues 

3.3.1 Extension Services 

The study identified several indicators for use in monitoring and evaluation of 

extension services output. Information was collected from households as well as 

extension staff and District Livestock Officers. Table 32 below lists these 

indicators and shows their baseline values as established through this study. 

(a) Extension services received and its sources 

The results of the survey indicate that extension staff are available in each 

district and livestock keepers have access to them. The charts below indicate 

37

that in Pemba 71% had received advice from extension staff and in Unguja the 

percentage was higher, 80%. Of these livestock keepers who received these 

services, 86.9% got it from Government extension officers in Unguja while in 

Pemba, it was only 52.5%. The other service providers include government 

projects, NGOs and private providers. The FGDs revealed that the private 

providers include retired civil servants and civil servants still active in service but 

are called by livestock keepers on their individual capacity. 

Figure 3: Extension services received by livestock keepers in Pemba 

29% 

Yes 

No 

71% 

Figure 4: Extension services received by livestock keepers in Unguja 

20% 

YES 

NO 

80% 

38

Table 32: Type of Livestock Message 


Type of message 

Percent 

Unguja Disease control (e.g. dipping) 21.7 

Pasture establishment 10.2 

Livestock shelter 8.9 

Feed and proper feeding 11.1 

Breed selection 14.9 

Proper milking 6.4 

Milk hygiene 6.4 

Herd/flock size 7.2 

Calf rearing 5.1 

Livestock processing for selling 3.8 

Livestock market 4.3 

Pemba Disease control (e.g. dipping) 14.0 

Pasture establishment 8.2 

Livestock shelter 8.2 

Feed and proper feeding 9.2 

Breed selection 7.6 

Proper milking 8.1 

Milk hygiene 8.5 

Heard/flock size 9.0 

Calf rearing 8.7 

Livestock processing for selling 7.5 

Livestock market 8.2 

Other livestock extension 2.8 

Table 33: Sources of Extension Services 


Unguja Government employee 86.9 

NGO 1.6 

Government project 5.2 

Private clinic/provider 6.3 

Pemba Government employee 52.5 

NGO 5.7 

Government project 39.4 

Private clinic/provider 2.3 

Percent 

It was noted that livestock keepers are already demanding for advisory services 

especially related to taking care of their livestock. However, in all the FGDs, 

39

farmers said in most cases it was hard to get the extension staff when you need 

them in Unguja and Pemba. 

(b) Payment for services 

The study established that farmers feel that the Government has the 

responsibility of providing them extension services. However, they felt that such 

a free service is hard to get and in most cases they have to pay. When a 

government extension officer is needed one has to physically travel to where is 

located or make a call and/or send mobile phone credit or fill his motorbike tank 

with petrol. In all the FGDs, it was revealed that the livestock keepers have to 

pay for drugs or sometimes buy accessories such as gloves. This was also the 

reason why most farmers seek for extension services only when they have a 

serious problem and this is usually associated with dairy cattle and other 

improved breeds of livestock. 

The baseline data indicate that only 18.3% and 32.4% of livestock keepers in 

Unguja and Pemba respectively actually paid for the services. As noted above, 

the payments were either made directly to the service providers or for the cost of 

drugs and other supplies as directed by the extension staff. 

40

Figure 5: Payment for Services 

18% 

YES 

NO 

82% 

(c) Qualit y of services (advisory) services 

The information on quality was collected through FGD, Households survey tool, 

extension staf f tool and in-depth interview of extension staff. The results in table 

34 show that generally livestock keepers feel that the quality of services is good. 

However, 28.4% of respondents in Unguja indicated that the services are poor. 

Table 34: Quality of Advisory Services 

Indicator Baseline value 

Guidelines of standards of advisory services 

• Existence and awareness about • 100% of district and sheia level extension staff have 

extension standards 

heard that standards exist 

Enforcement of guidelines • There is no enforcement of standards and guidelines 

Quality of extension services (farmers 

perspective) 

Quality of extension services (Extension 

staff perspective) 

• In Unguja, 25%, 33%, 2.3. 28% and 11.4 rated 

extension services as very good, good, average, poor 

and not good respectively. The rating in Pemba was 

42.9%, 35.4%, 15%, 2.7%, 4.1% as very good, 

good average, poor and very poor respectively. 

• In Unguja 46.2 and 50.2% rated extension services 

as good and poor respectively while in Pemba 52.6% 

and 47.4 % rated extension services as good and 

poor respectively. 

Frequency of contacts • Irregularly and usually on demand 

• Extension services by government projects e.g. 

PADEP is systematic and includes training 

41

Adoption of advices and evidence of new 

technologies adopted 

• 62.1% and 89.45 of livestock keepers surveyed in 

Unguja and Pemba respectively adopted advice 

provided by extension staff 

• Adopted new technologies include dairy cattle, 

improved breeds of chicken and goats 

The government extension staff who participated in the interview rated lowly the 

quality of their services due to the following factors; 

• Lack of qualified staff 

• Lack of working facilities 

• Un-motivate d extension staff 

• Inadequate medicine and supplies 

• Most farmers can not afford to pay for t he services 

• High prices of medicine exclude majority livestock keepers 

• Ill equipped district offices 

• Some district livestock offices lack basic equipment and infrastructure 

such as electricity, computers, refrigerators etc. 

Table 35: Livestock extension services staff by district and their qualifications 

District 

Qualification and number of staff 

Auxiliaries Certificate Diploma Degree Total 

West 21 4 5 0 30 

Central 3 1 2 0 6 

North “B” 7 0 3 0 10 

North “A” 5 1 3 0 8 

South 0 0 2 0 2 

Wete 4 5 18 0 27 

Chake 2 3 7 0 12 

Mkoani 3 5 2 0 10 

Micheweni 0 1 3 0 4 

Source: district livestock officers 

42

3.3.2 Livestock Field Schools (LFS) 

The government has introduced field schools as a way to reach livestock keepers 

and other farmers. The results of the survey in Unguja indicate that only 23.5% 

of the households surveyed are members of field schools. In Pemba the 

percentage of households surveyed who are members of field schools is 17.8%. 

The main services offered by the LFS are training and extension support: in 

Unguja 73%, and in Pemba 58.3%. 

Table 36: Membership to LFS 


Percent 

Unguja Yes 23.5 

No 76.5 

Pemba Yes 17.8 

No 82.2 

Table 36: Services Offered by the LFS 


Type of Service 

Percent 

Unguja Training and extension support 73.0 

Vaccination 11.7 

Access to other veterinary services 6.3 

Other 9.0 

Pemba Training and extension support 58.3 



Other 6.9 

The following were the reasons provided by respondents for not joining the LFS: 

• Lack of awareness 

• lack of LFS in the Sheia 

• Not ready to join LFS 

• Time constraint 

• Too old to join 

• A member of PADEP 

43

• Don’t like to join LFS 

3.3.3 Management information system 

The study identified several indicators for use in monitoring and evaluating in the 

management information system for the programme. Table. 38 below shows 

these indicators as well as the respective baseline values. 

Table 38: Indicators and Baseline Values of Information Systems 

Indicator 

Baseline values 

Type of information collected • Production figures of livestock 

• Type of livestock 

• Common diseases 

Method of collection • 100% estimation as there is no data management system 

• No standard formats for collecting data 

Data analysis facilities • No computers at District level and even if available not used 

for data analysis 

• Some District offices misses cupboard for storage of files 

Communication and exchange of 

information 

• No established system of communicating information from 

Sheia to District and vice versa 

• Flow of information is adhoc depending on needs 

Most important sources of 

information by livestock 

keeper/farmers (in order of 

importance) 

Type of information livestock 

keepers obtain 

Mechanisms in place on feedback 

of use of information 

• Face to face communication (extension staff and farmers) 

• Radio 

• leaflets 

• News papers 

• Drama 

• Others 

• Improved livestock production 

• Sources of breeds for improved livestock 

• Information on treatment of sick animals 

• Field farmer schools 

• Field visits by extension staff 

• Direct request by farmers for services from extension staff 

The table above shows that there was some sort of information management 

system but lack of reporting formats, data analysis system, equipment and 

storage facilities remains major constraints. It was however noted that sheia 

level extension staff meet with the district level head once in a week. 

At the household level, the management information was non-existent, as most 

farmers did not keep records. Information from extension staff was not readily 

available making farmers depend most on other farmers and retired extension 

staff. 

44

Available resources 

Resources available for ASDP-L to improve information management include: 

• The district level offices had qualified staff and some with equipment, 

which can be fully utilized by the livestock sub-sector. However, some 

district offices need to be fully equipped, for example the South District 

Livestock office does not have even electricity and standard office 

furniture. 

• There is a network of extension workers (mainly public) with at most one 

serving three sheias, who have potential for collecting information 

systematically if capacity is improved in terms of skills and equipment. 

Information needs 

The study identified information needs about all aspects of production at district, 

sheia and household levels. There is a need for setting up an information system 

that can help farmers’ access information on yields, disease control and 

management, sources of improved breeds, and prices and markets for products 

Constraints and opportunities 

The study identified some constraints associated with management information 

system at both district and sheia level, these include: 

• There are no standard formats for collecting information at both district 

and sheia levels. Most of information collected is event/project driven and 

is collected at irregular intervals. The districts did not have a data base for 

livestock activities. 

• Collection of information on all aspects on the production chain was based 

on estimations whose methods differ from district to district and in most 

cases is driven by projects such as PAEDP or other donor funded projects. 

45

• Dissemination of information between districts and Sheia is either non 

existent or ad-hoc. Districts (100%) do not share information reports with 

each other nor did they share them with communities. 

• Lack of record keeping at farm level effects informed decision making. 

The study team noted that some farmer groups kept some records but 

most household information depended on their recollection, which might 

not be done without probing. 

• The relatively wide use of mobile telephone in Zanzibar provides an 

opportunity not only for collecting information but for disseminating it for 

use. 

3.3.3 Technology Development and Adoption 

The study identified no active technology development activities both in Pemba 

and Unguja. However, the results of the survey indicate that new technologies 

were introduced to some communities. The key technologies introduced include 

improved breeds of goats, cattle and chicken, improved backyard chicken 

production, development of pastures and improved animal shelters. 

There were improvements in rates of adoption of the new technologies. As 

indicated in figure 6, 80% of the households which participated in the survey had 

heard about the new technologies and 62.1% of those who heard adopted them. 

In Pemba the number of households which heard about new technology was 

slightly lower, 72.1%. The adoption rate in Pemba is higher than in Unguja. 

Reasons advanced for failure to adopt include lack of finance for the new 

technology and lack of sufficient stock, for example dairy goats are not available 

when a household needs them. 

46

Figure 6: Percent of households aware of new technologies in Unguja 

20% 

Heard of new technology 

Did not hear 

80% 

Figure 7: Percent of households aware of new technologies in Pemba 

29% 

71% 

Heard of new technology 

Did not hear 

3.3. 4 Farmer Groups and their Management 

A number of outputs were identified in monitoring and evaluation of groups. 

Table 39 below lists these indicators and shows their values which were 

established during the study. 

47

Table 39: Indicators and Baseline Values of Livestock Groups 

District 

Number of groups 

Membership 

Men women Total 

• North A 18 137 336 473 

• North B 18 144 216 360 

• South 20 159 256 415 

• Central 17 136 204 340 

• West 100 732 1,333 2065 

• Wete 12 103 76 179 

• Micheweni 14 47 220 267 

• Chake 31 402 268 670 

• Mkoani 0 0 0 0 

230 1860 2,909 4769 

Management of farmer groups 

• Existence of executive committee 100% 

• Frequency of holding meetings Twice a week (63%) 

Once a week (37%) 

• Keeping records and Meetings 100% 

• Have income distribution policy 87% 

Number of groups with bank account 47 (20%) 

Source: District records and group’s records 

The table shows that the number of livestock groups is large. Majority of the 

groups were formed under the PADEP, TASFA and ASSP programme. On the 

other hand, it has been noted that only 31.8 % (Unguja) and 23.3 % (Pemba) of 

the respondents of the households interviewed belonged to groups, meaning 

that they there are still many farmers who do not belong to groups yet. Reasons 

advanced for not joining groups includes: lack of awareness, and groups not 

promoted in the community. 

Group activities ranged from livestock production (mainly small animals and 

chickens) and credit services from member savings. The savings groups have a 

lot of potential for encouraging modern livestock keeping by developing a 

savings culture as well as providing credit for investment in livestock. This would 

empower livestock keepers and farmers in general economically. 

Women are fully involved in group activities either as members or executive 

members. The membership of the groups is constituted by 60% women. This 

involvement has a potential for empowering women in leadership and 

48

economically. 73% of respondent households who are group members in Unguja 

indicated that the group facilitated their access to training and extension 

support. In Pemba, access to training and extension support was also mentioned 

as services received through the groups. 

Table 40: Services Received by Members of Livestock Groups 


Percent 

Unguja Training and extension support 73.0 



Other 9.0 

Pemba Training and extension support 58.3 



Other 6.9 

The study found out the following needs which have to be addressed in order for 

the groups to function well and its members to be empowered economically: 

• Increased access to finance for buying veterinary drugs and supplies 

• Access to animal feeds at affordable prices 

• Qualified and committed veterinary staff 

• The government should intensify its fight on theft of animals … “during 

the old days livestock theft was unknown but nowadays it is common and 

demoralizes livestock keepers” (A member of Hatutaki Mzaa group of 

Mwakaje Kibaoni) 

• More training is needed for members on their rights and obligations 

• Leadership training 

49

3.3.5 Production and Marketing 

Across the survey population, 49% of the households identified milk, 26% eggs 

and 14.5% meat and other products (table 41). These results suggest that level 

of processing or adding value to livestock products is very low. Data on 

productivity was hard to obtain because farmers do not keep records. 

Farmers were found to have two types of markets, namely: 

• Agents who come to the farm gate. For chickens, some agents moved 

from house to house. For fishermen, all the sales are done at fish landing 

sites. 

• Markets in Zanzibar town, road side markets e.g. Kinyasini in Unguja 

The proportion of each of the above type of the market is hard to establish 

because of lack of data. The districts do not collect information on supplies and 

prices for crop or livestock prices. 

Table 41: Type of Product 

Geographic Area Product Percent 

Unguja Milk 49.8 

Honey 3.6 

Egg 26.9 

Skin (goat & sheep) 2.5 

Hide .4 

Meat/beef 14.5 

Others 2.2 

Pemba Milk 29.1 

Butter .2 

Yoghurt 2.9 

Honey .4 

Egg 35.3 

Skin (goat & sheep) .1 

Hide .5 

Meat/beef 31.4 

50

Across the survey areas, the study established various support services available 

to farmers/livestock keepers. These include inputs supplies, agro-processing, 

veterinary drugs and supplies 

51

Chapter 4 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

The findings of this study can be used to guide ASDP-L to improve livestock 

development in Zanzibar. In the first part of this chapter, conclusions are 

followed by recommendations which could assist the programme in ensuring that 

the indicators are monitored. In the second part, some recommendations are 

given on the approach that can be used to track the performance indicators. 

Conclusions and recommendations of the study 

• Livestock in Zanzibar is mainly of subsistence nature with farmers 

concerned about food security than making money from their efforts. 

ASDP-L has therefore to be aware that commercializing livestock keeping 

will involve reorientations of the farmers towards producing for business. 

The growing tourist industry provides a golden opportunity for commercial 

livestock keeping, horticulture, fishing and crop farming. 

• Contact between extension staff and farmers though high, was more 

driven by programmes or projects. Communities where project activities 

were low also had a low level of contact. The extension staff that had 

appropriate working tools are those working for projects such as PADEP 

and ASDP-L. It is therefore recommended that high quality extension 

services should be institutionalized and some standards should be 

established on equipping livestock offices at District and/or Sheia level. 

• There is lack of an information management system at District and Sheia 

levels. It is highly recommended that ASDP-L, in conjunction with other 

agencies should strengthen information management at these levels 

52

through provision of equipment and training, if livestock is to be 

commercialized. 

• Many farmer/livestock groups are being formed but there is little 

investment in improving their quality. It is highly recommended that 

ASDP-L should improve the quality of groups that benefit from the project 

and the quality shoild be monitored. 

• Farmers/livestock keepers had some awareness of technologies that could 

improve their farming practices. However, adoption is still low among the 

farmers. Some have not been able to adopt due to lack of financial 

resources and others find that the new technologies are not readily 

available in the market. It is recommended that ASDP-L initiates 

collaboration with other government agencies, the business community, 

NGOs, MFIs and banks to address the problems. 

• Markets for livestock and agricultural products are highly underdeveloped, 

particularly those expected to serve domestic ones. Market information on 

supplies and prices is not collected hence creating difficulties for farmers 

to identify market potential and make decisions on which livestock or crop 

to produce. It is therefore, recommended that district livestock offices 

should collect data on prices and supplies of livestock and farm products. 

• Farmers/livestock keepers are aware of policies and laws that govern the 

livestock sector, especially those related to movement of livestock, 

vaccination and importation of drugs. However laws on vaccination were 

not strong enough and as a result, the level of participation in vaccination 

was low. It is recommended that ASDP-L should address the problem. 

• In Unguja there is a market for livestock products provided farmers can 

produce sufficient quantities consistently and package their products to 

internal standards. The market is tourist resorts which need dairy 

products, fish, horticulture products, meat and other farm produce. It 

recommended that ASDP-L should provide farmers with skills beyond 

53

production. This can be done in collaboration with the private sector, 

other government agencies and business services providers. 

Recommendation for tracking the impact of the ASDP-L 

• The Logical Framework and Activities Matrix for the programme should be 

up-dated by incorporating the baseline status established by this survey. 

This can be done at a stakeholders’ workshop. 

• The quantitative baseline values established by this study should be 

tracked periodically, using methodologies similar to those of the study. 

This will ensure similar standard of measuring indicators of performance. 

54

Annexes 

i

Terms of Reference and Scope of Services 

Annex 1 

The Agricultural Sector Development Programme – Livestock (ASDP-L) is a 15 years 

programme to be implemented in two phases of eight and seven years respectively. 

The programme will be coordinated at the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and 

Environment with target beneficiaries being the livestock farmers, processors and 

traders. Total programme cost is US$ 6.5 million that will be financed by beneficiaries 

(0.9%), RGoZ (6.1%) and IFAD (93%). 

The goal of the Programme is poverty reduction, improved food security and increased 

incomes among communities with a high level of livelihood dependence on livestock. 

The programme’s objectives are: a) to improve the livelihoods of the poorest agropastoralists, 

b) to strengthen the capacity of livestock communities, both institutionally 

and technically; c) to enhance the delivery of livestock development services to 

smallholders; d) to improve marketing infrastructure and marketing systems for livestock 

products; and e) strengthen national and local government institutions to provide 

services to the livestock sub-sector. 

The ASDP-L Zanzibar Sub-Program has four main components namely: A) 

Empowerment; B) Technical Support to Livestock Development; C) Support to Policy 

Dialogue, Legal and Regulatory Frameworks and Institutions; and D) Programme 

Management. 

The programme shall cover all nine rural districts of Zanzibar targeting rural population 

with special emphasis to promote active participation of women whom are at present 

deprived of access to the economic means of production such as land, ownership of 

assets, education and purchase of inputs, including government support services. The 

total number of the beneficiaries of the ASDP-L is estimated at 22,511 households 

The programme shall cover all livestock farmers and fisher-folks who have a significant 

livestock element in their livelihoods, it uses specific targeting instruments and supports 

particular self-targeting activities to reach its primary beneficiaries, who are small 

livestock-dependent farmers, in particular the poor (falling below the basic needs 

poverty line), the most poor (falling below the food poverty line) and women. 

OBJECTIVES 

The purpose of this baseline study is to establish a comprehensive system for measuring 

changes of Programme intervention in target districts. The study will capture the 

baseline information and report on the socio-economic status of beneficiaries in the 

Programme area before project intervention. This survey will provide the milestones in 

which future performance of the ASDP-L will be measured. The description of the socioeconomic 

status will inform and assist subsequent assessments of Programme impact. 

ii

Scope of work: 

The baseline study will be conducted in all participating districts of Zanzibar covering 

accepted sample size by OCGS in each district. The consultant is expected to review the 

existing Government documents related to the agricultural/livestock sector sector 

including, the Agricultural Sector Policy, Agricultural Strategic Plan, MKUZA, and Food 

Security Policy. The consultant will firm-up and use as the basis of the baseline and the 

logical framework indicators at the goal, purpose and output levels. To capture the 

actual impacts of the programme at baseline, mid-term, participating Shehias and 

subsequent Shehias should be assessed. There is evidence that a lot of related 

information has been collected in the recent past by various projects around the districts 

and this information should be used to inform the survey. The survey should also 

recognize past and present interventions (both government and non-government) in the 

Programme area while laying the foundation for future assessment. 

In order to ensure a systematized survey, the consultant will undertake the following 

activities in close collaboration with the Programme Management Unit: 

• List down all farmer’s household in the selected sample 

• Develop sampling frames in the Programme areas 

• Stratify farmer’s/livestock keepers households according to their livelihood (sources 

of income) categories 

• Randomly select and list targeted groups of farmer’s households in each strata 

• Develop relevant and Pre-test data collection tools 

• Compile the findings and produce a report 

The Baseline (socio-economic status) questionnaire survey should be accompanied by a 

series of focus group discussions held with purposively selected groups of livestock 

keepers in the Programme districts. These groups will be interviewed to gather 

qualitative information to complement the quantitative data and should as much as 

possible represent the diversity of the Programme area. Discussions and interviews 

should also be held with key government, non-government staff and community leaders. 

The consultant shall conduct a stakeholder’s workshop with participants from different 

sectors relating to agriculture/livestock, including farmers (small, medium, large scale), 

local government representatives, and other relevant partners (Mainland experiences 

may be tapped) and their opinions/contributions will be taken as an input to finalizing 

the baseline report. 

The baseline study is expected to generate both qualitative and quantitative information 

on the socio-economic situation for the target area with specificity on (but not limited 

to) the following areas: 

Qualitative 

‣ Performance, capacities and leadership qualities of farmer/livestock groups with 

respect to access to, and use of, relevant agricultural knowledge and 

technologies responsive to their needs and improvement in farmer/livestock 

group’s incomes. 

‣ Farmer/livestock groups capacity to assess service providers progress 

iii

‣ Governance mechanism of farmer/livestock groups with respect to transparency, 

accountability and participation. 

‣ Policy environment and level of farmer/livestock group’s engagement on 

advocacy and implementation 

‣ Level of Partnerships with agricultural service providers 

‣ Gender roles in production and ownership of productive livestock resources 

‣ Linkages between researchers, extension staff and farmer groups 

Quantitative 

‣ Household characteristics and description 

‣ Number of existing livestock groups and the total group beneficiaries per district 

‣ Number of existing livestock groups with bank account and deposits per district, 

and where possible an indication of the current balance 

‣ Incidences of food shortage and coping mechanisms 

‣ Incidences of economic stress and coping strategies 

‣ Household income sources and amounts and the role of ongoing Programme 

interventions 

‣ Household clusters by livelihood categories 

‣ Household expenditure patterns by livelihood categories 

‣ Resources/assets control and ownership 

Expected Outputs 

• A Baseline Study Report that will serve to inform on the current status of 

agricultural resources governance, benefits to community as well as reporting on 

livelihood status of the target beneficiaries. Before finalizing and submission of 

the report to the client, the consultant will conduct a stakeholder’s workshop to 

present the findings and enrich the document by gathering views and opinions 

from the audience. 

Time frame 

The study shall start on 5 th August, 2008 and the summary of findings be presented to 

PSC and stakeholders for more input, prior to final submission to ASFT office on 30 th 

September, 2008. 

Qualification requirements 

- The Consultant for the task should have a minimum qualification of a University 

degree in agriculture/livestock/animal science or related fields 

- Experience on conducting livelihood research or baseline study with familiarity in 

the use of participatory research methodologies such as PRA, PDA, etc. 

- Experience on participatory resource governance, right based programming and 

policy analysis. 

- A good command of both written and spoken Kiswahili and English languages 

- Computer proficiency is an added advantage 

iv

LOGICAL FRAMEWORK AND ACTIVITIES MATRIX (YEARS 1 TO 8) 

Annex 2 

Table 1. Key File. Logical Framework and Activities Matrix (Years 1 to 8) 

Narrative Indicators Means of Verification 

Programme Goal 

Impact (3 rd level indicators) 

Those below poverty line go from 48% to 24% by 2014 National statistics 

To reduce poverty, improve food security 

25% of targeted farming households show improvement in 

and increase incomes among communities productive assets ownership index by 2014 

M&E reports 

with a high level of livelihood 

Child malnutrition (weight for age) reduced in 25% of targeted 

dependence on livestock 

farming households by 2014 

Programme Purpose (or Development 

Objective) comprising five strategic 

objectives (see below): 

a) to improve the livelihoods of the 

poorest agro-pastoralists ; b) to strengthen 

the capacity of livestock communities, 

both institutionally and technically; c) to 

enhance the delivery of livestock 

development services to smallholders; d) 

to improve marketing infrastructure and 

marketing systems for livestock products; 

and e) strengthen national and local 

government institutions to provide 

services to the livestock sub-sector 

Outcomes (2 nd level or headline indicators) 

1. 30% of assisted farmer group members assess improved 

livestock services as contributing to their family food 

sufficiency and cash income adequacy by Year 4, and 70% by 

Year 8; 

2. 25 % of assisted farmers show sustained use of livestock 

technologies, practices, products and knowledge by Year 4 

and 75% by Year 8; 

3. 25% of group members fall within specific categories of 

disadvantage, including food insecure households, womenheaded, 

orphan headed and HIV/AIDS affected households, 

and unemployed youth and elderly or disabled. 

Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation 

conducted under ASDP-L 

Strategic objective (Component) A. Empowerment of Livestock Producers and Livestock-Dependent Communities (demand) 

Client capacity is improved to articulate 

demand within a common-interest 

farmers’ group (such as tick control), to 

contract livestock husbandry, marketing, 

and animal health control services, and 

form partnerships with ASPs 


Livestock farmers and livestock dependent communities learn 

to constructively demand services, and their capacity is built to 

sustainably manage them 

Annual reports 

Outputs. Component A. 

Improved capacity of livestock farmer 

groups 

1. 50% of groups and forums have bank accounts with 

deposits equal to 10,000 Tsh per member by Year 4; and 75% 

by Year 8; 

2. All targeted farm families that receive ASSP coupons at 

the beginning of Year 2, and annually thereafter, at least one 

third will be livestock keepers who will benefit from a 

combination of support from ASSP and ASDP-L. 

3. 25% of targeted groups improve capacity to articulate 

demand within a common-interest farmers’ groups by year 4 

and 50% by year 8 

Strategic objective (or component) B., Technical Support to Livestock Development 

Component B.1. Animal Production (supply) 

Component B.1.1. Smallstock Development 

Development of Livestock Field Schools 

on poultry 

1. 50 FLS established 

2. 1000 members in FLS 

3. Attendance of different classes of the LFS 

4. Percentage of women in LFS is 40% or more 

Baseline studies 

Stakeholder (farmer) forum reports, 


Annual reports of MALE 

v 

Assumptions 

Political will for progressive public 

administration devolution, privatization and 

commercialization continues, and is 

translated into policy reforms 

Macro-economic factors and conditions 

remain stable and liberal 

Government maintains vigilance on 

pandemic livestock diseases 

Input supply, marketing systems and credit 

availability respond to higher effective 

farmer demand 

Other investments under ASSP. 

Livestock and mixed farming, including 

beekeeping and fishing, are profitable 

Coordinated commitment of RGoZ on 

empowerment and community development 

in rural areas

Development of Livestock Field Schools 

on other smallstock 

Outputs, Component B.1.1., Improved 

Quality and Quantity of Smallstock 

5. Percentage of HIV/AIDS affected household members is 

at least as high as the HIV/AIDS percentage for that district 

6. 90% of LFS participants continue Newcastle Disease 

vaccination 

7. Chicken mortality reduced to 20% for LFS members by 

year 4 

1. Service provider will conduct a ToT course on smallstock. 

2. LFS curriculum for other smallstock (goats, sheep) is 

developed at contracted ToT institution. 

3. Capacity of farmers to develop smallholder smallstock 

enterprise management has increased. 

4. Farmers are empowered to demand the services they need 

to operate the identified smallstock model. 

5. Number of goats and sheep on the market has increased 

by 25% by year 4. 

Increased egg production from 60 eggs per chicken per year to 

120 by year 4(improved local breed chicken) 

Increased number of dairy goats by 25% by year 8 

More marketed poultry and smallstock 

Component B.1.2., Rangeland Management and Land Tenure 

Outputs, Component B.1.2., Rangeland 

Management and Land Tenure 

use planning by year 8 

38 Shehia in 8 districts are involved in participatory land 

Land and natural resource use, and 

rangeland management, plans 


Annual reports of MALE 

Government Statistician report 

DADO reports 

Programme reports 


Successful linkages to ASSP and 

development of the farmer field school 

approach in Zanzibar 

Market for poultry and smallstock remains 

buoyant 

Approved land and natural resource use 

management plans 

Component B.2. Animal Health (supply) 

Improved sector service delivery from 

both reformed public providers and 

private/NGO providers is realized 

Outputs, Component B.2., Animal 

Health 

Delivery of appropriate technologies, 

practices, advice and information in 

sufficient quantities and range to meet 

identified farmers’ needs. There are five 

activities in three main sub-sectors, 

namely: 

1. Private: 

a) Facilitating district private 

veterinary services 

b) Training and private veterinary 

supervision of CAHWs 

c) Overseeing community based 

technologies for controlling vector and 

vector-borne diseases 

2. Public: 


Agro-pastoralists are more articulate in expressing their 

animal health requirements, and do so through formal and 

recognized channels that government and PSPs respond to, so 

that livestock owners have better access to sustainable private 

animal health services. At the same time, public sector animal 

health services are delivered, but where appropriate through 

contracted private service providers. 

1. One district private veterinary practices on Pemba 

2. At least two trained and veterinary supervised Community 

Health Workers in each of the Shehia in the programme area 

3. On-farm/community based technologies for animal 

disease control adopted in programme area 

4. Interactive contact between LFS and private veterinary 

practices 

5. 5 rural veterinary or livestock centres renovated 

6. Contingency plans for livestock epidemics exotic to the 

programme areas defined( ECF and NCD) 

7. Sanitary and other key livestock vulnerability data 

collected, collated and analyzed in the programme areas. 

8. Modernization of the Zanzibar Animal Resource 

Management Act and harmonization of veterinary and other 

livestock legislations between Zanzibar and the mainland 

9. Standards and roles of private and State veterinary 

services defined by the ZVB 

Increased number of rural private 

veterinary practices registered by Zanzibar 

Veterinary Board (to be established) 

Increased number of CAHWs registered 

by ZVB 

Reports by private veterinarians, NGOs, 

DADO and VICs; number of doses/ 

Reports from LFFs, Farmer Associations 

Reports from private vets and public on 

number of vaccinations; VIC surveillance 

reports and trend analysis of infection 

rates. DLD Animal Health Reports 

Annual MALE reports 

Programme reports 

Epidemiological and other early warning 

vi 

Readiness of private sector to provide 

veterinary services 

ASDP-L support to districts to develop 

facilities and a tendering system that will 

attract private veterinarians 

Adequate training of livestock farmers and 

orientation of livestock farmer 

associations in livestock business 

enterprise including the costing for disease 

control measures and long term 

maintenance of facilities. 

Animal disease contingency plans 

accepted by Zanzibar national emergency 

preparedness authority. 

District Veterinary Officers trained in 

participatory epidemiology techniques and 

disease data collection; trained Zanzibari 

epidemiologist

a) Supporting public sector 

activities 

b) Supporting regulatory and 

statutory activities 

3. Newcastle Disease vaccination 

campaign 

10. 50 villages attended by CAHWs for ND vaccination alerts 

Statutes enacted 

Manuals and guidelines; accreditation of 

curricula for veterinary, para-veterinary 

and CAHW training; numbers registered, 

enrolled/ enlisted 

Numbers of annual or semi-annual I-2 

vaccinations provided by CAHW and 

number of villages visited by them, 

recorded in CAHW reports 

Timely approval of the new Animal 

Resource Management Act by the 

Zanzibar House of Representatives 

Adequate training for CAHWs 

Availability of I-2 ND vaccine 

Strategic objective (or component) B.3. Livestock Commercialization and Marketing Development 

Create an enabling environment for Outcomes (2 nd level or headline indicators) 

improved livestock marketing 

Strengthened linkages between producers and markets 

Outputs, Component B.3., Livestock 

Commercialization and Marketing 

Development 

a) Establishment of financial mechanism 

for private stakeholder associations to 

assist members and the livestock sector 

b) Promote and assist private investments 

in livestock marketing and processing in 

rural areas 

c) Review national policies and regulatory 

framework and supporting the necessary 

reform process in the public sector 

d) Support market linked, commercial 

development of the smallholder dairy 

sector, including production, transport, 

processing and marketing 

e) Assess the opportunities and problems 

in developing a livestock marketing 

information system. 

a) Private sector capacity built to prepare market 

related livestock micro projects. 

b) Improved access by association members to 

information on livestock production, processing 

and marketing 

c) Private investment in livestock marketing and 

processing 

d) Consultancy on policy and regulatory framework 

e) Private investment in smallholder dairy sector 

f) Improved livestock market information system 

g) Improuved quality control 

Number of eligible proposals 

DADO reports 

Number of successful investments 

Consultancy report 

Number of successful investments 

Annual reports 

Strategic objective (or component) D. Support to Dialogue, Legal and Regulatory Frameworks and Institutions 

Outputs, Component D., Support to 

Dialogue, Legal and Regulatory a) Contract with national consultancy firm 

Legislative drafts and the parliamentary 

calendar. Consultancy reports. Workshop 

Frameworks and Institutions 

b) Workshops; meetings of ASLM working groups proceedings. 

a) Modernisation of the Animal 

coordinating unit; international TA; national TA 

Resources Act 

c) Researcher (international); researcher (national); regional 

b) Review of national policies on d) consultation workshops; island consultation workshops; 

livestock 

e) Zanzibar consultation workshops 

c) Land issues 

Demand for livestock products remains 

buoyant as a result of gradually increasing 

prosperity 

Political willingness of the House of 

representative approval of legislation 

continues 

Strategic objective (or component) E. Programme Management 

Provide mechanisms to ensure sound Outcomes (2 nd level or headline indicators) 

coordination and quality control 

Outputs from each component are reported on time and 

disbursement targets are met and proactive action taken 

Sub-component E.1. Management and 

Coordination 

Effective management and coordination 

of activities, with ASSP. 

1 st level results 

Appropriate institutional structures and capacity to operate 

ASDP-L effectively, developed at all levels. 

Funding statements 

Programme M&E 

Progress reports 

ADSP-L Progress reports 

Budget estimates 

Level of participation by NGOs in 

supporting the formulation of village and 

vii 

Result –driven management at district, 

regional and national levels 

Local government capacity, particularly at 

district level, continues to be strengthened 

by LGA district development programmes 

and projects

Sub-component E.2. Quality control of 

Services 

Development of quality control systems 

Sub-component E.3. Planning, Monitoring 

and Evaluation 

Timely and comprehensive plans and 

reports 


Quality of services in legal, governance, participatory, 

technical, environmental terms assured, e.g. speed of contract 

processing meets targets 

Targeting of special groups addressed: poverty, gender, 

HIV/AIDS, and 25% of group members fall within them. 


Participatory M&E system effective based on group, subproject, 

service contract level recording, compliant with LGRP 

system, with feed-back adjustment to ASDP-L workplan at 

national, districts and shehia levels. 

Beneficiary groups monitor and evaluate own progress against 

self-developed criteria, and use lessons learned 

district level land use management plans 

(number of NGOs, number of days, 

whether contracted by District Councils or 

participated as an additional resource) 

District M&E 

Court cases analysis showing number of 

land disputes, around what, and their 

reduction o increase over time; also the 

extent of dispute resolution (number of 

disputes resolved, who is involved in the 

resolution, and how they were resolved) 

Beneficiary assessments, group records 

Representation of women, pastoralists, and 

HIV/AIDS affected households on Village 

Land Councils and Village Land 

Committees 

ASDP-L records 

Annual review reports 

Beneficiary case studies 

Legal and supervisory processes facilitate 

service quality delivery 

M&E System fully operational 

Timely and comprehensive plans and 

reports 

viii

Annex 3 

BASELINE STUDY-AGRICULTURAL SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME- 

LIVESTOCK 

Household Questionnaire 

1: IDENFIFICATION 

Name of 

respondent:__________________________________________ 

Codes 

Name of head of 

household:________________________________________ 

Relationship of respondent to head of household 

Relationship to household head codes: 

Head of household= 1; 1 st wife= 2 2 nd wife/other wife=: 3; Son/Daughter= 4; Father/mother=5 

Grandson/Daughter= 6 other relatives =7 

2: HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION 

2.1 Personal particulars of head of household 

2.1.1 Sex (male: 1 Female: 2 

2.1.2 Age 

2.1.3 Marital Status ( married = 1 devorced = 2; widow = 3 not maried = 4) 

2.1.4 Type of marriage (Poligomous 1; Monogomous 2) 

2.1.5 Level of Education 

2.1.6 Orphan headed 

2.1.7 HIV/AIDS affected household 

2.1.8 Unemployed headed 

2.1.9 Occupation 

Personal particulars codes-level of education reached: 

Not attended formal school=: 1; Std one= 2; Std two= 3 ; Std three= 4; Std four= 5; Std five=: 

6; Std six= 7; Std seven=: 8; Std eight=9; Std nine=10; Form one= 11; Form two= 12; Form 

three= 13; Form Four= 14; Form Five= 15 Form six= 16;University and other tertiary 

education= 17 Adult education 18 Others 

Person particulars codes-occupation: 

9

Farmer: 1 Fishermen: 2 An employee 3 unable to work (old, sick, disabled): 4 

10

2.2 Household structure 

Total number of members 

Males Females Total 

Number of members under 18 years 

Number of members at school-primary 

Number of members at school-secondary 

Number of members at University and other 

tertiary 

2.3 Housing 

Construction 

materials 

Main house 

Kitchen 

Boys and girls house 

Business house/kiosk 

Animal shelter 

Roofing 

Floor 

Housing code: Construction materials: 

Mud = 1 wood and mud= 2 Cement blocks= 3 others= 4 

Housing codes: Roofing materials: 

Thatched = 1; corrugated iron sheets= 2; clay titles = 4; asbestos sheets= 5; others 6 

Housing codes: Floor: 

Mud= 1; cement = 2; wooden 3; ceramics titles = 4 

2.4 Productive and domestic asset ownership 

In your household; how many of these items do you have that are in usable condition 

Tool 

Axe 

Dhow 

Motorised boat 

Hoe 

Number Owned by Controlled by 

owned to date Male Female Male Female 

11

Spade/shovel 

Rack 

Hand sow 

Traditional beehive 

Modern Beehive 

Knapsack chemical sprayer 

Motorised water pump 

Mechanical water pump 

Motorised grain meal (diesel or 

electrical) 

Car (animal pooled) 

Small tractor 

Sugar cane juice extractor 

Hand held motorised tiller 

Other (specify) 

Domestic asset type 

Bed 

Chair/bench 

Table 

Cupboard 

Radio 

Cassette/CD Player 

Clock/watch 

Charcoal stove 

Kerosene stove 

Gas cooker 

Electric Cooker 

Thermo flack 

Kettle/tea pot 

TV 

Bicycle 

Scoter or motor cycle 

car 

Other (specify) 

Number Owned by Controlled by 

owned to date Male Female Male Female 

2.5 Household source of income and amount Last years income 

Crop farming 

Livestock Keeping 

Livestock pastoralist 

Fishing 

Paid employment- Government/parastatal/Agency 

Paid employment-Private/NGOs etc 

Self Employment (non farming or fishing)with employees 

12

Self employment (non farming or fishing) without employees 

List projects/programmes that are contributing to improvement of your income 

Project/Programme 

Name 

Area Assisted 

Amount/Cost 

3 AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSEHOLD 

3.1 type of agricultural household 

Agricultural household codes: 

Crops only= 1 Livestock only= 2 Pastoralists= 3, Crop and Livestock= 4 

Rank the following livelihood activities/source of household income in order of importance 

Livelihood/source f income Rank in order of 

importance from 1 …. 

Annual crop farming 

Permanent crop farming 

Livestock keeping 

Dairy cows keeping 

Fishing 

Income generating activity- e.g. Trading fish, kiosks, shops etc.) 

Remittances 

Tree/forest resource (e.g. firewood, timber) 

Seaweed farming 

4. ACCESS TO LAND OWNERSHIP/TENURE 

4.1 Details of land used by the 

household in 2006/7 in acres 

Area with certificate of 

ownership 

4.2 Was all land available to the hh 

used in 2006/7 (Yes= 1 No=2) 

4.2 Do you consider you have 

sufficient land for the hh (Yes= 1 

No= 2) 

13

Area owned under customary 

law 

Areas bought from others 

Areas rented from others 

Area borrowed/given by others 

for temporary use 

Areas under other forms of 

tenure 

4.3 Do any female member of the 

household own or have customary 

rights to land (Yes=1; No= 2) 

4.4 Can the head of hh sell land 

without consulting or permission 

from other members of the hh 

(Yes=1 No=2) 

4.5 Where do you graze your 

livestock 

Own land (1), Communal land (2), 

neighbour land (3) and others (4) 

5. LAND USE 

4.1 Area of land operated by household under different forms of use 

in 2006/7 

4.1.1 Areas under permanent mono crops (e.g. Cloves) 

Areas in acres 

4.1.2 Areas under annual/periodic crops (e.g. maize, potatoes) 

4.1.3 Areas permanent /temporary (e.g. maize & cloves) 

4.1.4 Areas under permanent mixed crops (e.g. Cloves, fruit treesoranges 

) 

4.1.5 Areas under temporary/mixed (e.g. maize & beans 

Areas under pasture 

Area under fallow 

Area under natural trees 

Areas under planted trees 

Areas rented to others 

14

Areas unusable ( e.g. swamp 

Area of uncultivated useable land 

15

6. LIVESTOCK KEEPING ACTIVITY AND ACCESS TO SERVICES 

6.1 Type of livestock and their number owned/kept by the household 

Type 

Indigenous 

Cattle 

Number 

owned 

today 

Number 

sold 

Last 12 Months 

Number 

died 

Number 

slaught’d 

Number 

Born 

Number 

bought 

Number owned 

to-day and 

Average Output 

per Animal per 

Year (If any) 

Improved 

breeds of milk 

cattle 

Indigenous 

Goats 

Improved 

breeds of goats 

Sheep 

Donkeys 

Indigenous 

chicken 

Chicken 

(broilers) 

Ducks 

Turkey 

Horses 

Rabbits 

Chicken 

(Layers) 

16

Beehives 

Others 

(specify) 

6.2. Access to grazing land for cattle and or goats and sheep 

Type of livestock keeping: Is it Zero grazing (YES= 1) No= 

2) 

Do you have 

grazing land 

Yes= 1 No= 

2 

What is the 

size 

What is the 

distance from 

you 

homestead 

What is the 

distance from 

the market 

What is the 

distance from 

veterinary 

clinic 

What is the 

distance from 

artificial 

insemination 

centre 

Codes for distances 

Below 100 meters = 1; Meter 100-500= 2; Meter 501-1 km= 3; I -2 kms= 4; 2-5 kms= 5; 5-10 

kms= 6 More than 10 kms 7 

6.3 Livestock Extension 

Did you personally demand extension services to any office during 2007/8 Yes= 1 No= 2 

Did you receive extension advice during 2007/8 Yes= 1 No= 2 

If no go to next section 

Livestock message 

6.3.1.1 Disease control (e.g. 

dipping) 

6.3.1.2 Pasture establishment 

6.3.1.3 Livestock shelter 

6.3.1.4 Feed and proper feeding 

6.3.1.5 Breed selection 

6.3.1.6 Proper milking 

6.3.1.7 Milk hygiene 

6.3.1.8 Heard/flock size 

6.3.1.9 Calf rearing 

Received advice 

Yes= 1 No= 2 

Adopted 

Yes= 1 No= 2 

Source of 

extension 

services 

17

6.3.1.10 Livestock processing for 

selling 

6.3.1.11 Livestock market 

6.3.1.12 Other livestock extension 

Source of extension services Codes: 

Government Employee = 1, NGO = 2, Government Project = 3, Cooperative = 4, Retired civil 

servant = 5, Private clinic/provider = 6, Other = 7 

18

6.3.2 Livestock extension providers 

Extension provider 

Payment for service; Quality of service 

Yes= 1 No= 2 

6.3.2.1 Government Employee 

6.3.2,2 NGO 

6.3.3.2 Government Project 

6.3.2.4 Cooperative 

6.3.2.5 Retired civil servant 

6.3.2.6 Private clinic/provider 

63.2.7 other 

Codes for qualify of service; Very Good= 1 good= 2 Average= 3 Poor=4 No good= 5 

6.4 Government Regulatory problems 

6.4.2 Are you aware of any government regulations in livestock YES= 1 No= 2 If NO skip 

the section 

6.4.3 Did you face problems with government regulations during 2007/2008 YES=1 No= 2 if 

NO go to next section 

6.4.3.1 1st 

6.4.3.2 2nd 

6.4.3.3 3 rd 

6.4.3.4 4 th 

Problem code: land ownership by government= 1 restriction on sale between regions or 

districts= 

Important of food items= 3 important of drugs= 4 import of breeds or chicks = 5 others= 6 

6.5 Access to financial services 

6.5.1 Does the HH has cash 

savings 

6.5.2 How much did you 

save last 12 month 

6.5.3 What type of savings 

system did you use 

6.5.3 Have you received 

credit, as an individual 

Yes= 1 

No = 2 

Tshs___________ = 1 

Not willing to tell = 2 

1. Keep at Home 

2. Shopkeeper 

3. Eminent person 

4. ROSCA’ Vibati/upatu 

5. SACCO 

6. MFI 

7. Bank 

8. In-kind (purchase of an animal) 

9. Other, specify 

0= None 

1= As an individual 

If none skip to next 

section 

19

or as a group in the 

last two years 

6.5.4 What were your main 

source of credit 

6.5.5 What was the credit 

used for 

6.5.6 Did you repay your 

loan 

6.5.7 If YES, what were the 

reasons for defaulting 

2= As a member of a group 

0= None 

1= Relatives 

2= ROSCA/Upatu 

3= SACCOS 

4= MFI 

5= Money lender 

6= Government Project 

7= Bank 

8= Others, specify 

1= Livestock purchase 

2 = Input and or veterinary supplies 

purchase 

3= Petty trade 

4= Meet consumption needs 

5= Pay school feed 

6= Meet health bills 

7= Religious ceremonies ( Ramadan or 

idd/mauled) 

8= Marriage 

7= Other, specify 

Yes= 1 

No= 2 

Crop loss 

Loss of animal/livestock 

Price fall 

Illness or death of member of HH 

Other, specify 

6.5 Membership to livestock or farming groups and Livestock Field Schools (LFS) 

6.5.1 Are you a member of 

livestock or farming 

group 

6.5.2 What are the services 

offered by the group 

6.5.3 Are you a member of 

Livestock Field 

Schools (LFS) 

6.5.4 What are the services 

offered by the 

Livestock Field 

Schools (LFS) 

Yes = 1 

No = 2 

1=Training and extension support 

2= Access to market 

3= Access to credit/financial services 

4= Access to equipment 

5= Access to veterinary services 

6= other, specify 

Yes = 1 On: ___________ 

No = 2 

1=Training and extension support 

2= Vaccination 

3= Access to other veterinary services 

4= other, specify ……………………. 

If NO skip the section 

but ask why not 

If NO skip the section 

but ask why not 

6.6. Livestock production and animal products over the last twelve month 

20

Quantity Produced 

last twelve month 

1 Milk 

2 Butter 

3 Cheese 

4 Yoghurt 

5 Honey 

6 Egg 

7 Skin (got and sheep) 

8 Hide (cattle) 

9 Meat/Beef 

10 Others; specify 

Unit of measurement: 

1= Kilogram; 2= litre; 3= Count (number) 4= Others, specified 

Unit type(code) 

7.0 Household Food security 

How many months are you able to cover all 

your food from what you produce 

What are the reasons for household food 

shortages (cycle any reason which is said by 

respondent) 

Which of the following can you say was true 

during the last 12 months (these are the thins 

the HH wish it would not had to do) 

Which of the months of the last twelve months 

did you have enough food Tick either enough 

or enough 

_______________Months 

1. Drought 

2. Crop damage due to pest & diseases 

3. land shortage 

4. Livestock water shortage 

5. Excess rain 

6. Sick or death key members of the 

household 

7. Other specify 

1= Yes 2= No 

Sold productive asset 

Ate food we normally do not eat 

Borrowed cash or grain 

Ate fewer meals 

Skipping meals 

Others 

enough 

October 

November 

Enough 

Not 

December 

January 

February 

March 

21

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

22

What are the main sources of food for the HH 

in the last 12 months; Use the following codes 

source 

Primary Source 

Secondary 

1= own production 

2= purchases 

3= Gifts from family and neighbours 

4= Relief 

5= Other source 

October 

November 

December 

(Please write code in the boxes under primary 

and secondary sources; use 1…5 for your 

coding) 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

23

DATA COLLECTION SHEET FOR LIVESTOK GROUPS 

GROUPS PROFILE 

Annex 4 

Name of District: 

Date of collection; 

Information collected by: 

s/n 

Name of Membership 

group Male Female total 

Name of 

Sheia 

Name of 

bank 

Current 

balance in the 

account 

24

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS (FGDs) GUIDE 

DATA COLLECTION SHEET FOR LIVESTOK GROUP 

(MEMBERS) 

Annex 5 

Formations of the groups and governance 

‣ Who facilitated formation of groups 

‣ What are the objectives of the group 

‣ What are the benefits of being in a groups 

‣ How and who elect group leaders 

‣ How often do groups meet 

Group’s activities 

‣ What are the main activities of the group 

Access to technology and resources 

‣ Have received any training from extension officers 

‣ Are there any other organizations working with the group 

‣ Have members introduced any new technologies in their activities If yes, 

which one and if no why not 

‣ What the schedules for extension staff to visit the group and its members 

And who prepare the schedule 

Benefits of the groups 

‣ What are the benefits of being in a group 

‣ what are the economic benefits to individual members 

‣ Have you been involved in policy formulation When did it happen and 

what policy formulation process did you participate 

‣ What policies and regulations governing livestock do you think promote 

the sector and which one(s) is (are) a constraint What actions have you 

taken to ensure your concerns reached the government or policy makers. 

Gender roles in production and ownership of productive assets 

‣ What assets are normally owned by women 

‣ What activities are normally performed by women 

‣ Which livestock are mainly owned by women and which by men 

‣ What is the role of women’s extension officers in positioning women in 

taking leadership in increased participation in livestock management at 

household level 

25

Linkage between researchers, extension staff and farmers groups 

‣ How often do extension officers visit the group in a month or year 

‣ What is the role of an extension officer 

‣ How do get information on new technologies or breeds or new crops 

26

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS (FGDs) GUIDE 

DATA COLLECTION SHEET FOR LIVESTOK GROUP 

Annex 6 

Name of Interview; 

Name of group: 

Name of respondent and title 

Location: 

Date: 

Group structure and governance 

(In-depth interview leaders) 

‣ What is definition of membership and member common bond 

‣ What are the right of members 

‣ What is the governing structure and committees 

‣ What are the rules governing election, term of office and rotation of 

officers 

‣ What are the duties of members 

‣ How often do members meet 

‣ What reports do you given to members and how often 

‣ How often do leaders/committees meet 

Leadership skills 

‣ What type of leadership training have you received 

‣ What type of skills development training have you received 

‣ What are the common disputes in your group and how do you solve them 

Benefits and meeting member’s expectations 

‣ What are the key expectations of members and how do you meet them 

‣ What are the profit arrangement rules 

‣ How does the group assess its activities 

‣ What is your general opinions on roles of farmer/livestock groups 

27

Annex 7 

BASELINE STUDY FOR ASDP-LIVESTOCK, ZANZIBAR 

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR DISTRICT/SHEIA LIVESTOCK OR 

AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS 

A: IDENTIFICATION 

1. Name of Interviewer: 

2. Name of respondent: ………………………………………………….Sex…. 

3: Designation: 

4. District:……………………………………………..Sheia:……………………….. 

5. Date………………………………………………………………………………………. 

B: MAJOR FARMING ACTIVITIES 

What are the major farming activities in the District/Sheia 

1 

Crop production 

Animal 

husbandry 

Fish Marketing Other 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

2. Apart from farmers, what other businesses have invested in agricultural sector 

in the District/SHEIA 

Type of enterprise 

1 Input supplies 

2 Agro-processors 

3 Produce buyers 

4 Veterinary drugs and supplies suppliers 

Approximate numbers 

28

5 Others, specify 

C: EXTENSION SERVICES 

1. Are you using or are aware of any guidelines on standard of advisory services 

YES= 1 No= 2 

If no go to question 3 

2. If yes, describe the standard in place for guiding extension 

work……………………………………………………………………………………… 

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

……………… 

3. Do you use any private extension agents YES= 1 No= 2 

4. if yes, how many do you have currently and what type of services do they 

provide.......................................................................................................... 

...................................................................................................................... 

...................................................................................................................... 

...................................................................................................................... 

...................................................................................................................... 

........... 

29

5. Are they mechanism in place for regulating the extension services YES = 1 

No= 2 

7. What mechanism are in 

place…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………… 

8. How often do you monitor the extension service in the District/Sheia (tick) 

Weekly 

Monthly 

Quarterly 

Bi-annually 

Not at all 

9. How often do you make monitoring reports (tick) 

Weekly 

Monthly 

Quarterly 

Bi-annually 

Not at all 

30

10. Do private extension providers exist in the District (YES= 1 No= 2) 

If yes, how many are operating in your district 

11. How would you describes the extension services in the District/Sheia 

Rate 

Public 

Extension 

service 

Private 

extension 

service 

Very Good service 

Good service 

Poor service 

Very poor service 

If poor or very poor service, give 

reasons:……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

……………………………………………… 

D. FARMERS’ TRAINING AND VETERINARY SERVICES 

1. Does the District have livestock field schools for poultry and other small 

stocks YES = 1 No= 2 

If YES how many field schools 

does the district have ………….. 

2. Does each subject matter in the field schools have curriculum YES= 1 

No= 2 

3. Who provide the 

training/……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………..Do farmers pay for attending the Training YES = 1 No= 2 

Or Are farmers paid allowances for attending such courses YES = 1 No= 2 

31

4. How many farmers have been enrolled in the field farmers schools over the 

past three years 

Of the farmers enrolled over the 

past three years how many are 

women 

4. Does the District or Sheia have trained veterinary community workers YES = 

1 No= 

If yes, how many 

5. How many rural livestock centres exist in your District or Sheia . ……………….. 

6. Have the district experienced outbreak of epidemic in the past the years 

YES= 1 No= 2 

7. What are epidemics to your area of jurisdiction 

……………………………………………………………………………………. 

…………………………………………………………………………………….. 

…………………………………………………………………………………….. 

…………………………………………………………………………………….. 

8. What are the on-farm/community based animal disease control applied in 

your District or Sheia 

………………………………………………………………………………………. 

………………………………………………………………………………………. 

………………………………………………………………………………………. 

9. Does the District/Sheia provide laboratory services to livestock 

keepers YES = 1 No= 

32

If no, where do farmers get such services Tick where appropriate 

Location 

1 Nearby District 

2 Zanzibar Town 

3 District veterinary office 

4 Near By Sheia 

5 Livestock research institution 

Tick 

10. What legislations govern the veterinary services in Zanzibar 

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

……… 

Are there areas of the legal framework of veterinary services in Zanzibar which 

needs improvement or to be introduced YES= 1 No= 2 

If YES 

which ones 

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………… 

E: COMMUNICATION/INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 

1. Do you have crop and or livestock data base YES= 1 No= 


33

2. If yes, what type of data base (tick) 

Annual production figures 

New technologies 

Productivity figures 

Other 

3. What are your major sources of 

information………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

……………………………………………. 

F: TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPTION 

1. In what ways do farmers participate in technology 

development……………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………. 

2. In the last five years, what new technologies have been adopted by 

farmers in the 

District/Sheia……………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

…………………………………………… 

3. What do you view as major constraints to technology adoption in the 

district/Sheia........................................................................................ 

............................................................................................................. 

............................................................................................................. 

............................................................................................................. 

............................................................................................................. 

......... 

34

4. Who are the major users of information you 

get…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………… 

5. How is agricultural information channelled to the users (Tick) 

1 Face to face with farmers 

2 Radio 

3 Leaflets 

4 Newspapers 

5 Drama 

6 Other (specify) 

6. What is the most effective channel to communicate to farmers rank for 1 

being the least effective, and give reasons why) 

1 Face to face with 

farmers 

2 Radio 

3 Leaflets 

4 Newspapers 

5 Drama 

6 Other (specify) 

Rank 

Give reasons for ranking 

7. Do you have mechanism in place for feed back from users of the information 

YES = 1 No = 2 

35


7. If yes, what mechanism do you have for feedback from users of the 

information………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

……………………………………………… 

8. Do you use feedback obtained from information uses YES= 1 No= 2, 

9. If yes, how do you use the feed 

bank.............................................................................................................. 

...................................................................................................................... 

...................................................................................................................... 

...................................................................................................................... 

...................................................................................................................... 

........... 

G: LAND USE PLAN 

1. What are the major land uses in your district/Sheia , Please list 

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

…………. 

2Please rank in terms of size of land use 

Use Rank Comments 

Crop production 

36

Residential 

Farming 

Public use 

Reserve forest 

Planted forest 

Public services 

(schools, health 

centres etc) 

Livestock 

3. How does the community participate in land use 

plan..................................................................................................... 

............................................................................................................. 

............................................................................................................. 

......................................................................................... 

4. What are the key issues on land use plan in the 

district/Sheia……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

……………………………………………………………….......... 

THANK YOU 

37

List of Sheia 

Annex 8 

DISTRICT CODE SHEHIA Count 

51 North A 041 Kivunge 10 

051 Tumbatu Gomani 10 

091 Muwange 10 

121 Fukuchani 5 

211 Moga 10 

221 Chaani Masingini 10 

231 Mchenza Shauri 10 

271 Kinyasini 10 

51 North B 011 Misufini 10 

021 Makoba 10 

023 Matetema 10 

091 Kitope 10 

111 Mnyimbi 10 

121 Donge Mtambile 10 

131 Kinduni 10 

181 Upenja 10 

201 Pangeni 10 

221 Mgambo 10 

52 Central 031 Kidimni 10 

061 Miwani 10 

111 Uzini 10 

121 Mitakawani 10 

141 Bambi 10 

171 Mchangani 10 

181 Dunga Kiembeni 10 

201 Jendele 10 

281 Cheju 10 

311 Kikungwi 10 

52 South 013 Nganani 10 

041 Kajengwa 10 

051 Jambiani kikadini 10 

061 Mtende 10 

111 Muyuni 'B' 10 

131 Pete 10 

151 Paje 10 

171 Bwejuu 10 

181 Kitogani 10 

38

191 K/Dimbani 10 

53 West 013 Mwera 10 

041 Chuini 10 

061 Mfenesini 10 

071 Mwakaje 10 

141 Maungani 10 

173 Chukwani 10 

201 Dimani 10 

211 Kombeni 10 

Kihinani 10 

263 Mwanyanya 10 

54 Wete 041 M/Mdogo 10 

021 Mtambwe Kaskazini 10 

061 Kojani 10 

071 Ole 10 

081 Kangagani 10 

111 Kisiwani 10 

141 Pandani 10 

151 Shengejuu 10 

261 Chwale 10 

291 Junguni 10 

54 Micheweni 013 Micheweni 10 

051 Mgogoni 10 

061 Shumba Viamboni 10 

083 Konde 10 

091 Wingwi Mapofu 10 

101 Kiuyu Maziwa N'gombe 10 

111 Makangale 10 

141 Kinyasini 10 

171 Kivyu 10 

221 Chimba 

10 

55 Chake 013 Chanjaani 10 

021 Wawi 10 

031 Pujini 10 

041 Ziwani 10 

051 Ndagoni 10 

071 Vitongoji 10 

081 Ng'ambwa 10 

101 Chonga 10 

152 Wara 10 

161 Mvumoni 10 

39

Mkoani 021 Makombeni 10 

051 Mkanyageni 10 

091 Kangani 10 

103 Kengeja 10 

111 Mwambe 10 

121 Kiwani 10 

133 Mtambile 10 

141 Mizingani 10 

151 Ngwachani 10 

171 Wambaa 10 

40

baseline study final report - Kilimo

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?