Zambia Country Assessment and Strategy - NTBC was

Zambia CountryAssessment and Strategy(Final Draft, Version 4.0, 4 October 2008)prepared by theRIU Zambia Country Assessment and Strategy Development Team

Zambia CountryAssessment and StrategyTeam Managers:Dr. David Cownie (Team Leader and Poverty and Livelihoods Specialist), siapac@mweb.com.na(Namibia)Dr. Ben Sekamatte (Zambia RIU Task Manager), bens@nida.or.ug (Uganda)Team Specialists:Ms.. Sarah Carriger (Communications), sarah.carriger@waterwrites.com (Netherlands)Mr. Ebbie Dengu (Innovations), ebbiedengu@comone.co.zw (Zimbabwe)Mr. Steen Joffe (Information Markets), steen@sourcekm.com (England)Dr. Diana Banda (Agricultural Policies, Institutions, and Information Systems) (Zambia)Ms. Monica Munachonga (Cross-Cutting Themes), judai@coppernet.zm (Zambia)Technical Support:Dr. Jurgen Hagmann (Facilitation), Jurgen.Hagmann@picoteam.org (South Africa)RIU Support Team:Members of the Innovations Resource GroupMembers of RIU Programme Managementii

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary .................................................................................................................................... viiiI. Background ................................................................................................................................................. 1Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1Team Composition and Personnel ........................................................................................................... 1The RIU Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 1Country Background ................................................................................................................................. 3Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods .......................................................................................................... 5II. Analysis of the Innovation Systems of Relevance to Getting Research Into Use ............................ 8Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 8The Innovation System in Zambia ........................................................................................................... 8The Main Stakeholders in the Innovation Systems of Relevance to RIU ........................................... 9Summary of Innovations System ........................................................................................................... 21Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 23III. Proposed RIU Strategy in Zambia....................................................................................................... 25Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 25Framework for the RIU Programme in Zambia ................................................................................... 25Strategic Thrusts ................................................................................................................................... 26Innovation Coalition ............................................................................................................................ 27Value Added ............................................................................................................................................. 33Sustainability ............................................................................................................................................ 34Results ........................................................................................................................................................ 35Further Analysis Required ...................................................................................................................... 35IV. RIU Programme Development ............................................................................................................ 36Materials Consulted ..................................................................................................................................... 38Annex A: Any Further Country-Specific Considerations ...................................................................... 43Annex B: Specialist Sub-Report on Innovation Systems ........................................................................ 44Annex C: Specialist Sub-Report on Communications ............................................................................ 72Annex D: Specialist Sub-Report on Information Markets ..................................................................... 83Annex E: Specialist Sub-Report on Policy Context and Information and Knowledge Flows .......... 95Annex F: Specialist Sub-Report on Cross-Cutting Themes ................................................................. 105Annex G: Terms of Reference .................................................................................................................. 128iii

AbbreviationsABFACFADBADPADSLAIDSARENA-SAARTASPAUCAADPCASDTCAZCBOCBPPCCACDMACDTCEDAWCFUCGIARCIATCIMMYTCIFORCOMESACOSOPCSODfIDDSLECAPAPAECFECZEDGEEASSyEUFAAPFAOFARAFANRPANFANRFBOGARTGDPAgriculture Business ForumAgricultural Consultative ForumAfrican Development BankAgricultural Development ProgrammeAsymmetric Digital Subscriber LineAcquired Immune Deficiency SyndromeAgroforestry Research Network for Southern AfricaAnti Retroviral TherapyAgricultural Support ProgrammeAfrican UnionComprehensive African Agriculture Development ProgrammeCountry Assessment and Strategy Development TeamCommunication Authority of ZambiaCommunity Based OrganisationContagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (livestock disease)Common Country AssessmentCode Division Multiple AccessCotton Development TrustConference on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against WomenConservation Farming UnitConsultative Group for International Agricultural ResearchCentre for International Tropical AgricultureInternational Centre for Maize and WheatInternational Centre for Forestry ResearchCommon Market for Eastern and Southern AfricaCountry Strategic Opportunities Paper (of the International Fund forAgricultural Development)Central Statistical OfficeDepartment for International Development (United Kingdom)Digital Subscriber LineEastern and Central African Programme for Agricultural Policy AnalysisEast Coast Fever (livestock disease)Environmental Council of ZambiaEnhanced Data rates for GSM EvolutionEast African Submarine Cable SystemEuropean UnionFramework for African Agricultural ProductivityFood and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsForum for Agricultural Research in AfricaFood Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis NetworkFood, Agriculture and Natural Resources Directorate of the Southern AfricanDevelopment CommunityFaith Based OrganisationGolden Valley Agricultural Research TrustGross Domestic Productiv

GRZGSMGPRSHIPCHIVICRAFICRISATICTIFADIICDIITAIKSMIMRIRGISPKATCKbpsLCMSLDTM&EMACOMbits/sMAPPMCDSSMDGMOEMENRMFIMOFNPMOHMISMLGHMMMDMSTVTNAPNARSNCSRNDPNEAPNEPADNGONGPNICNISIRNPENSTCNSTPGovernment of the Republic of ZambiaGlobal System for Mobile communicationsGeneral Packet Radio SystemHeavily Indebted Poor CountryHuman Immuno-deficiency VirusInternational Centre for Research on Agro-ForestryInternational Centre for Research in Semi-Arid TropicsInformation and Communication TechnologyInternational Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentInternational Institute for Communication and DevelopmentInternational Institute on Tropical AgricultureInformation and Knowledge Service MarketsInfant Mortality RateInnovation Resources GroupInternet Service ProviderKasisi Agricultural Training CentreKilobits per secondLiving Conditions Monitoring SurveyLivestock Development TrustMonitoring and EvaluationMinistry of Agriculture and CooperativesMegabytes per secondMulti-country Agricultural Productivity ProgrammeMinistry of Community Development and Social ServicesMillennium Development GoalsMinistry of EducationMinistry of Environment and Natural ResourcesMicro-Financed InstitutionMinistry of Finance and National PlanningMinistry of HealthManagement Information SystemMinistry of Local Government and HousingMinistry of Mines and Mineral DevelopmentMinistry of Science, Technology and Vocational TrainingNational Agricultural PolicyNational Agricultural Research SystemNational Council for Scientific ResearchNational Development PlanNational Environmental Action PlanNew Partnership for Africa’s DevelopmentNon-Governmental OrganisationNational Gender PolicyNational Innovation CoalitionNational Institute for Scientific and Industrial ResearchNational Policy on the EnvironmentNational Science and Technology CouncilNational Science and Technology Policyv

OPPAZOVCPAVIDIAPLHIVPPPPRAPROFITPRSPRNRRSS&TSADCSHEMPSMTTORU5MRUNUNAIDSUNDAFUNDPUNFPAUNHCRUNICEFUNIDOUNZAUSAIDVSATWANWAPWBWFPWHOWiFiWiMaXZABSZACSMBAZAMTELZARIZBCAZCAZESCOZNBCZNFUOrganic Producers Association of ZambiaOrphans and Other Vulnerable ChildrenParticipatory Village Development in Isolated AreasPeople Living with HIV/AIDSPublic-Private PartnershipParticipatory Rural AppraisalProduction, Finance and Improved Technologies ProjectPoverty Reduction Strategy PaperRenewable Natural Resources Research StrategyScience and TechnologySouthern African Development CommunitySmallholder Enterprise Development and Marketing ProgrammeSenior Management Team (of the RIU Programme)Terms of ReferenceUnder Five Mortality RateUnited NationsUnited Nations Programme on HIV/AIDSUnited Nations Development Assistance FrameworkUnited Nations Development ProgrammeUnited Nations Fund for Population ActivitiesUnited Nations High Commission for RefugeesUnited Nations Children’s FundUnited Nations Industrial Development OrganisationUniversity of ZambiaUnited States Agency for International DevelopmentVery Small Aperture TerminalWide Area NetworkWireless Application ProtocolWorld BankWorld Food ProgrammeWorld Health OrganisationWireless FidelityWorldwide Interoperability for Microwave AccessZambia Bureau of StandardsZambia Chamber of Small and Medium Business AssociationsZambia Telecommunications Company LimitedZambia Agricultural Research InstituteZambia Business Coalition on HIV/AIDSZambia College of AgricultureZambia Electricity Supply CorporationZambia National Broadcasting CorporationZambia National Farmers UnionCURRENCY EQUIVALENTSUSD 1.00 = Zambia Kwacha 3,621(October 2008)vi

Map of Zambia Showing Provinces and Neighbouring CountriesThe designations employed and the presentation of the material in this map do not imply the expression ofany opinion whatsoever on the part of RIU, NR International, NIDA or DFID concerning the delimitationof the frontiers or boundaries, or the authorities thereof.vii

Executive Summaryi. Introduction: The Research Into Use (RIU) Programme is designed to help address thewidespread concern that most agricultural research is not utilised effectively to reduce povertyand support improved rural livelihoods. The purpose of the Research Into Use (RIU) Programmeis:ooTo maximise the poverty reducing impact of previous natural resources research, includingRenewable Natural Resources Research funded by the UK Department for InternationalDevelopment.To significantly increase an understanding of how the promotion and widespread use of suchresearch can contribute to poverty reduction and economic growth.ii. The purpose of this Country Assessment and Strategy Report is to assist in the on-goingprocess of consensus building and implementation planning associated with the establishment ofthe RIU Programme in Zambia. Of particular importance in this regard is to gain agreementwithin RIU management on the proposed Innovation Platforms, so that the National InnovationsCoalition, the proposed Sub-District Innovations Coalition, and the RIU Programme in Zambia canproceed with implementation planning and implementation.iii. Approach: A RIU Country Assessment and Strategy Development Team (CASDT) conductedan initial visit to Zambia in April and May, with follow-up visits in June and July, 2008, andmanagement visits thereafter. The team was comprised of the members noted on the inside coverpage. Two consultative workshops were held during these visits, field visits took place, and keyinformant interviews were conducted. In addition, the Team Leader met with the InnovationsResources Groups and RIU management personnel in England and Uganda in May andSeptember, 2008. Terms of Reference (TOR) for the CASDT are included in Annex G, includingrevisions to these TOR.iv. An initial mapping of the Zambia innovation system was conducted, and the drivers ofpoverty assessed. This mapping was later confirmed in a follow-up visit, up to a level sufficientfor strategy development, and for further consideration during implementation planning.v. RIU Focus: The RIU Programme in Zambia will be centred around the drivers of povertyaffecting rural households. Poverty and poverty alleviation, in this respect, are at the core of theRIU Programme in Zambia. Key drivers of poverty in this respect comprise: 1) remoteness andisolation, and the consequent lack of access to services and markets and means to improvelivelihoods; 2) household diversity, which yields a maldistribution of influence and economicempowerment that undermines poverty alleviation; 3) socio-cultural determinants, key elementsof which also yield a maldistribution of influence and economic empowerment across women andmen, those facing stigma, and other factors; and 4) a dominant development paradigm that doesnot prioritise investment in rural livelihoods. These development challenges have worsened inrecent years, with the loss of labour due to chronic illness and premature death (largely, but notexclusively, associated with HIV&AIDS), and the narrowing of livelihood strategies. Thesechallenges offer RIU an important strategic advantage specifically associated with RenewableNatural Resources Research Strategy (RNRRS) processes and products.viii

vi. Opportunities and Constraints: An initial diagnostic of the agricultural Innovations System inZambia was included in this RIU Country Assessment and Strategy Report. The considerableweaknesses, gaps and market failures in the agricultural Innovations System in Zambia, identifiedin the Country Assessment and Strategy Report, provide important opportunities for the RIUProgramme to add value, and have the potential to yield a strong return-on-investment. The Teamtherefore recommends that RIU proceed with Programme activities in Zambia.vii. Framework conditions in Zambia highlight constraints associated with the following:a weak regulatory and policy implementation environment;insufficient investment in agriculture and other areas that would support improved rurallivelihoods;a history of top-down service delivery and consequent dependency and lack of support forlocal initiatives;socio-cultural framework conditions that undermine poverty alleviation impacts;historic corruption and market control that have undermined market development andweakened intermediaries;severe infrastructure challenges;fragmented and expensive communications environment with limited reach of services toremote rural areas;high business transaction costs;high interest rates;the lack of community-level institutions that represent the interests of the disenfranchisedand the poor; andentrenched rural poverty.viii. There are nevertheless framework conditions in Zambia that offer important opportunities forRIU programming. These include:a positive policy environment for innovation in the rural development arena, albeit notsupported by investments in the sector;a communications environment increasingly conducive to the establishment of functioninginformation markets;the presence of well resourced programmes with ‘good ideas’ conducive to an innovationsapproach;a continued inability to reach the very poor, strengthening their role in the economy andtherefore alleviating poverty, resulting in a desire to align programmes with activities thatshow some promise in this regard; andrecognition that current models are not getting research into use.ix. To effectively work in ways that will maximise the poverty alleviation impacts through aninnovations systems approach, the RIU Programme in Zambia should consider the following:ix

oooooooThe innovations system mapping has pointed out a number of actors involved in innovativeapproaches to rural livelihoods enhancement initiatives. Virtually all of these actors havenoted severe weaknesses in demand for research, and dysfunctions in terms of its supply.Stakeholders noted that approaches still tended to emphasise ‘push’ approaches towards‘getting research into use’, and that the research itself often bore little relevance to howparticular innovations might affect livelihoods overall. Consistent with Government policy,some of the programmes had been experimenting with applied research linked with extensionactivities, reflecting a pragmatic approach to research influenced by demands from otheractors in the system.Other actors in the innovations system had integrated research into the framework of abroader commitment to a programme objective, such as conservation farming. In these cases,the research was driven more by the programme’s needs, rather than influences from otheractors in the system. A number of the programmes have, nevertheless, been assessed as opento such innovation, and therefore represent important partners.The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) represents theprimary strategic framework for agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. The focus is on improvingagricultural productivity, of which Pillar 4 is ‘improving agricultural research, technologydissemination, and adoption’. There is high level commitment to CAADP in a number ofcountries, Zambia included. Despite some operational problems in respect to CAADP inZambia, there is no doubt that alignment with CAADP, and engagement with the CAADPprocess, will be central to the success of the RIU Programme in Zambia.The specialist sub-reports for communications and information and knowledge servicemarkets highlight important opportunities for RIU engagement that will strengthen theinnovations system. This requires engagement with a mix of private, non-governmental, andpublic actors in the Innovations System, the elimination of disincentives to co-operate, andclarity and focus that will yield returns on investment for private sector actors.Innovation Platforms have been identified that are intended to engage with existingcommercial farming operations in a profitable manner, as important actors in the InnovationsSystem in Zambia.The team’s review of relevant Government policies suggests a broadly positive policyenvironment, and a flexible Government approach to innovative ideas. There are particular,and serious, weaknesses in terms of research. While presenting a challenge, the virtualcollapse of the system and its reconstruction through a number of progressive interventionsoffers a solid foundation for engaging with research service providers (public and private,local and national).In considering the drivers of poverty identified during the assessment, it is evident that theways in which people would engage with the Programme will be important in determiningthe success of the poverty alleviation potential of the RIU Programme in Zambia. Despitesound consultative strategies, they tend to engage with a broad range of households atprogramme start-up, and rarely over time, as less poor households emerge to dominateprogramme activities. On the other hand, a number of non-governmental organisations haveexperience in working on livelihood support initiatives that reach very poor households andpersons, but tend to mix social welfare initiatives with income generating initiatives in amanner that can undermine viability. This will require an iterative process that carefullyreflects on approach and impacts, underlining the key role to be played by MIL in theZambian RIU Programme.x

x. An emphasis (although not exclusive) on poorly-reached persons and households in semiremoteareas obviously raises a number of challenges for the RIU Programme in Zambia. Inaddition to establishing the right partnership arrangements, there are particular challengesassociated with the very drivers of poverty that the Programme needs to respond to, factors thatmake it more difficult to reach people, and factors that yield lower returns on investment. It is not,in this respect, the ‘easy road’, but it does mean RIU engagement with the very farmers who arethe Programme’s target group, avoiding a social welfare approach, and concentrating on economicenhancement.xi. Strategic Thrusts: Two integrated strategic thrusts are recommended for the RIU Programme inZambia, both intended to get research into use via strengthening demand:(a)(b)Enhancing capacity to demand services and participate in value/market chains by farmersand intermediaries.Strengthening of knowledge market mechanisms and services.xii. Hypothesis: The hypothesis of the RIU Programme in Zambia is that, by focusing on the driversof poverty and responding to gaps in the innovations system, the RIU Programme in Zambia willimprove the coherence of the system itself in a manner that will enhance the demand for services,including research outputs, and in so doing strengthening and diversifying rural livelihoods.xiii. Strategic Objectives: The RIU Programme has three strategic objectives in Zambia:(a)(b)(c)Influence Agenda-Setting: At the national level, the RIU Programme seeks to influence thedecision-making environment in a manner that supports an improved match between apositive rural development policy and strategy environment, on the one hand, with adecision-making and resource allocation environment that does not reflect these statedcommitments. A first strategic objective is therefore to influence agenda-setting withinthe Innovations System in Zambia.Support ‘Good Ideas’: The CASDT identified a number of actors engaged in innovativeactivities, and clear gaps were identified where the RIU Programme in Zambia wouldhave a strategic advantage. A second strategic objective is therefore to engage with theseactors as part of a National Innovations Coalition to influence agenda-setting, and tointegrate RNRRS and other research outputs into a more coherent innovations system inZambia.Direct Response to the Drivers of Poverty: After due consideration of the drivers of povertyin Zambia, the CASDT has identified a sub-district approach that would bring together anumber of strands of RIU Programme support, and the involvement of a number of actorsin the Innovations System, to serve as a catalyst for local market development. The thirdstrategic objective is therefore to respond directly to the drivers of poverty in a selectedlocation in a semi-remote rural area, with intended demonstration impacts elsewhere.xi

xiv. Innovation Platforms: To support attainment of the strategic objectives noted above, a firstplatform (“Building Trust and Co-Learning and Strengthening the Functioning of the SystemAcross Domains”) for the RIU Programme in Zambia will focus on working with a number ofnational actors in the Innovations System to improve the functioning of the system itself, and tostrengthen its ability to influence decision-makers. It would also allow effective engagement withthose involved in implementing ‘good ideas’ to improve effective demand for research and otherinformation services. This is primarily intended to meet the first two objectives (influence agendasettingand support good ideas), but it is also intended to facilitate the strengthening of the subdistrictplatform.xv. The second platform (“Sub-District Based Semi-Remote Area Initiative”) for the RIUProgramme in Zambia will focus at the sub-district level. It will involve working with strongnational and sub-national partners to effectively engage with a variety of service providers, otherintermediaries and infomediaries, and farming households with and without the current capacityto produce a surplus and engage productively with the local economy in an identified sub-district.Such a geographical emphasis will: 1) focus RIU Programme attention on its core mandate ofpoverty alleviation, with actions and activities approached keeping in mind that poverty alleviationis the point of departure; 2) allow the RIU Programme to provide an environment within which keyactors in the system will undertake activities and work in a manner that will strengthen the systemoverall; and 3) focus attention on supporting the use of past RNRRS and other research outputs inthe Zambian programme, as well as supporting the effective integration of research into theinnovations system in Zambia.xvi. While not in themselves ‘low-hanging fruit’, there are aspects of the first platform that canyield early wins. These early wins arise from the team’s assessment of opportunities for rapidprogress:(a)(b)Development of a knowledge market strategy.Building trust and co-learning among key national actors.xvii. Concluding Comment: It should be underlined that the Country Strategy is not intended todescribe, in detail, how the RIU Programme will operationalise activities in Zambia. Rather, theCountry Strategy is intended to provide a framework within which implementation planning willdo exactly this. As implementation planning proceeds, therefore, some if not all of the ideas putforward in this Country Strategy Report will need to be retooled to meet the realities of thesituation, the objectives of those involved in the National Innovations Coalition, and the realities ofthe to-and-fro of programme design. This process is also intended to yield alternative or additionalactivities under the two platforms for the RIU Programme in Zambia. At the same time, activitiesthat are carried out during implementation planning and implementation will deepen the analysiscontained herein, learning as the process moves forward.xii

I. BackgroundIntroduction1. This report presents findings from an assessment of opportunities for RIU engagement inZambia. It is based on multiple visits to Zambia by technical team members, the Team Leader, andthe Country Manager, stakeholder engagement by the team members as well as a facilitationagency, a review of country-specific and innovations literature, and the prior experience of teammembers in pilot RIU countries.Team Composition and Personnel2. The team was comprised of international specialists in innovation systems, poverty and rurallivelihoods, communications, information markets, monitoring, impact assessment and learning,and stakeholder engagement, as well as national specialists in policy and institutions and crosscuttingthemes. The work of the team was facilitated by a Country Task Manager and a ProcessFacilitator, overseen by RIU management based in Uganda and England, and facilitated by anInnovations Resource Group comprised of leaders in the field of innovation systems. (Teammember names and contact details were included on the inside cover sheet to this report.)The RIU Approach3. The Research Into Use (RIU) Programme is designed to help address the widespread concernthat most agricultural research is not utilised effectively to reduce poverty and support improvedrural livelihoods. The hypothesis of the RIU Programme is that “an innovation systems approachis more effective in achieving the increased use of new knowledge (in the sense of up- and outscaling)for the benefit of resource-poor communities than approaches which focus on formalresearch or linear extension services”.4. Innovation in this context refers to the first significant use of new ideas, technologies or newways of doing things in a place where it has not been done before. The emphasis is on thecommercial use of ideas/technologies/mechanisms to advance a pro-poor agenda. Innovationenables more goods or services to be produced with less effort or resources, producing better ofdifferent goods or services.5. Innovation Systems refer to all the actors and their interactions involved in the productionand use of knowledge as well as the institutional and policy context that shapes the processes ofknowledge access, sharing and learning.6. The hypothesis of the RIU Programme is that “an innovation systems approach is moreeffective in achieving the increased use of new knowledge (in the sense of up- and out-scaling) forthe benefit of resource-poor communities than approaches which focus on formal research orlinear extension services”.1

7. The RIU Programme is guided by an Innovations System Approach. The RIU ImplementationPlan (2007-2011) outlines the RIU approach, and notes that “An innovation system is usually seenas a network of organisations and individuals involved in generating, modifying, and using newknowledge. These activities are collectively called an ‘innovation process’. The networks might benational, sub-national, regional or international. It comprises not only the users of the knowledge(farmers, consumers, artisans, labourers and traders) and the producers of new knowledge(researchers) but a host of intermediary organisations including extension workers, informationbrokers, enterprises in the supply chain, credit agencies and government.” The RIU Programme inZambia includes an innovation process that involves key links at the regional, national, and subnationallevels.8. The probability of achieving innovation is most likely to be increased by:a. Undertaking a diagnostic of the innovation system as a whole to establish whereconstraints lie, which of these constraints can be removed, and the location of the mostvibrant and dynamic actors which can be supported to innovate.b. Identifying those parts of the system where intervention is most viable, and which is mostlikely to result in successful innovation. This involves investing in research, improving thepolicy environment, building capacities to innovate, and encouraging a wider and morediverse range of actors necessary for innovation to interact with each other moreeffectively, building trust between actors in the system.c. Enabling the potential users of new knowledge to articulate their needs more effectively,and to translate these needs into effect demand, amplifying the voice of users throughoutthe system.d. Strengthening organisations and individuals who perform the intermediary functions thatenable the suppliers of new knowledge to interact with the users of such new knowledge,and to enhance systemic learning.9. The RIU Programme in Zambia will be implemented in a manner consistent with the overallaims of the RIU Programme, and also consistent with the development Vision 2030 and the FifthNational Development Plan of Zambia, as well as the Comprehensive African AgricultureDevelopment Programme (CAADP) of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD).Specifically, the RIU Programme recognises CAADP’s emphasis in Zambia on improvingagricultural 1 productivity, overcoming problems of poor agricultural infrastructure thatundermines the commercialisation of agriculture, creating a more robust agro-industry sector, andsupporting actionable research results.10. The RIU Programme in Zambia will be adapted to meet the particular situation in Zambia, butwill be consistent with the RIU Programme internationally. This will ensure alignment withDfID’s Research Funding Framework and the Strategy for Research on Sustainable Agriculture,and the stated commitment therein to an innovations system approach. It also reflects theobjectives of the 2007-2011 RIU Implementation Plan, and its specific commitment to greaterownership of the process by the poor and disenfranchised.1Reference to the agricultural sector in this document is employed in a broad sense to include a range of livelihoods support activitiesassociated with the renewable natural resources sector, including crops, livestock, fisheries, and forestry and all other activitiesassociated with farming, agricultural processing, post harvest, trade, and input provision.2

11. The purpose of the Research Into Use (RIU) Programme is:ooTo maximise the poverty reducing impact of previous natural resources research, includingRenewable Natural Resources Research funded by the UK Department for InternationalDevelopment.To significantly increase an understanding of how the promotion and widespread use of suchresearch can contribute to poverty reduction and economic growth.12. The outputs of the RIU Programme in Zambia, adjusted to accommodate the start-time of RIUin Zambia, are as follows:oooSubstantially increased numbers of poor people indirectly benefiting from RIU researchoutputs by 2011.More than 50% by value of RIU (use of research and learning outputs) initiatives to be ‘largelyor completely achieved’ by the end of two years of implementation.More than 50% of likely beneficiaries of RIU-supported initiatives independently assessed aslikely to be poor women by the end of 2008.Country Background9. Geography: Zambia, which gained its independence on 24October, 1964, is located in central southern Africa, with a totalland area of 752,614km 2 . Zambia borders Angola, the DemocraticRepublic of the Congo, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania,Zimbabwe, and Botswana, with the border with the Congo thelongest. The country is landlocked, with considerable distances toports in Namibia, Angola, South Africa and Tanzania, with mosttrade via South Africa. The country is divided into nine provinces,comprising Central, Copperbelt, Eastern, Luapula, Lusaka,Northern, North-Western, Southern and Western.10. Population: According to the most recent census, the Zambian population stood at 9.9 million in2000 (CSO, 2002), and is projected at 11.7 million as of mid-2008 (US Bureau of the Census, 2008).Forty-five percent of the population is aged fifteen and under. Two-thirds of the population livesin rural areas, with some evidence of out-migration from urban to rural areas during the 1990s.Almost one-fifth of all households are female-headed (18.9%), with lower levels of income thanmale-headed households (Living Conditions Monitoring Survey; CSO, 2003).11. Economy: Zambia’s economy has been in secular decline since the mid-1970s. Economicperformance only started to improve in the past decade, largely due to improvements in themining, construction and transport sectors. As a middle income country at independence in 1964,with a per capita income of US$800, Zambia’s economic decline resulted in a per capita incomedrop to half that amount, at US$405 by 2002. Structural adjustment and a high debt burden hashad a negative impact on investments in human capital, with Zambia ranked as 165 th out of 174countries in terms of human development by 2004. Debt relief in recent years has reducedZambia’s external debt burden, from near US$7.1 billing at the end of the 1990s to US$0.5 billionby 2006 (see DFID.org), allowing increased investment in human capital.3

12. Poverty: Levels of poverty have remained high, despite recent improvements in the economy.While only one-third of Zambians were below the poverty line in the mid-1970s, this rose to twothirds(68%) by 2003. Most were classified as ‘extremely poor’ (46%), and the rest as ‘moderatelypoor’ (21%). Poverty is highest and most severe in Northern Province, followed by North-WesternProvince. In Northern Province, 63% of the households are ‘extremely poor’, and 18% ‘moderatelypoor’, followed by North-Western Province, where 51% are ‘extremely poor’, and are 21%‘moderately poor’. While some provinces are poorer than others, levels of poverty are high acrossall rural areas, at 74% (compared to 52% for urban areas), reflected in higher poverty levels amongthe more rural provinces (CSO, 2004). Remoteness covaried with higher levels of poverty, withremote rural areas having a higher proportion of their population living in poverty (see Thurlowand Wobst, 2004). While poverty rates remain very high, it is encouraging to note that the povertyrate has fallen from 73% in 1998 to 68% in 2004, in part due to improvements in the mining sectorand expanded employment in commercial agriculture, coupled with diversification in staplesproduction with the removal of subsidies that incentivised the production of maize as opposed toother crops.13. In 2002 Government issued their Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). The strategycovered the period 2002-2004, with an update every three years. Prepared following broad-basedconsultations, the PRSP is focused on sustained growth and employment generation through:Economic development (particularly agricultural diversification, mining, tourism, andmanufacturing).Infrastructure improvements (roads, communications, and energy).Social sector development.Cross-cutting initiatives to address HIV&AIDS, the environment, and gender.Better macro-economic management, public sector reform, and improved governance.14. The PRSP goes on to note key challenges associated with narrow economic growth affectingonly a few sectors, numerous barriers to private enterprise development, a lack ofcommercialisation in the agricultural sector and poor market development, and reducing keyvulnerabilities arising from HIV&AIDS, gender inequality, and chronic food insecurity. TheNational Gender Policy (GRZ, 2000) also highlights the constraints on poverty alleviation arisingfrom gender inequality.15. Zambia has made progress on some Millennium Development Goals, with primary schoolgross enrolment rates rising from 63% in 2000 to 89% in 2005, and the expansion of anti-retroviraltreatment for HIV positive Zambians. However, one-in-six Zambian children still die before theirfifth birthdays, and hunger is a persistent problem, affecting 51% of Zambia’s population (LivingConditions Monitoring Survey; CSO, 2006). Life expectancy is only 38.4 years, and only 43% of therural population has access to safe water supplies (see DFID.org).16. HIV&AIDS: As with the rest of southern Africa, HIV seroprevalence rates are high in Zambia,at 14.3% (Demographic and Health Survey; CSO, 2007), with an estimated 920,000 people livingwith HIV/AIDS. Despite the high seroprevalence rates and continued high levels of infection,rates have actually declined in the past ten years, from a peak of 16% in 2002. With a matureepidemic, Zambia is now faced with the consequences of chronic illness and premature death,4

with high orphan and vulnerable children caregiving burdens, and the secular economic decline ofaffected households, expanding the number of households in poverty, and entrenching poverty inthese households and communities.Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods17. It is estimated that agriculture contributes between one-fifth and one-quarter of gross domesticproduct in Zambia, and is the main source of livelihoods for over half of the country’s population.Food crops comprise some 40% of the this total value, while livestock contributes 35% towards thetotal value of agricultural production. Most rural households rely on crop production as theirmain source of livelihoods. It is estimated that 58% of the land area is suitable for agriculture, butonly 14% of the total land area is currently under cultivation. Approximately 85% of all farms arecomprised of smallholder producers who are producing crops on communal land. The remaining15% of farms are commercial enterprises on private, leasehold land, producing some 25% of allagricultural produce.18. Economic liberalisation in the past fifteen years has improved the returns on investment fromagricultural investment, and has resulted in the diversification of agricultural production,including most notably cotton, as well as flowers, sugar, tobacco, and vegetables. Smallholderfarmers contribute to these non-traditional crops through out-grower schemes, but these havetended to benefit middle-income farming households more than others.19. A number of factors affect the success of smallholder agriculture. Deininger and Olinto (2002)highlight the importance of labour shortages during the planting season that constrain production,worsened by HIV&AIDS, coupled with low wages/inadequate in-kind payment for on-farmservices. Input supply was also noted as a key constraint, coupled with the lack of credit facilitiesfor purchasing inputs. Lack of access to markets and crop spoilage in transport also limited thevalue of produce sold; distance to markets was greatest in Western Northern, Eastern, and North-Western provinces, all at over twenty kilometres, compared to a national average of 14.8kms(Thurlow and Wobst, 2004; see also UNDP, 2003). More generally, Government, in the FifthNational Development Plan (GRZ, 2005: 62) identifies a number of challenges affecting the abilityof agriculture to reduce poverty, notably low productivity, high post-harvest losses (estimated at30%), poor infrastructure and high transport costs, poor access to credit, poorly functioningagricultural grain markets, insecurity arising from poor land use planning, poor environmentalmanagement, and limited gender mainstreaming in the sector.20. Access to livestock is particularly important in enabling rural households sufficient flexibilityto meet contingencies caused by the loss of labour or other productive resources, and naturaldisasters. Cattle, owned by a minority of smallholders, are essential to mixed farming operations,providing both draught power and fertiliser. Cattle ownership is increasingly concentrated infewer hands, in part due to the effects of livestock diseases (most importantly East Coast Fever andContagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia, the latter of which is concentrated in Western, North-Western and Northern provinces) which have hit smaller herd owners especially hard, but alsobecause of the effects of HIV&AIDS and consequent asset disposal, and herd size too small to yieldsustainable offtake.21. Veld product harvesting forms an important component of rural livelihoods, especially forpoorer households, and particularly during times of economic stress. The Living Conditions5

Monitoring Survey (LCMS; CSO, 2003), for example, noted that one-quarter of all female-headedhouseholds relied on veld products to meet basic food and other household needs in times ofstress. For those in chronic poverty, wild fruits and vegetables and the harvesting of other veldproducts was central to their livelihoods. However, this is rarely sufficient to meet needs, andpoorer households tend to cut back on food intake, substitute foods of lesser nutritional value, anddefer other purchases.22. One of the main resources that poor households rely on, especially in times of stress, are socialcapital networks comprising extended family members, friends and neighbours. Indeed,according to the LCMS (CSO, 2003), relying on these social capital networks was a key copingstrategy in times of particular need, affecting 71% of all rural households (and higher for femaleheadedhouseholds). These support networks have been weakened in recent years due to theimpacts of HIV&AIDS, with particularly severe impacts on elderly caregiving households withhigh dependency ratios.23. The Government of Zambia regards improvements in agriculture as central to povertyreduction, coupled with attention to HIV&AIDS, gender and the environment. Improving ruralinfrastructure, strengthening linkages between smallholders and larger farmers as well ascommercial producers and agribusiness, expanding non-farm opportunities, and assisting thepoorest households through improved food production techniques, coupled with strengthenedsocial service provision, are key objectives to reduce levels of poverty (MACO, 2004; also see IFAD,2005). Thurlow and Wobst (2004) note that a pro-poor growth strategy will necessarily relyheavily on improvements in agriculture, and that it represents the only strategy that wouldachieve a halving of poverty to below 50% in rural areas within the next thirty years. And thiswould only occur if the focus was less on cash-crop production and more on improving theproduction of staple crops, and improved market access for these goods (see Haggblade andTembo, 2003).24. Government’s long-term development objectives are captured in its National Vision 2030. Onekey goal of Vision 2030 was to ‘significantly reduce hunger and poverty’. The emphasis is oneconomic growth and pro-poor engagement in the economy, taking note that economic growththat is concentrated in urban areas does little to reduce poverty overall, and that pro-poor growthrequires a focus on agriculture and rural development (see GRZ, 2005).25. Substantial agriculture sector reform has taken place since the early 1990s focusing, as theNational Agricultural Policy (NAP; MACO, 2004) notes, on liberalisation, commercialisation, thepromotion of public-private partnerships, and improving gender equity in access to resources andservices, and benefits from agricultural activities. Agricultural sector objectives under the current(fifth) national development plan, covering the period 2006-2010, are improved food security at thehousehold and national levels, linking agricultural production to agro processing industries,increased agricultural exports, enhanced production and productivity, and protecting theagricultural resource base.6

26. Unfortunately, while various policy documents recognise the strong connection between thedevelopment of the agricultural sector and poverty reduction, resource allocation to the sectorremains extremely low. Only 4% of Zambia’s national budget is devoted to the agricultural sector,and the bulk of these funds are allocated to the Fertiliser Support Programme and the FoodReserve Agency, both focused largely on maize production.27. Natural Environment: Zambia is relatively sparsely populated, and has substantial and diversenatural resources. Some 40% of the country’s land surface area comprises wildlife protection areas,including community-based initiatives that give local communities limited management and userights over animals. There are nevertheless a number of localised environmental threats, notablyin mining areas and peri-urban locations, while over 20% of flood plains and swaps have beendegraded due to human settlement, situation, and the development of dams (GRZ, 2005).28. With regard to smallholder farming, there are particular problems associated with thedepletion of soils through overuse, and depletion of natural resources in areas proximate to majorsettlements, particularly firewood and species used for charcoal production.29. Environmental planning is guided by the National Environmental Policy (NEP, MENR, 2006)and the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP). However, co-ordination of activities ishampered by the plethora of agencies involved in environmental and natural resourcemanagement, coupled with a dearth of skills in the sector and a weak regulatory environment.The absence of a coherent land use planning framework and conflicting mandates over land use incommunal areas hampers effective planning. Recently-strengthened Environmental ImpactAssessment Regulations are intended to help overcome some of these deficiencies, butconsiderable challenges remain.7

II. Analysis of the Innovation Systems of Relevance to GettingResearch Into UseIntroduction30. In this chapter, an analysis of the innovation systems relevant to opportunities in the naturalresource arena is provided. The information contained herein is derived from the “BackgroundReport: Zambia” prepared by the Natural Resources Institute in early 2007, team member reportsin their areas of specialisation, and other assembled materials.The Innovation System in Zambia31. Although Zambia has no specific national policy on innovation, the processes of innovation inthe natural resources sector are largely framed by the Fifth National Development Plan, theNational Agricultural Policy, and the Science and Technology Policy and Act. These developmentframeworks seek to harness science and technology resources to enhance productivity andimprove livelihoods through a variety of institutions, including the National Institute for Scientificand Industrial Research (NISIR), the Zambian Agricultural Research Institute, extension servicesand the university system, and strengthening linkages between these institutions and the privatesector, as well as other stakeholders. The national science and technology policy is currently underreview with the aim of updating the policy to accommodate changes in technology and on theground in Zambia, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives has stated its commitment to(but has yet to operationalise) strengthening institutional arrangements that enhance aninnovation systems approach to development.32. The agricultural sector consists of only about 700 large-scale commercial farmers and 1,500small- to medium-scale commercial farmers, but over a million smallholder farming households.The commercial farmers are generally able to take advantage of available technologies, unlikesmallholder farmers, where less than 20% are well placed to take advantage of opportunities. Forthe remainder, the combination of weak market linkages and a lack of effective co-ordination ofactivities between service providers, intermediaries, and the smallholder agricultural sector,together limit interactive learning and development of the adaptive capacities necessary for avibrant innovations system with poverty alleviation potential.33. Various national policies and Vision 2030 all reflect Government recognition of the central roleagricultural development and broader livelihoods support play in poverty reduction. However,the policy objectives of achieving accelerated growth and competitiveness in the agricultural sectorare not matched by commensurate resource allocation. There is considerable misalignmentbetween policy intent and resource allocation. For example, under the Comprehensive AfricanAgriculture Development Programme (CAADP), Zambia and other African states have committedthemselves to an annual agricultural growth rate of 6%, predicated on the allocation of at least 10%of the national budget to agriculture. However, over the past few years, Zambia has onlycommitted 4% of its budget to agriculture, and most of this is consumed by recurrent costs, theFood Reserve Agency, and the Fertiliser Support Programme, largely focused on expanded maizeproduction.8

34. As a result of under-investment in the agricultural sector and in rural livelihoods moregenerally over the past few decades, Zambia has witnessed a continued deterioration of research,extension, and other institutional services from Government. Indeed, some key informants havecharacterised public research and extension services as having ‘virtually collapsed’. At thisjuncture, there are no clear indications that this situation will change in the near future.Nevertheless, there are some grounds for optimism. Consultations carried out by the team duringthe assessment have underlined that, where public research and extension services have beenaligned with sound projects and clear objectives, considerable progress can be made (e.g., theAgricultural Support Programme), but only for the duration of the particular project, with littledemonstration effect on other institutions.The Main Stakeholders in the Innovation Systems of Relevance to RIU35. A mapping of the Zambian ‘innovation system’ was conducted. It was decided to use aninnovations framework adapted from Arnold and Bell (2001), because it allows the deconstructionof the Innovations System in Zambia in a manner useful for programme development purposes,providing both ‘snapshot’ information for broad strategy development and decision-making, andmore detailed insights for operationalising the implementation plan.36. For each area, the status has been broadly grouped into ‘negative’, if the situation is notpositive’, ‘mixed’, if it contains a mixture of positive and negative situations, and ‘positive’ if,overall, the situation is positive.37. Using Arnold and Bell (2001), adapted by Whiteside (2007), the following categories wereused:Framework Conditions - considering broader ‘environmental’ considerationsDemand Domain - considering the demand for goods and services (both intermediateand final)Enterprise Domain - considering enterprise activities within the Innovations SystemIntermediary Domain - considering intermediariesResearch Domain - considering providers of research services (research and education?)Infrastructure - considering where facilitating infrastructure is in place or not38. This initial mapping is derived largely from the results of team member investigations, as wellas the results of the two workshops, converted into the Arnold and Bell framework. This allowsfor non-institutional actors to be considered on the innovations map, avoiding the problemfocusing too much on formal institutions.39. The initial mapping discusses, in general terms, how Zambia fares in each area. This isfollowed by a more detailed mapping of the problems and opportunities around how theseorganisations act and interact.9

Table 1: Initial Mapping of the Agricultural Innovations SystemFramework ConditionsAreaPolicy and governanceIncentive environmentTrustOtherAssessmentPositive - Vision 2030, Fifth National Development Plan,Agricultural Development Policy, communications policies, RuralDevelopment Policy, CAADP. Strong voice for commercialfarmers via the ZNFU. But, lack of implementation of policies, lackof understanding of policies and priorities.Mixed - In agriculture, mis-direction of resource allocation, underallocationof public resources, focus on subsidies and largely onmaize production. Support for private sector development in theagricultural sector. In rural development, openness toexperimentation, flexibility.Positive - Examples of collaboration that have worked, highstakeholder willingness to build relationships, strong systems ofsocial capital. Private sector willing to take risks if returns aresufficient, willing to cooperative if in their interest.Positive - Reduced levels of corruption, improvements in educationand health status, labour mobility, peace and security (Angolanwar over; unstable parts of the DRC do not border Zambia; highbut unknown numbers of economic migrants from Zimbabwe)Demand DomainAreaConsumers (final demand)Local, regional, international marketsResearch incentivesProducers (intermediate demand)Research fundersAssessmentNegative: Aside from farmers proximate to urban markets, weakpurchasing power.Negative: Poor access to overseas markets, competition with sameproducts as neighbouring countries. Inaccessible local markets dueto poor infrastructure.Negative: Weak demand for research outputsNegative: Poor local market development, outside of limited areasproximate to larger marketsNegative: Weak systems of demand for research results, low levelsof investment in the system10

Table 1: Initial Mapping of the Agricultural Innovations System (continued)Enterprise DomainAreaAssessmentSmallholder farmers and other naturalresource usersCommercial farmersFarmer organisationsAgro-industriesAreaExtensionNon-governmental organisationsNegative: Weak demand, very weak systems for enhanced demand.Only a relatively small proportion of these farmers regularly linkwith services and markets (perhaps up to 20%).Positive: Vibrant commercial farming system, albeit small, and onlypartially integrated into wider farming systems. Access toinformation services via membership organisations.Mixed: Strong farmers union (ZNFU) open to new ideas, but littleindication that it represents the interests of the majority ofsmallholder farmersMixed: Some agro-processing in urban areas, but limited to a fewproducts. Difficulty in competing in local markets with importsfrom South Africa.Intermediary DomainAssessmentNegative: Public extension services very weak, under-utilised,poorly supported, weak links to research institutions.Programmatic examples of significantly improved public extension,but limited in scope.Positive: Wide variety of NGOs with long experience, including inremote areas. Many have development experience, rather than justemergency experience. Some problems in mixing livelihoodssupport with social protection, but limited.Negative: Despite these strengths, there are numerous NGOs, andsome of these do not necessarily work in tandem with otheragencies. In other cases, agendas are externally driven, and thesemay or may not coincide either with needs in Zambia, or prioritiesin Zambia.Community-based organisationsCommunications (press, radio, TV,internet, mobile phone operators, etc.)and Infomediaries (membership basedorganisations, business serviceproviders, training organisations,government information services)Positive: Strong presence of faith-based organisations and churchesthroughout rural Zambia. Competitive atmosphere, innovativeapproaches to support local communities. Numerous, activecommunity ratio initiatives. Schools and health facilities exist ineven very remote areas, but not well resourced.Mixed: Improved presence and reach of numerous communicationsagencies, and largely positive policy environment. However,limited reach in remote areas, little incentive to expand operationsto cover consumers with lower abilities to pay. For infomediaries,various actors supplying demand-driven services to large andmedium scale farmers. However, poor links to national researchsystem, and limited reach into remote areas. Little incentives toexpand services to cover consumers with lower abilities to pay.Further, weak incentives for knowledge flows between information/knowledge service providers and sources of research-basedknowledge.11

Table 1: Initial Mapping of the Agricultural Innovations System (continued)Intermediary Domain (continued)AreaPrivate sector suppliers of servicesInformal knowledge transfer systemsAssessmentNegative: Weak private sector suppliers outside of main roadarteries and commercial farming operations.Mixed: Generational transfer of information, experimentation,knowledge. But, HIV&AIDS have impacted generationalknowledge transfer. Localised initiatives to support these systems,mostly by donor financed initiatives (e.g., farmer field schools) andNGOs.Research DomainAreaResearch institutesUniversitiesPrivate sectorNGOsInternational and regionalorganisation researchAssessmentNegative: Under-resourced, not market oriented, poorly linked todemand.Negative: Under-resourced, not market oriented, poorly linked todemand.Mixed: Commodity-focused research in key areas (most especiallycotton).Negative: Limited in scope, focused on commodities. However,usually solid participatory appraisal work at project start-up, butlimited in scope, and not demand driven.Positive: Linked to a number of international/regionalorganisations, particular emphasis on CG centre networks. Zambiacommitted to CAADP and FARA.12

Table 1: Initial Mapping of the Agricultural Innovations System (continued)InfrastructureAreaTransport and marketingBanking, savings and credit, informalfinanceRisk insuranceRegulations and standardsInnovation and business supportsystemsInformation systemsAssessmentNegative: Aside from areas proximate to major infrastructure,transport infrastructure is poorly developed, and markets areweakNegative: Poor commercial reach into rural areas. Weakagricultural bank. Long history of non-repayment of loans. Someexamples of small-scale, localised credit initiatives.Negative: Poor outreach, inadequate insurance infrastructure.Negative: Lack of enforcement of regulations and standards.Negative: Weak infrastructure, little business support systemoutreach into rural areas. However, programme-specificexamples of successful outreach.Mixed: Expanding coverage of internet/cell phone coverage, somestrong internet service providers, but weak regulatoryenvironment, limited public sector capacity to implementinformation communication technology policy and related highcosts are contributory factors limiting access in remote areas andfor the poorest. Lack of workable (public-private) businessmodels to support services to small farmers, especially those inremote areas also linked to weak effective demand.40. The initial mapping of the Agricultural Innovations System suggests a mixed picture, withpositive framework conditions, weak demand structures and systems, mixed results in terms ofthe enterprise domain and intermediaries, a poor research environment, and entrenched‘infrastructure’ constraints.41. Considering these positive and negative factors, key actors associated with possible entrypoints and constraints to the effective functioning of the Agricultural Innovations System inZambia are noted in the following table, along with overarching opportunities and challengesassociated with each domain and actor.42. It should be noted that no breakdown has been made between strengths and opportunities, orbetween weaknesses and threats, along the lines of a SWOT analysis. At this juncture, for thepurposes of the assessment and strategy, it is felt that this is sufficient to inform implementationplanning. With implementation planning and implementation, those factors within the ability ofagencies to change (strengths and weaknesses) may be disaggregated from broader,environmental factors that can only be changed over time by higher level actors (opportunities andthreats), and become part of the process of RIU Programme implementation in Zambia.43. Finally, it should also be noted that more detail is provided in the specialist sub-reports, and inthe 2007 background report:13

Table 2: Initial Mapping of Organisations and Opportunities and ChallengesDomain Key Actors Opportunities ChallengesFrameworkConditionsDemandDomainGovernment of ZambiaPolicy-related forums, such as the AgriculturalConsultative Forum, Community Natural ResourcesConsultative Forum, Agriculture Sector Advisory GroupPolicies are largely in place, includingcovering key cross-cutting themesCommitment to CAADPOpenness to innovationInterest in RIUCulture and society Strong systems of social capitalStrong systems of local leadershipStrong presence of churches and otherforums for social organisationOther Population has a history of seekingeconomic opportunities anywhere in thecountryImproving levels of educationLessening in problem of corruptionConsumers Reasonably strong urban demand forfarm produce.Indications of strong urban demand forcertain types of produce (e.g., organicproduce)Local, regional, international markets Examples of export-oriented production(particularly cotton, but also coffee,flowers)Lack of financial commitment to theagricultural sector, emphasis on maize andsubsidiesHistory of loan write-offsPoliticization of co-operativesHigh levels of povertyHistory of dependency, lack of support forlocal initiatives. Lack of history ofinnovation and entrepreneurshipSome social constraints affecting the abilityof women to fully benefit from farmingactivitiesEducation standards remain constrained byunder-financing and high levels of poverty,limited ability to pay for secondary andhigher educationWeak purchasing powerPoorly developed markets in rural areasConsumer preferences for imported goods(China, South Africa)Poorly developed markets in rural areasNo clear regional competitive advantage foragricultural produceUncertain Government commitment toexpanding agricultural exportsResearch funders and incentivesDonor support to ZARI, NISIR, universitiesGovernment support to ZARI, NISIR, universitiesProducers - local entrepreneurs involved in on-farmproductionCommodity focused research by privatesector (e.g., cotton)Some, albeit limited, research by nonstateactorsMarkets active when attentionconcentrated in an areaVery inadequate and mistargeted financingof natural resources research. Lack ofpublic financing, lack of private alternativesPoor incentives for researchers in publicinstitutes and universities.Poor market infrastructure weakensposition of producers14

EnterpriseDomainDomain Key Actors Opportunities ChallengesFarmers and other natural resource users - smallholders Some farmers with surplus showresponsiveness to initiativesVery poor farmers show responsivenessto income-generation initiativesCommercial farmers Very responsive to market opportunitiesOut-grower employment potentialSuggest willingness to work withsmallholder farmers, but uncertainFarmer and producer organisationsZambia National Farmers UnionNational Peasants and Small-scale Farmers AssociationOrganic Producers and Processors Association of ZambiaZambia Dairy Producers AssociationPoultry Producers AssociationCoffee Growers AssociationZambia Export Growers AssociationCo-operative societiesAgro-industries in cotton, tobacco, sugar, maize, stockfeed and beer brewing also importantCotton sector most well developed (Dunavant, ClarkCotton, China-Mulungushi)Tobacco (Tombwe Processing, Zambia Leaf Company,Standard Commercial Tobacco Services, TobaccoDevelopment Company, Daimon)Politically influential ZNFUActive ZNFU membership, some250,000 members in district associationsand commodity associations (the lattermostly in cotton)Represented in consultative forumsLargely successful in some commoditychains, notably cottonInterests represented in consultativefora.History of subsidies, loan write-offsRestricted market activityConstrained productionGender division of labour notcommensurate with benefits from labourprovisionHIV&AIDS has worsened labour shortages.On-farm smallholder production low wagesSevere poverty, especially in remote areasStakeholder mapping showed weaklinkages of any agencies to smallholderfarmers, except NGOsLimited out-growers, problems facingquality control, market price, etc.Limited horizontal integration withsmallholder farmersIn some areas, affected by poorinfrastructure, inadequate transportMost smallholder producers are notinvolved in any farmers unionCo-operatives are often weak andineffectivePeasant Farmers Association weakMixed success in some commodity chains(e.g., coffee)Limited agro-processing takes place inZambiaMarkets for processed good limited inZambiaPreference for imported products with lowprices (e.g., China) or preferred quality (e.g.,South Africa)15

IntermediaryDomainDomain Key Actors Opportunities ChallengesExtension ServicesGovernment extension NGO extension officers - – KATC,others who employ extension agentsPrivate sector extension affiliated with outgrowerschemes or employed by seed companies, processors ororganised groups of farmersGovernment extension system has goodcoverage on the groundWhen government extension officershave been provided with additionalresources and incentives through ADPshave been able to perform wellGovernment extension system weak.Institutional linkages between research andextension weakPublic extension officers have no economicor institutional incentives to seek newknowledge or transmit it to farmersNGOs – PAM, World Vision, CARE, SwedishCooperative Centre, Conservation Farming Unit, etc.Community-based Organisations – churches, schools,Radio Listening Clubs, Study Circles, FarmerOrganisations (20 – 50 members), community radiostationsTraining institutions - Kasisi Agricultural TrainingInstitute (KATC), Zambia Forestry College, the NaturalResources Development College, Zambia College ofAgriculture, Popota Tobacco Training College, ZambiaInstitute of Animal Health, Katete College ofAgricultural Marketing, Chapula Horticultural TrainingInstitute, Kasaka Fisheries Training InstituteProviding some working models forenhancing local innovation systems(e.g., local agrodealer agent farmer-tofarmerservice system).Catalysing and nurturing innovations invalue addition (e.g., cassava processingand product development)Demonstrated efficacy in improvingaccess to and uptake of new informationCan provide an entry point for servicesKATC in particular has been successfulin improving the uptake of organicfarming technologiesLargely weak connections to nationalresearch institutionsQuality of extension messages variableLack of coordination with government andother NGOsWeak linkages with private sectorcompaniesShort-term initiatives that are notsustainableLack of access to demand driven services;inability to pay for serviceLimited organisational and institutionalcapacity to articulate their own needsWeak linkages with mainstream researchand extension systems to bring about morewidespread uptake of research-basedknowledge and poverty reductionInfomediariesNational Agricultural Information Service (NAIS),National Technology Business Centre, journalists (Panos,farmer-agents (through PROFIT and Dunavant). Also seeNGOs, Farmer and Producer organisationsPositive Government attitudes towardsgreater private sector involvement in thesectorProviding good service to better offfarmersLack of appropriate business models tosupport sustainable information services tosmall-scale farmers, particularly those inremote areas16

Domain Key Actors Opportunities ChallengesIntermediaryDomain (continued)ICT sector (radio, mobile phone, internetservices)Communications Authority of ZambiaInternet service providers (11 in total), of which 6provide services in rural areasMobile telephone providers (MTN, Cell Z, CELTEL)National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)Telecentre operatorseBrainCommunity radio stationsLinkNetZNFU SMS market information service Radio FarmForum (operated by NAIS)Rapid advances in the ICT sector.Actors in the system know each other,scope for improved co-ordinationLinkNet intends to help improvecommunications infrastructure andservices for groups in rural areasHigh cost, heavily regulated internetenvironment, poor quality service provisionto rural areaseBrain (a forum for advancing the use ofICTs to promote development) is weak inthe agricultural and natural resources arenaPrivate sector intermediaries - Cotton (Dunavant, ClarkCotton, China-Mulungushi); paprika (Cheetha, Bimzi);tobacco (Tombwe Processing, Zambia Leaf Company,Standard Commercial Tobacco Services, TobaccoDevelopment Company, Daimon); Horticulture (York,Lusaka Agricultural Cooperative Union); Sugar (ZambiaSugar Co.); Livestock Products (Land O’ Lakes)Business development intermediaries - donor supportedintermediaries and forums, most notably PROFITAgri-Business ForumZambia Chamber of Small and Medium BusinessAssociationsFood Security Research ProjectZambia Agribusiness Technical Assistance CentreMACO’s Agribusiness UnitNational Technology Business CentreZambia Association of Chambers of Commerce andIndustry (ZACCI)Various small initiativesPrivate sector intermediaries likely toreach more smallholder farmers thananyone else, mostly in cotton andpaprika, if it supports the businessProvide more sustainable approaches toservice deliveryCost reductions in service delivery overtime as efficiency improves and servicesexpandThe recent formation of two newgovernment agencies dealing withbusiness issues suggest increasingawareness on the part of government ofthe importance of business developmentservices (BDS)ADPs such as ASP and SHEMP havedemonstrated that once farmers haveaccess to market and market info andunderstand value of BDS, they arewilling to payEngagement largely with better-off farmersDealing with small and spread-outtransactions that lack economies of scalePoor infrastructural servicesBusiness development services not reachingpoorer farmersMany small-scale farmers’ are risk adversewhen it comes to business developmentservices (usually with good cause, and alack of capital for investment), and lackaccess to markets needed to profit fromenterprisesCurrent project-based businessdevelopment service approaches are notsustainableNo history of paying for businessdevelopment services in the smallholdersector17

ResearchDomainDomain Key Actors Opportunities ChallengesCommodity and Trade Associations - Cotton Associationof Zambia; Zambia Association of High Value Crops;Tobacco Association of Zambia; Livestock ProcessorsAssociation; Millers Association of Zambia; BankersAssociation of Zambia; Association of Micro-FinancingInstitutions; Zambia Chamber of Commerce andIndustry; Coffee Board of Zambia; Zambia Seed TradersAssociation; Grain Traders Association.Research institutes - ZARI, NISIR, Golden ValleyAgricultural Research Trust, NRDC, FSRP, NAIRC,Central Valley Research Institute, Cotton DevelopmentTrust, Livestock Development Trust. Also researchservices offered by Department of Research andSpecialist Services, Department of Agriculture and FieldServices, Fisheries Department, Forestry Department.Universities - UNZA system, agricultural colleges. AtUNZA, School of Agriculture, School of VeterinaryMedicine, Department of Agricultural EngineeringUniversities - UNZA system, agricultural colleges. AtUNZA, School of Agriculture, School of VeterinaryMedicine, Department of Agricultural EngineeringPrivate sector - ZNFU, FEWSNET, DUNAVANT,Agricultural Business Forum, Grain Milling Association,co-operatives, ZEGA, input suppliersEffective interest groups with (varied)influence at the national and subnationallevelsAssociations are providing a forum forincreasing trust and transparency incommodity value chainsA framework for building commonstandards and spreading best practicesZARI has a network of nine researchstations covering all nine provinces andis working to strengthen links betweenresearch stations and extensionproviders (public, private, NGO) at thedistrict levelGood collaboration between ZARI,NISIR and UNZAGART has a working relationship to theZNFU and Commercial Farmers Union,as well as ZARIFormation of the public private trustshas increased responsiveness of researchinstitutions to some segments of theinnovation system (agribusiness,commercial farmers)Existing collaboration relationships withother research institutionsResearch capacities currently underutilisedIf research supports the advancement ofeconomic interests, private sector wouldlikely be quick to respondThese stakeholders offer opportunitiesfor shaping the research agenda andhelp make it more relevant tosmallholder farmersFor some producer associations, lack ofinfluence on activities by out-growersWeak linkages between associations andgrassroots producersThe voice of the smallholder communities isweak in these associationsReturns to the farmer are low due to poorproductivity and low pricesIn general poor linkages with extension andother information service providersLack of market oriented researchFarmers have little input into settingresearch agenda. Mechanisms that aresupposed to feed farmer demand back upthe line are not functioningDifficulty tapping farmer knowledgeUniversities suffer from resourceconstraints and low moraleFew of these organisations offer researchservicesFew incentives to conduct researchThe diversity of interests with no facilitationlimits the contribution of these stakeholdersto shaping the research agenda that is ofbenefit to smallholder communities18

Domain Key Actors Opportunities ChallengesResearchDomain (continued)NGOs - CARE, World Vision, Programme AgainstMalnutrition, International Development Enterprises(IDE) are most active in the natural resources arena inrural Zambia. Others include Heifer International,Harvest Help, Oxfam, Women in Agriculture, theCooperative League of the United States Overseas(CLUSA), Total Land Care, Pelum.Zambia Association for Research and Development.International and regional organisation research -CGIAR, CIAT (African Network on Soil Biology andFertility; Pan-African Bean Research Alliance; SouthernAfrican Bean Research Network); Southern Africa RootCrops Research Network, CIMMYT (Soil FertilityConsortium for Southern Africa), CIFOR, World FishCentre, World Agro-forestry Centre (Agro-forestryResearch Network for Southern Africa), IFPRI, Alliancefor Green Revolution in Africa, African AgriculturalTechnology FoundationCAADP - FARA, co-ordinating the Regional AgriculturalInformation and Learning System, and Dissemination ofNew Agricultural Technologies in AfricaConsiderable experience in workingwith especially poor householdsExtensive experience in integratinglivelihoods support, food security, andsocial protectionIDE and CLUSA experienced inprogrammes targeting small-scaleproducers and various commoditiesAligned with CAADPActive in Zambia, linked with researchagencies and programmesVery limited agricultural research carriedout by NGOsSome NGOs that work in livelihoodssupport lack the experience to do so, andmay approach income generation in theagricultural sector from a social protectionperspectiveConsiderable confusion about how to mixsocial protection and income generation,lack of recognition that the two can be wellintegrated. Tendency of some state actorsto consider very poor farming householdsas not relevant to market developmentsNo clear examples of internationalorganisation support for Zambianinitiatives to link research funding withpartnerships with farmers, NGOs, farmerorganisations, and the private sectorInfrastructureTransport and marketing For some areas, excellent access totransport and marketsFor areas near Lusaka, access tointernational marketsTo a limited extent, ICTs are easingsome of the major communication andmarketing problems in rural areasFor most areas, including focal areas forRIU in Zambia, poor transportinfrastructure and limited access to nationaland regional marketsLack of economies of scale for marketablesurpluses for smallholder communitiesLimited local market opportunities, lowpurchasing power19

Domain Key Actors Opportunities ChallengesInfrastructure(continued)Land tenure system Land tenure system largely culturallyacceptedLand tenure system functions effectivelythrough local systemsBanking, savings and credit, informal finance Numerous rural finance initiatives inplaceExperience with pro-poor membershipgroups organised around access tocredit and technical training/servicesEmergency of contract farming andsupport services from businessdevelopment services agencies as theAgricultural Business Forum focuses onbuilding trust between the banks andsmallholder producersRegulations and standards Effective regulatory environment inplaceOpportunities for self-regulationthrough commodity and tradeassociationsDevelopment of domestic markets (e.g.,for organic produce) whose standardsare within the reach of smallholderfarmersInnovation and business support systems - donorsupported intermediaries and forums, most notablyPROFITAgri-Business ForumZambia Chamber of Small and Medium BusinessAssociationsFood Security Research ProjectZambia Agribusiness Technical Assistance CentreMACO’s Agribusiness UnitNational Technology Business CentreZambia Association of Chambers of Commerce andThe recent formation of two newgovernment agencies dealing withbusiness issues suggest increasingawareness on the part of government ofthe importance of business developmentservices (BDS)ADPs such as ASP and SHEMP havedemonstrated that once farmers haveaccess to market and market info andunderstand value of BDS, they arewilling to pay20land tenure system is in part there forpolitical control, rather than innovation andinvestmentlack of industrial development zones fallingunder land boards for business investmentsLand dispossession of widowsHistory of loan defaultsWeak bank sector because of poorrepaymentLimited financial service outreach in ruralareas, very limited access in remote areasHigh interest rates through informal systemLack of consistency in enforcementLack of standards in place for new productsLimited remote-area outreachBusiness development services not reachingpoorer farmersMany small-scale farmers’ lack the mindsetand the access to markets need to profitfrom BDSLimited infrastructural services (telecommunicationsand electricity) to supportinnovation and business support systems

Domain Key Actors Opportunities ChallengesInfrastructure(continued)Industry (ZACCI)Various small initiativesInformation systems -ICT sector (radio, mobile phone, internetservices)Communications Authority of ZambiaInternet service providers (11 in total), of which 6provide services in rural areasMobile telephone providers (MTN, Cell Z, CELTEL)National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)Telecentre operatorseBrainCommunity radio stationsLinkNetZNFU SMS market information service Radio FarmForum (operated by NAIS)Limited but expanding coverage of ICTsExisting working models (e.g., theZNFU cell phone-based marketinformation services)Rapid advances in the ICT sector.Actors in the system know each other,scope for improved co-ordinationLinkNet intends to help improvecommunications infrastructure andservices for groups in rural areasLimited but expanding coverage of ICTinfrastructural servicesHigh cost, heavily regulated internetenvironment, poor quality service provisionto rural areaseBrain (a forum for advancing the use ofICTs to promote development) is weak inthe agricultural and natural resources arenaCost of accessing ICT services stillprohibitive for smallholder communities44. In considering the extent to which the Innovations System functions in a manner that currently or potentially can support poverty alleviation, thedetailed mapping that took place has been abbreviated and considered in general, so that priority actions affecting different parts of the system canbe considered. The following figure shows each of these components of the system, and for each gives summary information the overall character ofthat element of the Innovations System (i.e., positive, mixed, negative’), key actions required that warrant RIU attention, and key constraints that willaffect success.Summary of Innovations System45. Many of the key challenges in the Innovations System are in areas that RIU may have a competitive edge, but it requires proceeding in a numberof different domains, and influencing the system at policy, networking, strategic, and sub-district levels:21

Figure 1: Summary of Agricultural Innovations System Status, Key Constraints, Needed ActionsStatus: PositiveKey Actions: Build on trust and social capital; strengthensystems; link to CAADPKey Constraints: Weak policy implementationSystem Interaction Weakenesses: Development paradigmdoes not emphasis agricultural developmentFrameworkConditionsStatus: Mixed, Internally Somewhat WeakKey Actions: Strengthen intermediaries and expand rangeKey Constraints: Missing inter-mediary functions, weakinformation services marketSystem Interaction Weakenesses: Not linked to other domainsdue to poorly developed inter-mediary functionsEnterpriseDomainIntermediaryDomainStatus: Mixed, Internally Somewhat WeakKey Actions: Strengthen local level organisation andsupport structuresKey Constraints: Poor market access, lack ofmarket/business-oreinted history for smallholdersSystem Interaction Weakenesses: Poor access toinformation services, lack of demand information,pooraccess to financial markets, limited by poor infrastructureResearch IntoUse forPovertyAlleviationStatus: NegativeKey Actions: Area-focused interventionsKey Constraints: Poor service provisionSystem Interaction Weakenesses: Lack of linkages withICT sector, poor purchasing power among demanddomain, research not linked to infrastructure domainResearchDomainInfrastructureStatus: Negative, Internally WeakKey Actions: Demand-led researchKey Constraints: System very weakSystem Interaction Weakenesses: With the exception ofproject-specific examples, lack of links especially withthe enterprise and intermediary domains, lack ofdemand-driven research needs from the demanddomainDemandDomainStatus: Negative, Internally WeakKey Actions: Strengthen demandKey Constraints: Limited infrastructure for enhancingdemandSystem Interaction Weakenesses: Poorly linked to anydomain, especially research22

Conclusions46. The international consensus that research is not contributing sufficiently to poverty alleviationas intended was shared by stakeholders in the natural resources arena, and this yieldedconsiderable support for the establishment of the RIU Programme in Zambia.47. Similarly, the notion of an innovations system approach to responding to problems facing theagriculture and natural resources arena in Zambia was well-received, with practical partnershipsand the engagement of private, public, and non-governmental actors especially valued.48. An assessment of the Innovations System in the natural resources arena in Zambia hashighlighted strategic opportunities associated with initiatives that respond to frameworkconditions, the demand domain, the enterprise domain, the intermediary domain, and the researchdomain. These opportunities are, in many respects, intended to complement each other, and areorganised around two strategic thrusts:(a)(b)Enhancing capacity to demand services and participate in value/market chains byfarmers and intermediariesStrengthening of knowledge sharing mechanisms and services49. The assessment also identified the main strengths and weaknesses in the agriculturalInnovations System in Zambia at this time:Table 3: Main Strengths and Weaknesses in the Agricultural Innovations SystemStrength/WeaknessCommentStrengthsStrong demand for RIU in ZambiaPositive policy environment forinnovationsExisting networkingStakeholder discussions clearly reflect high demand for RIU inZambia. Assessment findings suggest that many stakeholders seeRIU as able to fill an important gap that is undermining progress inthe agricultural sectorA review of Government policies, and a consideration of howGovernment has responded to various initiatives, suggest that thepolicy environment in Zambia is positive for strengthening theInnovations SystemExistence of stakeholder forums and networks trying to worktogether, providing an important network for RIU to influenceICT infrastructureDespite constraints, ICT infrastructure is improving rapidlyRecognition that current models arenot getting research into useStakeholder discussions highlight particular concerns about the lackof a responsive, relevant, and demand-driven research environment,and a commitment to ‘getting research into use’Working modelsWhile there are clear problems, there are existing working modelswith potential for Innovations System strengthening23

Strength/WeaknessCommentWeaknessesA weak policy implementationenvironmentA development model that does notsee smallholder agriculture as a keyengine of developmentLength of time RIU will operate inZambiaDifficulty in reaching poorersmallholder farmersInformation communicationtechnologyPolicy-practice gapVulnerabilityWhile there are a number of very solid policies in Zambia, and whilemany of these are supported by relevant legislation, policyimplementation is weak. Measurements of progress in terms ofcross-sectoral issues (e.g., the PRSP, the national development plan)reflect this lack of clarity in how to link policies with clear actionsWhile agricultural is stated as a priority sector, and whiledevelopment in the agricultural sector is noted as central to povertyalleviation, investment and attention is largely focused elsewhereA concern was expressed, on more than one occasion, that what RIUwas trying to accomplish in Zambia would require longer than threeyearsMost opportunities for effective innovation platforms focus onprogrammes that currently reach households with some access tocapital. While there are a number of cogent reasons for reachingthese farming households, there is an urgent need to bring NGOsinto the innovation platforms that would help to reach very poorfarmers and farming householdsHigh cost, heavily regulated internet environment, poor qualityservice provision to rural areasGap between policy and practice, especially in resource allocation tosmallholder service sectors. Although key stakeholders would seevalue and buy into an Innovations System approach, overallcommitment is to enhanced minerals development, and less of afocus on agricultureMost smallholder farmers are vulnerability to natural disasters, thenarrowing of livelihoods, and labour loss24

III. Proposed RIU Strategy in ZambiaIntroduction50. The previous chapter included a mapping of the agricultural Innovations System in Zambia,based on a framework put forward by Arnold and Bell (2001) as adapted by Whiteside (2007).This mapping highlighted positive framework conditions, a weak demand domain, a mixed enterprisedomain, a mixed intermediary domain, a negative research domain, and a negative infrastructureenvironment. It also underlined a number of weaknesses in the functioning of the relationshipsbetween these different domains in a manner than weakened the Innovations System overall.51. The mapping yielded insights into how to approach RIU Programme design andimplementation in Zambia, with particular attention to how to strengthen the effectiveness of linksacross the various domains in a manner consistent with a strengthened Innovations System. TheRIU Programme’s competitive edge is in strengthening the Innovations System that engagesvarious actors over time, so that the RIU Programme leaves behind a stronger, better functioningsystem that can continue to function more effectively in its absence. There are particularlyopportunities in this regard in the information and knowledge market.52. Key drivers of poverty that were relevant to RIU’s strategic advantages were concluded as thefollowing:(a)(b)(c)(d)Narrow livelihoods among poorer households, and lack of resources to diversity todecrease risk and expand opportunity.Socio-cultural factors that limit choice, and therefore constrain opportunities forstrengthened livelihoods.Remoteness and isolation, and consequent lack of access to broader factors thatenhance choice and opportunity, and lack of access to inputs and markets.A dominant development model that does not prioritise investment in rurallivelihoods.Framework for the RIU Programme in Zambia53. Based on the CASDT’s assessment findings and recommendations on strategic opportunities,and considering the drivers of poverty, the following were identified:(a)(b)(c)Strategic Thrusts - identifying broad areas for RIU Programme engagement in Zambia.Innovation Leadership - considering how the RIU Programme in Zambia can be structured,so that implementation is consistent with the intentions noted in the strategic thrusts.Innovation leadership rests on a common interest across actors in the coalition.Innovation Platforms - Indicating platform ideas that are consistent with the intentions ofthe strategic thrusts. Innovation Platforms represent actors involved in common actions.25

Strategic Thrusts54. Two inter-related Strategic Thrusts have been identified:(a)(b)Strategic Thrust 1: Enhancing capacity to demand services and participate in value/ marketchains by farmers and intermediaries.Strategic Thrust 2: Strengthening of knowledge market mechanisms and services.55. Strategic Thrust 1: Bearing in mind RIU’s poverty alleviation mandate, the extent to which RIUcan add value in Zambia relies on its ability to respond to four key drivers of poverty: 1)remoteness and isolation; 2) recognising the varied socio-economic circumstances of households; 3)understanding the socio-cultural determinants that heighten vulnerability and reinforce poverty;and 4) recognising the difficult decision-making environment around rural livelihoods responses.In these respects, the point of RIU departure is not a particular commodity or technology, butrather an inability to diversify and increase economic activity, better share the benefits of thisactivity, reduce risk, and take advantage of opportunities as they arise. Commodity chains andinnovative technologies have a roll to play, indeed important ones, but only if they emerge asopportunities in the implementation of these two platforms.56. Partnership arrangements should be guided by the following considerations:(a)(b)(c)Building trust between partners in a National Innovations Coalition, in a Sub-DistrictInnovations Coalition, and across the two levels (as equal partners), and strengtheningtheir ability to influence the national and sub-national agendas.Identifying partners who are experienced in the rural livelihoods arena in semi-remoteareas, and who do not focus only on arable agriculture, but rather consider broader rurallivelihood strategies. The intent is to expand the middle ground, getting the majority ofresource poor to participate in livelihood value chains.Ensuring the involvement of agencies that are competent in working with very poorfarmers, and who are cognizant of intra-household dynamics, socio-cultural barriers toeconomic advancement, and socio-cultural opportunities to improve the magnitude anddistribution of positive economic impacts.57. Strategic Thrust 2: Strategic Thrust 2 refers to strengthening information and knowledge servicemarkets. The rationale is that a central element in the effective functioning of the innovationssystem of relevance to RIU in Zambia will be to improve the flows of information and knowledgebetween actors. This will be undertaken through two linked sets of activities: (a) nationally, and atsub-national levels, to facilitate and incentivise joint actions and knowledge flows between keypublic and private sector actors; and (b) at platform and sub-platform level, to strengthen demandfor and use of information and knowledge services within and across platforms. This StrategicThrust would, in part, be a key element of Strategic Thrust 1, but has broader implications for theRIU Programme in Zambia.58. Partnership arrangements should be guided by the following considerations:(a)(b)Private sector engagement should be at the core of Strategic Thrust 2. There are a numberof commercial enterprises of relevance identified by the information markets specialist.At the meso and local levels, there are a number of intermediaries that could provideimportant services, including local entrepreneurs, economic groupings of producers andapex organisations such as the Zambian National Farmers Union (ZNFU) and the ZambiaChamber of Small and Medium Business Associations (ZACSMBA), etc.26

Innovation Coalition59. There are five key factors that would warrant formation of a National Innovation Coalition(NIC):(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)The proposed innovation platforms are diverse and complex, and are set at two levels:(i) national, focusing on policy issues and operational matters; and (ii) sub-district,geographically focused in at least one remote area. Supporting these platforms willneed broader guidance, and advocacy, from a national coalition.The proposed activities for RIU will entail fairly diverse actors working together,notably communication service providers, input suppliers, research and traininginstitutions, and non-governmental organisations. The country assessment suggeststhat a number of these actors are not necessarily comfortably working together onmatters that affect operations and, for the private sector, the bottom line.The demand for research outputs will need to come from users of these outputs, withsupply driven by informed demand as a commercial product. The Strategic Thrust forknowledge markets, and the integration of knowledge markets into the sub-districtgeographic Strategic Thrust, will focus on enhancing demand. The Information andKnowledge Service Markets assessment report has pointed out difficulties that can beanticipated in this regard, and the need to bring together actors who may not be usedto working together. As with these previous points, supporting these platforms willrequire broader guidance, and advocacy, from a national coalition.Despite a ‘crowded’ rural livelihoods arena, despite shared interests, and despite thepresence of a number of forums for joint action, there is a weak culture of interactivelearning and collaborative action among stakeholders. This process needs to be guidedwithin a learning framework that reflects how various interests can continue to beadvanced.An ‘innovation systems approach’ is by no means a logical outcome of these differentactors working together. Instead, it is quite easy to shift to supply driven responses, toonly work with farmers who can engage easily with the market, to shift from economicenhancement to social protection (particularly an issue with NGOs), and to simplydrop out of the process quite quickly (which may especially be a problem for theprivate sector).60. As noted, work has already started on the formation of a NIC, so that the NIC can assist withimplementation planning. It is important that the NIC be composed of organisations andbusinesses that stand to advance their interests through a pooling of their talents, and this meansthat the NIC membership needs to be consistent with the platform activities ultimately decidedupon by those involved in the RIU Programme.61. The question arises as to whether an RIU-supported Innovation Coalition will functioneffectively, given that there are already examples of joint action across different organisations. Theshort answer is no, unless the interests of these actors can be advanced through their collaboration.For the private sector, beyond those involved in the communications arena, it is not clear at thisjuncture whether the platforms will attract, and retain, their interests, because the return oninvestments may be quite low, and very localised in a remote area. This needs to be furtherconsidered during implementation planning.27

62. A National Innovation Coalition (NIC) is necessary to effectively bring together actors at thenational level to strengthen the Innovations System. The country assessment found a number ofactors that clearly view the RIU approach as consistent with their aims and objectives, but who arenow not working together in a fashion that would yield a more coherent, stronger InnovationsSystem. While the overall ‘environment’ around the Innovations System is currently quitechallenging, there are organisations and programmes in Zambia that, in the positive policyenvironment, can advance the objectives of the RIU Programme in Zambia. In these respects,partnerships are a logical outcome, engendering trust as activities progress.63. Given that the Innovations System involves private, public, and non-governmental actors, it isimportant to ensure that the NIC reflects the membership necessary to advance the programme inZambia. Of particular importance is the involvement of private sector agencies that, acting in theirown interests, can sustain activities into the future. Of equal importance will be the strengtheningof local interest groups that strengthen the influence and role of entrepreneurs at the local level.64. It is equally important, given RIU’s poverty alleviation mandate, to ensure the engagement ofnon-governmental organisations with economic empowerment credentials and working experience withespecially poor households and populations, coupled with avoidance of the common problems facingmost NGOs -- duplication and lack of co-ordination, ill-designed projects, and start-stop actions.There is a particular need to avoid a social welfare approach in engaging with these especiallypoor populations, but ‘going the extra distance’ in engaging with these populations to supporttheir involvement in the emergent Innovations System.65. At the national level, the NIC will be instrumental in integrating RNRRS and other researchoutputs into the Innovations System in Zambia, with one of the priorities under the NationalInnovation Platform focused on supporting this as a component of a broader focus onstrengthening the Innovations System. A review of some research outputs in Zambia, andconsideration of RNRRS research outputs (including cassava as a commodity, but also includingengagement with especially poor households), yielded grounds for optimism; other examples arecontained in the specialist reports contained as annexes to the Assessment Report.66. In addition to the establishment of a National Innovations Coalition, there is a need to establisha Sub-District Innovations Coalition (SDIC) 2 in the focal area for RIU engagement in rural Zambia.In part the establishment of the SDIC would help to serve as a countervailing influence to the NIC,supporting a continued focus on poverty alleviation and, equally importantly, giving voice tothose in the Innovations System that are least likely to influence the process. This meansstrengthening organisations involving very poor households and persons, their effectiveengagement with the SDIC as influential actors, and their strengthened role as intermediaries inthe Innovations System.67. The working relationship between the NIC and the SDIC will need to be elaborated duringimplementation planning. It is hoped that the existence and actions of the SDIC would serve as animportant countervailing influence to the NIC, in particular in terms of supporting the voice ofthose who will not have had any influence on national decision-making processes. But it isespecially important that the establishment and actions of the SDIC influence the direction andpriorities of the NIC, and that the NIC does not view itself as a ‘senior partner’ of, or manager for,2The recommendation for the establishment of an SDIC is based on conclusions drawn from the work of the CASDT.However, during implementation planning and implementation, it may be that strong actors are already working inways that will allow a focus on these actors, rather than the establishment of a coalition.28

the SDIC. The Implementation Plan therefore needs to agree a structure that reflects thispartnership arrangement, and a system of co-learning across the two bodies.68. SDIC member organisations and other actors at the sub-national level in the InnovationsSystem are not, of course, simply consumers of research. The very success of the SDIC and the subplatformsit will be engaged with relies on the improved demand for knowledge and knowledgeservices, and the provision of such services by local actors where possible (and increasing over thelife of RIU).Innovation Platforms69. A total of seven Innovation Platforms were identified by the CASDT. After discussions withthe IRG and SMT, it was felt that these should be organised under two platforms. Each of theseplatforms and sub-platforms are classified by the area they concentrate in, in the InnovationsSystem. Three sub-platforms are noted in italics, as they need consideration duringimplementation planning:(a)(b)Framework Condition: Building Trust and Co-Learning, and Strengthening theFunctioning of the System Across Domains(i) Intermediary Domain: Development of a Knowledge Market Strategy(ii) Intermediary Domain: Strengthening Radio and Radio Listening Clubs andCommunity Radio as Mechanisms for Farmers to Access and Demand InformationDemand Domain/Research Domain/Intermediary Domain: Sub-District Based Semi-Remote Area Initiative(i) Intermediary Domain: Development of a Knowledge Market Strategy(ii) Intermediary Domain: Strengthening Radio and Radio Listening Clubs andCommunity Radio as Mechanisms for Farmers to Access and Demand Information(iii) Enterprise Domain: Conservation Farming(iv) Intermediary Domain/Research Domain: Agro-Dealer/Farmer-to-Farmer Scheme Support(v) Demand Domain/Enterprise Domain: Cassava Task Force70. There are two potential ‘early wins’: 1) Intermediary Domain: Development of a KnowledgeMarket Strategy; and 2) Framework Conditions: Building Trust and Co-Learning at the NationalLevel. Both of these are process wins, the former intended to bring actors together to develop acommon vision about the development of a knowledge market strategy, and the latter intended tostrengthen the Innovations System overall. The remaining platform and sub-platform ideas willtake more time, and need to be preceded by the start-up of the two early win activities.71. The two early win activities can begin in 2008, and can be part of implementation planning, asboth are consistent with RIU principles. The main platform, focused on building trust and colearning,is fully consistent with implementation planning activities, but will eventually requirethe formalisation of arrangements under the Implementation Plan. The CASDT believes that theAgricultural Consultative Forum (ACF) offers the best opportunity for advancing the InnovationPlatform: Building Trust and Co-Learning, and Strengthening the Functioning of the SystemAcross Domains. During implementation planning, the viability and desirability of thisarrangement needs to be confirmed and, if agreed, RIU would need to make arrangements to effectthe ACF’s involvement in co-ordinating this Innovations Platform.29

72. For the second early win, RIU will need to provide the services of specialists in the knowledgemarket arena to work with the NIC on the development of the strategy. This would have theadded benefit of supporting the involvement of knowledge market actors in the NIC. The strategyshould ensure that it considers how the sub-platform would function under the ACF.73. Ideally, the Sub-Platform: Development of a Knowledge Market Strategy would yieldimportant information of relevance to the Sub-Platform: Strengthening Radio and Radio ListeningClubs and Community Radio as Mechanisms for Farmers to Access and Demand Information.74. The issue of prioritisation of platforms versus engaging in early wins is complicated by the factthat the second Innovations Platform: Sub-District Based Semi-Remote Area Initiative isinstrumental in showing how an Innovations System approach can yield actions that have povertyalleviation outcomes, and in showing how an Innovations System approach can strengthen localmarkets and local service provision, rather than just focusing on linking an area to national andinternational markets. Nevertheless, the success of this Innovations Platform is fundamentallybased on the success of the first Innovations Platform (and particularly the effectiveness of theACF’s co-ordinating role) and the two sub-platforms on knowledge markets and radio listeningclubs/community radio. It is also linked to the establishment and effective functioning of the NIC.75. ‘Building trust’ under the first Innovations Platform, of course, needs to yield practical outputs.In early discussions with stakeholders, conservation farming, agro-dealer/farmer-to-farmerschemes, an support to the activities of the Cassava Task Force were noted as importantopportunities, and as effective vehicles to building relationships. And this is where there areimportant links between the two innovation platforms. As avenues for collaboration emerge, theseshould be considered in terms of the SDIC as a priority location for activities. This has importantbenefits in three respects: 1) it underlines the RIU Programme’s emphasis on actions that set intomotion processes for poverty alleviation; 2) it brings together actors who are experienced inworking with ‘progressive farmers’ with those who are used to working with disadvantagedhouseholds, yielding better spread effects of these activities; and 3) it offers fertile ground forimplementation of the Knowledge Markets Strategy.76. The intended operations of the two innovation platforms, as well as the key actors ACF, theSDIC, and the NIC, are summarised in the following figure:30

Figure 2: Intended System Function and the Operations of Actors in the SystemInnovations Platform 1ACFInnovations Platform 2SDICNational Innovations CoalitionNOTE: Shape denotes stakeholder actor77. The figure reflects the involvement of a number of stakeholders under the NIC, some of whom(but not necessarily all) would be involved in the two platforms. Similarly, for some actors (butnot necessarily all) working within and with the SDIC, they would be chapters of the sameorganisations linked to the NIC and, in some cases, also involved in the first innovations platform.These are, of course, strategic alliances, and decisions made by various actors in the InnovationsSystem will guide who is involved and how.78. The overall functioning of the system, outlining its intentions and accomplishments, isillustrated in the following figure:31

Figure 3: Overview of the RIU Programme Operations in ZambiaStrategic IntentMechanismsIntendedOutcomesRIU research outputs(RNRRS)-based support toenhance capacity todemand servicesRIU research outputs(RNRRS)-based support tostrengthen information andknowledge market servicesNICIP 1IP 2Denotes links between stakeholderswithin the platforms/NICIn ZambiaImproved functioning of theInnovations SystemAlignment with CAADPResponse to the drivers ofpovertyAdvancing ‘good ideas’Agenda setting to advancethe agricultural sectorIn RIUUse of RNRRS/otherresearchoutputs through the strengtheningof demandTesting a poverty-focusedapproach to countryprogrammingLinking RNRRS outputs withsystem strengthening forpoverty alleviationInnovation Guidelines79. Reflecting the approach and principles of RIU, in considering areas of strategic advantage, andnoting threats arising, the following should guide RIU Programme development andimplementation in Zambia:(a)(b)There is a risk that RIU could support very innovative and worthy activities in Zambia,but in its mission to support ‘good ideas’, the Programme may lose site of its principlemandate of alleviating poverty. The core focus should therefore remain povertyalleviation, with MIL systems in place to ensure that the activities are proceeding in therequisite manner, and that they are having the desired impacts. However, this doesnot mean that RIU directly engages in poverty alleviation. Indeed, while povertyalleviation will necessarily drive the Zambian programme, this does not mean that allactions should individually focus specifically in poverty alleviation. Rather, RIU needsto set into motion a process that will eventually yield poverty alleviation benefits.Poverty alleviation is therefore the ‘destination’, rather than the ‘point of departure’.Having noted the centrality of a focus on the eventual impacts of activities on povertyalleviation, it is important to note that there are numerous actors in the InnovationsSystem that are key to the effectiveness of poverty alleviation activities, but who arenot themselves poor. This includes in particular farming households andintermediaries that have the potential to employ others. Specific recommendationshave been made about how to engage with the very poor in such a manner that theyenter the market with more bargaining power (e.g., in terms of labour provision), andmore economic power. Poverty alleviation should be viewed from the point of view of32

(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)livelihoods strengthening and diversification in a broader sense, and not narrowly definedas activities that yield a focus only on the very poor.The RIU Programme’s competitive edge is in strengthening the Innovations System thatengages various actors over time, so that the RIU Programme leaves behind a stronger,better functioning system that can continue to function more effectively in its absence.There are particularly opportunities in this regard in the information and knowledgemarket.The RIU Programme in Zambia should be guided by a National Innovations Coalition,comprising an appropriate balance between private, non-governmental, and publicstakeholders.(i)However, power should not be concentrated only in the hands of the NIC.While the dynamics of the RIU Programme in Zambia can only be elaboratedduring implementation planning, there is a need to establish a Sub-DistrictInnovations Coalition (SDIC) in the main geographical area reached by the RIUProgramme to strengthen the voice of the most disenfranchised, and to enhancethe influence of local actors. The SDIC should not be seen as a ‘youngerbrother’ to the NIC, but instead an equal partner intended to inform the actionsof the NIC.There is widespread agreement that agricultural research is not serving its intendedpurpose in Zambia, and that existing models of ‘getting research into use’ areineffective. A key task of the NIC and the SDIC will therefore be to strengthen theinfluence of effective demand on knowledge generation within the context of alearning environment. For the NIC, this may include a systematic review of existingRNRRS and related research to consider its relevance to activities supported by RIU inZambia, and for the SDIC systems to engage with partners on demand for knowledge.However, this should by no means reinforce supply-driven approaches and supplydrivendemands for ‘more research’. Instead, the review should be conducted in amanner that demand is enhanced as ideas of relevance to the Zambian situationemerge, and are seen as useful by local actors.The ‘capture’ of RIU Programme support is a threat in any country. In Zambia, the keyrisk is a shift away from the Programme’s poverty alleviation focus to the support of‘good ideas’ that, tacitly or overtly, divert the Programme’s activities away from itsmandate.It is especially important for MIL to ensure that the RIU Programme in Zambiaincludes a number of process indicators designed to establish improvements in thefunctioning of the Innovations System. In particular, there is a need to measurewhether the processes of engagement during RIU Programme implementation willyield a continuation of the process following completion of RIU.Value Added80. The RIU Programme in Zambia has the potential to add particular value to the agriculturalInnovations System in Zambia as follows:(a)Strengthen the functioning of the Innovations System itself, thereby supporting thesustainability of interventions in the agricultural arena.33

(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)Yield a demonstration effect,particularly in terms of the subdistrictInnovations Platform.Serve as a catalyst for demanddrivenresearch in Zambia.Help to shift information andknowledge market service provisionfrom a few-to-many model to amany-to-many model.Help refocus agriculturalinterventions in Zambia in a mannerthat includes very poor farmers aseffective, economically viable actorsin the Innovations System.SubdistrictplatformSupport gender mainstreaming as anatural and integral element of programme implementation, rather than as an add oncomponent.Recognise labour constraints as a key livelihoods challenge, and the particular problemsassociation with HIV&AIDS in this regard.Sustainability81. The process of implementation planning will need to focus attention on the sustainabilityassociated with RIU Programme results in Zambia. The involvement of MIL in implementationplanning is especially important in this regard.82. Related to this, but referring to RIU Programme matters specifically, this would also includethe identification and operationalisation of programme indicators associated with the RIUProgramme’s exit strategy for Zambia. How, in short, will RIU proceed to wind down itsoperations in Zambia, and how will it keep actions in this regard ‘in sight’ during implementation?83. The principles supporting the sustainability of RIU impacts and RIU processes in Zambia wereconsidered by the CASDT, as were practical issues around how to maximise these impacts. Theseprinciples are as follows:(a)(b)(c)(d)That RIU Programme implementation in Zambia be closely linked with the CAADPprocess in Zambia, and that it work with CAADP and its structures to build alliances aspart of its efforts to strengthen the agricultural Innovations System.That RIU Programme implementation in Zambia be guided by the NIC, thatimplementation of relevant sub-district platforms be guided by the SDIC, and that theSDIC informs the NIC.That RIU Programme implementation in Zambia place particular emphasis on enhanceddemand. Given the poverty alleviation mandate of RIU, it is especially important thatlocal systems that engage with the poor and disenfranchised strengthen the voice of thesepersons/households in a manner that strengthens effective demand over time.That MIL establish its sub-programme presence in Zambia by the end of 2008, throughextended involvement in implementation planning.(i)Particular attention would need to be paid to the poverty alleviation mandate of theRIU Programme.34

(e)(f)(g)That the RIU Programme strengthen information and knowledge markets to a significantextent during Programme implementation, given its centrality to Programme success. Itis also a particularly ‘weak link’ in the Innovations System, not in terms of the actors perse, but rather in terms of their experience in working together, and in terms of marketprovision of these services.That the RIU Programme be especially cognizant of the impacts of gender, chronic illnessand premature death (with particular reference to malaria, HIV&AIDS, and maternalmorbidity and mortality), and food insecurity.That the Implementation Plan for the RIU Programme in Zambia include a clear exitstrategy.Results84. The specific results for the RIU Programme in Zambia will emerge from the development ofthe logframe with MIL, and as the implementation plan is finalised. These will be derived fromthe results as per the RIU logframe. Nevertheless, based on the results of the Country Assessment,provisional results can be identified. Specifically, it is the intention of the RIU Programme inZambia that, by 2011, it will have produced the following:(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)Improved collaboration among actors in the agricultural Innovations System, and thecontinued functioning of a Zambian National Innovations Coalition and a Sub-DistrictInnovations Coalition.Strong innovation platforms functioning at the national and sub-national levels.Integration across innovation platforms, and integration of sub-platforms into the twomain platforms.Clear examples of the economic and social empowerment of the poor anddisenfranchised.Clear examples of ‘demonstration impacts’ due to the RIU Programme’s operations inZambia.Further Analysis Required85. Following approval of the strategy, implementation planning needs to include further analyseof key aspects of the Innovations System in Zambia. The following should be considered:(a)(b)(c)(d)The mapping of the Innovations System was completed sufficient for the needs of thestrategy. However, a more detailed mapping is required for implementation purposes. Ifpossible, this mapping should take into consideration accepted Innovation Platforms/Sub-Platforms.The centrality of information markets to the success of the RIU Programme in Zambiasuggests that further diagnosis is required, particularly after Innovation Platforms areapproved.An MIL diagnostic is required for the RIU Programme in Zambia.Finally, more detailed consideration needs to be devoted to a detailed exploration ofRNRRS outputs and other materials in terms of approaches to development that do yieldpoverty alleviation impacts. There are processes described in a number35

IV. RIU Programme Development86. Between now and the end of 2008, a number of implementation planning activities need to takeplace. These activities are included in this section of the Country Assessment and Strategy Report.87. While processes are underway to establish a NIC, consideration should still be given duringimplementation planning to other models. One example is the ACF serving as a hub aroundwhich various interest groups are formed, with ACF consultative structures managing broaderinteractions.88. Implementation planning processes should extend beyond stakeholder workshops to increasesmaller group fora as partnerships are identified. Further, stakeholders who have not yet beenengaged in the RIU process need to be brought into the process. The reasons for non-engagementto date likely vary, and securing their involvement will necessitate one-on-one contacts as well. Inaddition, there is a specific need to improve the engagement of NGOs who are involved inlivelihoods initiatives.89. One particularly important matter is how various Government agencies engage inimplementation planning, the NIC, and the SDIC. To date, these agencies have been insufficientlyinvolved, yet remain central in particular to the success of the agenda-setting objectives of RIU,and the sustainability of the SDIC. At this juncture, the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry ofAgriculture and Co-operatives is the national ‘link person’ for RIU, which offers RIU an importantopportunity to effectively engage with the various actors within agriculture. However, there areother important ministries who need to be effectively involved, and at this juncture there is noeffective mechanism for this to occur.90. There are three donors that have an especially strong influence in the agricultural arena inZambia. It remains unclear how these agencies view RIU and its activities, but their support forRIU is central to programmatic success. This requires specific engagement, through mechanismsto be identified during the early stages of implementation planning.91. There are a number of difficult decisions that need to be made regarding the NIC, the twoplatforms, and the various sub-platforms. There are also difficult decisions to be made aboutidentification of a sub-district, as well as the various actors that need to be involved in thatparticular process. As these decision processes proceed, it is likely that various differences ofopinion will emerge, highlighting where RIU needs to focus attention in terms of building trustand strengthening the Innovations System. In particular, challenges will emerge in terms of therole of the ACF in managing Innovations Platform 1, membership of the SDIC, the relationshipbetween the NIC and the SDIC, and other challenges.92. It is easy to lose site of the fact that the purpose of the RIU programme is to strengthen the useof RNRRS outputs in alleviating poverty, and not just poverty alleviation. In implementationplanning, this focus cannot get lost in the detail and complexity that such planning entails. Caremust be taken to ensure that this does not simply yield a strongly supply-push for research,whether this be RNRRS or other existing research, or new research.36

93. Attention should also be devoted to consideration of how RNRRS outputs can be used as partof the process of partnership building, both at the national and sub-national levels. There areprocess lessons to be learned from RNRRS and other research outputs in terms of engagement withvarious actors in the system, including farming households (and especially poor farminghouseholds), as well as working with local organisations to strengthen the voice of thosedisadvantaged in the process. There are also process lessons associated with commodity chains,farming approaches, and livelihoods approaches. Importantly, there are outputs associated withproducts and approaches that can offer important insights for Zambia. This needs to be describedin some detail in the Implementation Plan.94. The detailed RIU Programme in Zambia should be developed through a process of systematicstakeholder engagement in workshop format and through other consultative approaches, with thetiming and level of engagement dependent on decisions made by the Zambia RIU Task Managerand the availability of facilitation services. This should be coupled with early meetings of thenascent NIC, facilitated by to-be-identified persons from the CSPDT, the Zambia RIU TaskManager, and the emergent RIU Programme in Zambia.(a) Timeline: September - November 200895. Initial MIL involvement in the CASDT was withdrawn due to scheduling conflicts. There istherefore an urgent need for MIL engagement in the Zambian programme design process. Thiswould be integrated into the Zambian Implementation Plan.(a) Timeline: September - November 200896. It is expected that the implementation plan will be completed by November 2008. RIU supportto ‘early wins’ would mean that implementation planning would parallel the design of the threepriority Innovation Platforms. This would ideally include a more detailed mapping of theInnovations System.(a) Timeline: September 2008 - December 200837

Materials ConsultedACF (2006). ACF Stakeholder Survey Report 2006, prepared by K. Droppelmann, Monitoring andEvaluation Section, the Agricultural Consultative Forum Secretariat, Lusaka.ACF (2007). Gender Equity and Gender Monitoring in the ACF, prepared by J. Kapembwa and M.Simfukwe for the Agricultural Consultative Forum, Lusaka.ACF (2008). Agricultural Consultative Forum Breakfast Meeting: What is in the 2008 National Budget forZambian Agriculture?, 2008 Agricultural Sector Budget Analysis, comments from FSRP in cooperationwith MACO/ACF/CSO/MSU, Agricultural Consultative Forum, Lusaka.Albright, K. (2008). “Research Into Use: Linking scientists and users in innovation system”, (mimeo),National Resources International, United Kingdom.Albu, M. and A. Griffith (2005). Mapping the Market: A Framework for Rural Enterprise DevelopmentPolicy and Practice, Practical Action, Bourton on Dunsmore, Rugby, Warwickshire, England.Allen, D. and M. Ochs et. al. (2008). Building Pathways out of Rural Poverty through Investments inAgricultural Information Systems, prepared by the WorldAgInfo Design Team, Cornell University,United States.Arnold, E. and M. Bell (2001). Some New Ideas About Research for Development, Technology PolicyResearch, United Kingdom.ASP (2007). Stakeholder Analysis: Final Report, post-ASP Consultative Process Report, AgriculturalSupport Programme, Lusaka.Barnett, A. (2007). “RIU Country Level Interventions”, (mimeo), the Policy Practice (Ltd), Brighton, UnitedKingdom.Barnett, A. (2008a). A Summary of the National Systems of Innovation Approach, adapted with updatesfrom Journeying from Research to Innovation: Lessons from the Department for InternationalDevelopment’s Crop Post-Harvest Research Programme ‘Partnerships for Innovation’, the PolicyPractice (Ltd), Brighton, United Kingdom.Barnett, A. (2008b). “The key elements of a systems approach to innovation”, (mimeo), the Policy Practice(Ltd), Brighton, United Kingdom.Barnett, A. (2008c). “Research and Innovation: from a political economy perspective to action”, DraftDiscussion Note, the Policy Practice (Ltd), Brighton, United Kingdom.Barnett, A. (2008d). “A check list of RIU country level interventions”, (mimeo), the Policy Practice (Ltd),Brighton, United Kingdom.Beintema, N., E. Castel-Magalhaes, H. Eliot and M. Mwala (2004). Zambia Agricultural Science andTechnology Indicators, ASTI Country Brief No. 18, International Food Policy Research Institute,Washington, United States.Bongaglia, E. (2008). “Zambia: Sustaining Agricultural Diversification”, Organisation for EconomicCooperation and Development, Geneva, Switzerland.Campbell, K. (2008). “E-learning and e-reference: an overview”, mimeo.38

Chileshe, R. (2005). Land Tenure and Rural Livelihoods in Zambia: Case Studies of Kamena and St. Joseph,a thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Ph.D. in DevelopmentStudies, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.Chipeta, S., R. Kamona, J. Skagerfelt, and E. Maluba (2008). Extension as a Tool for Farming as a Business.Learning from 5 Years of Project Experience, Agricultural Support Programme (ASP) Zambia.Chomba, G. et. al. (2002). “Improving the transfer and use of agricultural market information in Zambia: Auser needs assessment”, Working Paper No. 6, Food Security Research Project, Lusaka.COMESA (2007a). Progress Report on the Implementation of the Comprehensive Africa AgriculturalProgram (CAADP) In COMESA (February 2006-February 2007), Common Market for Eastern andSouthern Africa, Lusaka.COMESA (2007b). Fourth Meeting of Ministers of Agriculture, Khartoum Sudan, 22 nd -23 rd March 2007,Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, Lusaka.CSO (2003). 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Central Statistical Office, Lusaka.CSO (2004). Living Conditions Monitoring Survey (2002-2003), Central Statistical Office, Lusaka.Deininger and Olinto (2002). “Why Liberalisation Alone Has Not Improved Agricultural Productivity inZambia: The Role of Asset Ownership and Working Capital Constraints”, mimeo, World Bank,Washington, United States.DfID (2004). “Zambia Country Assistance Plan”, Department for International Development (mimeo).Education Development Centre (2004). “EDC spearheads radio project that taps village-level expertise andinnovation”, http://main.edc.org/newsroom/features/zambia_radio.asp.FARA (2006). Securing the Future for Africa’s Children. The FARA Sub-Saharan Africa ChallengeProgramme. Annual Report 2005, Accra, Ghana.GART (2004). 2004 GART Yearbook, Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trust, Chisamba, Zambia.Govereh, J. and M. Weber (2007). “New Agriculture and Implications for Information Development andDiffusion. Perspectives from Zambia”, FSRP/MSU Zambia, presentation to the WorldAgInfoWorkshop, Livingstone, Zambia.GRZ (2005). National Gender Policy, Government of the Republic of Zambia, Lusaka.GRZ (2005). Fifth National Development Plan 2006-2010. Broad Based Wealth and Job Creation throughCitizenry Participation and Technological Advancement, Ministry of Finance and National Planning,Government of the Republic of Zambia, Lusaka.Haantuba, H., M. Hichaambwa, and M. Nawiko (2007). “Zambia: Trends in growth of modern retail andwholesale chains and related agribusiness”, http://www.regoverningmarkets.org.Haggblade, S. and G. Tembo (2003). Conservation Farming in Zambia, Environment and ProductionTechnology Division Working Paper No. 108, International Food Policy Research Institute,Washington.39

Hall, A. (2007). “Challenges to strengthening agricultural innovation systems: Where do we go from here?”,United Nations University Working Paper # 38, United Nations University, Maastricht, theNetherlands.Hall, A., R. Sulaiman, M. Dhamankar, P. Bezkorowajnyj and L. Prasad (2008). “Reframing technical change:Livestock fodder scarcity revisited as innovation capacity scarcity”, United Nations UniversityWorking Paper, United Nations University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.Hoorik, P. and F. Mweeta (nd). “Use of internet in rural areas of Zambia”, LinkNet Multi-Purpose CooperativeSociety, http://www.icdev.info.IFAD (1999). Report and Recommendation of the President to the Executive Board on a Proposed Loan tothe Republic of Zambia for the Smallholder Enterprise and Marketing Programme, International Fundfor Agricultural Development, Rome.IFAD (2005). Report and Recommendation of the President to the Executive Board on a Proposed Loan tothe Republic of Zambia for the Smallholder Livestock Investment Project, International Fund forAgricultural Development, Rome.IFPRI (2004). Science and Poverty. An Interdisciplinary Assessment of the Impact of Agricultural Research,prepared by R. Meinzen-Dick, M. Adato, L. Haddad and P. Hazell, International Food Policy ResearchInstitute, Washington, United States.IFPRI (2005). Improved Fallows in Eastern Zambia: History, Farmer Practice and Impacts, Environment andProduction Technology Division Discussion Paper 130, prepared by F. Kwesiga et. al., InternationalFood Policy Research Institute, Washington, United States.IFPRI (2008). “RENEWAL: The regional network on AIDS, livelihoods and food security”, InternationalFood Policy Research Institute, Washington, United States.IICD (2008). “Rural access: Options and challenges for connectivity and energy in Zambia”, findings of astudy carried out for the International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD) by D.Mulozi, Zambia Association for the Advancement of Information and Communication Technology.Jointly published by eBrain Forum of Zambia and IICD, Lusaka.IMF (2005). Zambia: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Progress Report, International Monetary Fund,Washington.International Institute for Communication and Development (2008). “ICT in Zambia”,http://www.iicd.org/countries/zambia.Joffe, S. (2008). “Information and knowledge services markets and their role within agricultural innovationsystems”, a paper commissioned by the Research Into Use Programme for discussion at an‘Information Markets’ think tank meeting on 26 th and 27 th February, 2008 at the Grange StrathmoreHotel, Kensington, London, United Kingdom.Kaplinsky, R. and M. Morris (2006). “The structure of supply chains and their implications for exportsupply”, paper prepared for the African Economic Research Consortium, United Kingdom.MENR (2006). National Environmental Policy, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Lusaka.Ministry of Communications and Transport (2006). National Information and Communications TechnologyPolicy, Ministry of Communications and Transport, Lusaka.40

Ministry of Community Development and Social Services (2007). Final Evaluation Report: Kalomo SocialCash Transfer Scheme, prepared by W. Colenbrander, E. Schüring, E. Boonstoppel and S. Michelo forthe Ministry of Community Development and Social Services and German Technical Cooperation,Lusaka.Ministry of Health (1992). National Health Policy, prepared by the Ministry of Health, Lusaka.Ministry of Health (2003). Zambia Demographic and Health Survey, prepared by the Ministry of Health incollaboration with MACRO, Lusaka.MOAC (2004a). Zambia National Agricultural Policy: 2004-2015, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives,Government of the Republic of Zambia, Lusaka.MOAC (2004b). Agricultural Market Development Plan, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives,Government of the Republic of Zambia, Lusaka.MOH and the National AIDS Council (2008). Zambia Country Report. Multi-Sectoral AIDS ResponseMonitoring and Evaluation Biennial Report 2006-2007, Submitted to the United Nations GeneralAssembly Special Session on AIDS. Declaration of Commitment. Reporting Period: January 2006 -December 2007, prepared by the Ministry of Health and the National AIDS Council, Lusaka.Mulozi, D. (nd). “The important role of telecentres and/or community ICTs in Zambian rural development”,mimeo, Zambian Association for the Advancement of ICTs, Lusaka.Musanshi, M. (2004). “Spreading the impact of community radio stations across Zambia”, InternationalInstitute for Communication and Development, http://www.iicd.org/articles.Mutamba, M. (2007). “Farming or Foraging? Rural livelihoods in Mafulira and Kabompo districts ofZambia”, Center for International Forestry Research and Rhodes University, UK.Mweemba, G., A. Pais, G. van Stam (2007). “Bringing internet connectivity to rural Zambia using acollaborative approach”, LinkNet, http://link.net.zm.National AIDS Council (2005). National HIV/AIDS/STI/TB Policy, prepared by the National AIDS Council,Lusaka.Natural Resources Institute (2007). Background Report: Zambia, Research Into Use, Natural ResourcesInstitute, University of Greenwich, Chatham Maritime, Kent, United Kingdom.Ngandwe, T. (2008). “Critics question worth of Zambian science”, SciDevNet, http://scidev.net/news.NR International (2007). Implementation Plan July 2007-June 2011, Research Into Use, United Kingdom.Panos Southern Africa (2006). Mixed Signals: The State of Broadcasting in Southern Africa, Panos SouthernAfrica, Lusaka.SHEMP (2008). “Agriculture Commercialisation: Lessons Learnt from SHEMP”, Smallholder Enterpriseand Marketing Programme, Lusaka.Sibalwa, D. (2006). “Zambia: The Radio Farm Forum”, The Communication Initiative,http://www.comminit.com/en/node/147725.41

SHEMP (2008). “Agriculture Commercialisation: Lessons Learnt from SHEMP”, Smallholder Enterpriseand Marketing Programme”, Lusaka.Swedish Cooperative Centre (2006). “Chongwe farmers get new learning method”,http://www.sccportal.org.Thurlow, J. and P. Wobst (2004). “A Country Case Study on Zambia”, submitted to the Department forInternational Development as part of the Operationalising Pro-Poor Growth Initiative of AFD, BMZ(GTZ, KfW Development Bank), DFID, and the World Bank, prepared by J. Thurlow and P. Wobst ofthe International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington.UNDP (2003). Zambia Human Development Report 2003, United Nations, New York.Whiteside, M. (2007). “Preliminary guidelines for RIU innovation context assessment”, mimeo.Whiteside, M. and A. Mosha (2008). Demand Lead Innovation Process (DLIP). A study on the feasibility ofa demand led process and zonal competitive fund to support demand lead innovation by researchusers, Research Into Use, National Resources International, United Kingdom.World Bank (2005). Zambia: Poverty and Vulnerability Assessment, Human Development 1, Africa Region,World Bank, Washington, United States.Zambia Community Media Forum (2006). “Community media in Zambia”, http://www.researchsea.com.42

Annex A: Any Further Country-Specific Considerations46. No additional country-specific considerations were identified.43

Annex B: Specialist Sub-Report on Innovation SystemsRIU ZAMBIA COUNTRYASSESSMENT--INNOVATIONSYSTEMS REPORTBYEbbie Dengu & Diana BandaMAY-JULY 200844

1. BACKGROUNDThe purpose of the Research into Use (RIU) Programme is to maximize the poverty reducing impact of theDFID funded natural resources research produced under the Renewable Natural Resources ResearchStrategy (RNRRS) in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. In so doing the programme also aims to increaseunderstanding of how widespread use of research can be promoted. The Programme will also invest ingetting into use knowledge from research undertaken by others if this is demanded by users and iscomplementary/ synergistic to use of outputs from research knowledge previously supported by DFID.The hypothesis of the RIU is thatan innovation systems approach will prove more effective than linear approaches at getting researchoutputs into use for the benefit of the poor.Definitions and Understanding of innovation systems approachInnovation Innovation is defined as the first significant commercial use of new ideas, newtechnologies or new ways of doing things in a place, or by people, where they havenot been used before. It is also important to extend the use of pre-existing innovations (that is, systems arein place, but use is limited geographically or otherwise). Not all innovations include commercial use (e.g., innovations in how demandenhancement is approached). Innovation enables more goods or services to be produced with less effort orresources, and / or produces better or different goods or services.Innovation Systems All innovation takes place within a social, economic, technological “space” in which anumber of actors interact within constraints set by “framework conditions” (policies,wealth, custom and practice, regulatory and legal frameworks, culture, taxation andincentives, distribution of political power etc) and “infrastructure” (Banking andventure capital, transport, telecoms, innovation and business support etc). Theseinteractions can usefully be considered as part of a “system” which is complex andevolving through time. Network of organizations, enterprises and individuals focused on bringing newproducts, new processes, and new forms of organization into productive use. it extends beyond the creation of knowledge to include the institutional and policycontext that shapes the processes of knowledge access, sharing and learning.Innovation Platforms A network of partners, working on a common theme and using research knowledgein ways it has not been used before to generate goods and services for the benefit ofthe poor. The probability of achieving innovation is likely to be increased bya. undertaking a “diagnosis” of the “innovation system” as a whole to determine45

where the constraints lie, which can be most easily removed, and the locationof the most vibrant and dynamic actors which can be supported to innovate.b. Identifying those parts of the system where intervention is most possible andmost likely to result in successful innovation. This will involve investing inmuch more than just “research”. It is likely to involve intervening to improvethe policy environment, building capacities to innovate, and encouraging awider and more diverse range of actors necessary for innovation to interactwith each other more effectively and probably build trust- relations betweenthem. This is referred to as changing the institutional arrangements (the ‘rulesof the game’) and building social capital between the various actors.c. Enabling the potential users of new knowledge to articulate their needs moreeffectively, and to translate these needs into “effective demand” – that is tostrengthen the demand side by amplifying the users’ “voice”.d. Strengthening organisations and individuals who perform the “intermediaryfunctions” that enable the suppliers of new knowledge to interact with theusers of such new knowledge, iteratively.This report is a result of the stakeholder consultation process designed to assess the innovation system inZambia and identify key bottlenecks and opportunities for the RIU engagement in Zambia. The RIUengagement seeks to complement (not to establish new projects) and add value to efforts aimed at enhancingcapacities and effectiveness of the innovation systems in the agriculture and natural resource sector ofZambia.2. ZAMBIA MACRO-ENVIRONMENTZambia is well endowed with an abundance of natural resources and a rich biodiversity. The country has aconducive climate, labour, water resources and a landmass of 752,000 square km, 58% of which is suitablefor arable use although only 14% is currently under cultivation.According to the National Agricultural Policy (2004-2015), agriculture currently contributes 18-20% to GDP,provides livelihood to 50% of the country’s population. Agriculture also employs 67% of the workingpopulation and 65% of these are women. Agriculture is therefore a critical component of the Zambianeconomy and is one of the most powerful vehicles to drive overall economic growth and poverty reduction.The country has achieved sustained growth of about 6% over the past three years; however the growth inGDP has not been accompanied by a significant growth in the living standards of the Zambian people norgrowth in employment.Zambia a country with a population of 11.7 million (World Bank, 2006) is one of the poorest countries in theworld and ranks low on the UNDP 2006 Human Development Index, at 165 out of 177 countries. Infantmortality rates are among the worst in Sub Sahara Africa. Although the poverty levels have improved in therecent years, from 73% in 1998 to 68% in 2008, it is estimated that 80% of the population live in conditions ofacute poverty. Zambia has over two-thirds (i.e. around 7 million) of its population living below the nationalpoverty line of less than a $1 per day, progress on the poverty, hunger, child and maternal mortality andenvironmental sustainability targets for the Millennium Development Goals is also poor and a big effort isrequired if Zambia is to achieve these targets by 2015 (DFID, 2006).Although the reforms Zambia has embarked on over the years have achieved economic growth of 6% forthree consecutive years (2005-7) this has to a great extent failed to translate into significant growth inemployment and reduction in poverty especially among the majority rural people, it has ushered in anenabling policy environment for the provision of goods and services. A number of clearly articulatedpolicies, strategies and key institutional reforms that focus on poverty reduction in the country have been46

formulated. These policy commitments include Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs), National Agricultural Policy (NAP), Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP),Commerce and Trade Policy, Infrastructure- Transport policy; Science and Technology Policy. (App 1provides a summary of each of these policies). The main thrust of these policy objectives is to facilitate andsupport the development of a sustainable and competitive agricultural sector that supports food security atnational and household levels and maximizes the sector’s contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP).However the main concern with these policies is the wide gap between articulation at the national level andimplementation on the ground.3. THE INNOVATION SYSTEM IN ZAMBIA3.1 Innovation contextAlthough Zambia has no specific national policy on innovation, the processes of innovation in theagriculture and natural resources sector are largely framed by the fifth national development plan, theagriculture policy framework and the Science and Technology Policy and the Science and Technology Act.These developmental frameworks seek to harness science and technology resources to enhance productivityand improve livelihoods of the Zambian population through such institutions as NISIR, ZARI, Extension,universities and strengthening linkages with the private sector and other market players. The nationalscience and technology policy is currently under review, and with the increased understanding of the role ofinnovation systems approach in development the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives plans to givespecial attention to policy and institutional arrangements that enhance innovation for development(especially in smallholder value addition/processing, livestock, tree crops, fisheries & bio-safety).The agricultural sector, which is the mainstay of the rural economy, consists of about 700 large scalecommercial farmers, about 1500 ‘boma farmers’ (small to medium scale farmers) and over a millionsmallholder farming households. The large scale and boma farmers are relatively well off and able to takeadvantage of available technologies, unlike smallholder farmers, where less than 20% are able takeadvantage of available technologies and services. There are a variety of reasons why smallholder farmers arenot able to access and utilize available technologies. Even in similar agro-ecological zones small-scalefarmers differ considerably in their resources, ability to make investments and take risks, and in theirknowledge, highlighting the need to accommodate such diversity. Differences in resource endowment andknowledge-related constraints of small-scale farmers explain to some extent why so many smallholderfarmers do not use fertilizers and improved seeds, despite their availability in relatively “high-potential”and “well-connected” areas (Govera et al, 2002). The combination of weak market linkages and lack ofeffective coordination between service providers in the smallholder sector limit interactive learning anddevelopment of adaptive capacities that are necessary for a vibrant innovation system in the agriculture andnatural resources sector.The Zambia national policy objectives recognize the strong connection between agricultural developmentand poverty reduction. However the policy objectives of achieving accelerated growth and competitivenessin the agricultural sector are not matched by commensurate resource allocation. There is significantmisalignment between policy and resource allocation priorities. For example Zambia under ComprehensiveAfrican Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), like other African states, committed to an annualagricultural growth of 6% through the allocation of 10% of the national budget to the agriculture sector bythe year 2008. (although the commitment is still not signed, it was planned to be signed early 2008, but thishas been put-off). However, since committing itself to the CAADP target, Zambia has averaged anapproximate 4% per annum allocation to the sector. Further, the bulk of the 4% is taken up by the FoodReserve Agency (FRA) and the Fertiliser Support Programme (FSP) programmes which are designed topromote maize production despite the government policy priority on crop diversification to include othercrops in addition to maize.47

As a result of public under investment over the years, Zambia’s agricultural sector has witnesseddeterioration of research, extension and other institutional services from government. There are noindications that this situation will change in the immediate future given the current resource allocationpatterns. In fact some stakeholders describe the public research and extension services as having “virtuallycollapsed”. Nevertheless, there are grounds for optimism. The consultation process showed that where theResearch and Extension services have been appropriately aligned with donor funded agriculturaldevelopment programmes (e.g., the Agricultural Support Programme (ASP), they have delivered effectively.The challenges are in the sustainability of improvements from such short term donor funded programmes.Strong evidence from southern Africa as well as throughout the world indicates that long–term publicinvestment in research and development, extension services, rural infrastructure, and food safety andquality systems have high pay-offs and are among the most important drivers of agricultural growth andcompetitiveness (see for example Working Paper 20 of the Food Security Research Project (FSRP), (Dec 2006).The agriculture sector is also dominated by a large number of donor/grant and loan funded agriculturaldevelopment programmes. The majority of these programs have a short to medium–term operational span.For example among the twenty or so projects in the sector only three projects have been running for aboutfive years. These are Smallholder Enterprise and Marketing Project (SHEMP), Agriculture Sector InvestmentProgramme/Zambia Public Investment Programme (ASIP/ZAMPIP), both of which are operating in theEastern Province of Zambia, and the Small-scale Irrigation Project (SIP), which operates in Sinazongwe,Mazabuka, and Chongwe districts.Both SHEMP and ASIP/ZAMPIP project objectives are similar and aim to improve smallholder incomes byimproving smallholder access to input and output markets and other services from the private sector.Other programmes running since 2006 include the Agricultural Development Support Programme (ADSP),the Agricultural Diversification and Food Security Project (ADFSP), and the Kwando-Zambezi Tsetse andTrypanosomiasis Eradication Project. The ADSP is aimed at advancing smallholder agriculturalcommercialization in a number of provinces. The ADFSP seeks to improve agricultural diversification inWestern and North Western provinces, while the Kwando-Zambezi Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis EradicationProject operates in Southern, Lusaka and Eastern provinces.A number of challenges that arise from managing this large number of development programmes have beenidentified. From the stakeholder consultations the key challenges may be described as lack of effectivecoordination, lack of sharing and interactive learning, and consequently limited development of adaptivecapacities that would lead to sustainable improvements in smallholder farm communities as a result of thesedevelopment interventions.3.2 Key Stakeholder CategoriesThe Country Assessment identified a wide range of stakeholder categories in the agriculture and naturalresources sector for pro-poor innovation in Zambia. (See fig 1)3.2.1 Research and Extension ServicesThe research and extension service are dominated by government through ZARI, MACO-Extension and nowthere are complementary services by private public partnerships and the private sector especially throughseed and agro-chemical industry companies.The Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI) is the main government agricultural research arm and ithas a network of nine research institutes covering all the provinces of Zambia. Its main focus is on soils andcrops research to generate and adapt technologies that increase productivity of farming communities.Through its farming systems and social science division it facilitates identification of farmer training needsand linkages with extension services. Historically, it also produced a wide range of written materials for the48

extension service and farmer audiences in English, although in recent years these publications have beenquite few in number. ZARI collaborates with the universities in Zambia, as well as the National Institute ofScientific and Industrial Research (NISIR) on specific projects, for example the development of disease freeimproved planting materials.For almost twenty years, the government-supported research systems (ZARI, NISIR, University of Zambia(UNZA) etc.) have suffered from declining public investment which has reduced their effectiveness andimpact of their research outputs on the smallholder in particular and agriculture in general. In addition theNARS suffers from institutional and policy constraints. For example, stated research priorities are generallynot matched with resource allocation sufficient to attain even priority results. Current institutionalarrangements have also not encouraged strong linkages between farmers, extension services, markets andresearch organisations, and development of various fora for sharing, learning and collective accountability.The science and technology council (NSTC) for example has a science and technology mandate that cutsacross all sectors but reports to a sector ministry which limits its ability to influenceperformance/effectiveness in agricultural research which is under a different ministry. Lack of stronghorizontal and vertical stakeholder linkages mean that research may not be well informed by the situationon the ground and may not be demand driven. This would point to the need for an appropriate innovationsforum that encourages linkages between different stakeholders and sectors at different levels.ZARI is currently developing an outreach programme designed to strengthen farmer, extension services,market and research linkages by bringing together stakeholders at the district level. All research officers arerequired to allocate 25-30% of their time to the outreach programme. For example, Mochipapa Researchstation in Choma brought together stakeholders that included farmers, organisations, NGOs, seedcompanies, agro-dealers, and MACO-extension service and came up with a resolution affirming the need forstakeholder meeting facilitation capacity (liaison officer) in December 2007. However this process is alsoconstrained by resources required to bring together stakeholders on a regular basis, and reflects the underfinancing noted above.There are public private partnerships (PPP) that have developed in response to resource and capacitychallenges in public research and extension services in Zambia and these include Golden Valley ResearchTrust (GART), the Livestock Development Trust (LDT) and the Cotton Development Trust (CDT). GART isthe most established and effective of these PPP’s and focuses on crop and livestock research for developmentin the smallholder sector working closely with ZNFU and CFU as well as ZARI. It has managed to tap intosome of the donor-supported agriculture development programmes to promote some of its technologies e.g.oxen based tillage systems and conservation farming.ZARI also works with international research centres like the Centre for International Tropical Agriculture(CIAT), International Centre for Maize and Wheat (CIMMYT), International Centre for Research on Agro-Forestry (ICRAF) and International Institute on Tropical Agriculture (IITA) to increase productivity and cropdiversity in the smallholder sector. There are, for example, programmes promoting improved beans, openpollinated maize varieties, agro-forestry and cassava. The programmes bring together research scientists,NGO’s (e.g. PAM) extension staff, agro-processors (e.g. for cassava) and smallholder farmers.3.2.2 Government Extension ServicesThe MACO extension service has a decentralised system that goes from national, provincial and district tothe camp level. Although the system has been described by some stakeholders as having “virtuallycollapsed” it still retains a presence in the smallholder communities, is seen as a key actor in the agriculturesector, and therefore represents a major knowledge resource to these communities. Camp officers are thefrontline contact persons between these communities and government services.There is evidence that where agricultural development programmes (e.g., ASP) have worked with andinvested in the MACO extension officers they have been able to deliver effective services. This is an49

indication that where appropriate arrangements are put in place it is possible to realise the potential of the“currently demoralized and under-resourced” extension services for the benefit of the developmentprogrammes and communities. However the challenge is the sustainability of such approaches given theshort term funding horizons of these development programmes.There is also evidence from the consultation process that in an extension camp or block area there is amultiplicity of NGO and government programmes targeted at the farmer. Where the programmes hadcontradictory messages they had potential to cause significant levels of confusion on farmers in smallholdercommunities. However where there is close collaboration across the interventions, the camp officer wouldserve as a knowledge resource for these programmes and therefore reduce confusion and contradictions inmessages promoted and mobilisation systems used in the smallholder community.The MACO-extension services collaboration with Kaluli Development Foundation (KDF) in Southernprovince provides a good example of collaborations that have worked well. The KDF intervention usedMACO extension staff to train community based farmer agents in crops and livestock as communityauxiliaries with good results. The farmer agent system has potential for replication to cover a wide area if anappropriate incentive structure (transport, uniforms, and recognition) is put in place.The MACO extension services suffer from a number of operational, policy and institutional constraints:• The resource allocation at the national budget level and within the MACO do not always reflect thepolicy objectives and priorities on the ground. The district services get a fraction of their submittedbudgets and are consequently confined to their offices rather than going out to meet farmers.• The institutional arrangements in the ministry do not encourage strong farmer/extension andresearch linkages as the different directorates at head quarters focus more on territorial prioritiesthan linkages that enhance effective use of research based knowledge.• At the district level it was felt that the research/extension linkage was virtually non-existent andconsequently formal information flows between research, extension and farmers were not working.The market linkages which encourage uptake of improved technologies are often missing exceptwhere extension officers are funded to participate for example in seed company demonstrations.• “Government policies are elaborate but implementation is very limited mainly due to poorunderstanding of priorities at farmer level and misaligned resource allocation and not the lack ofresources!” added a concerned and long serving district stakeholder.• There was a sense (from the district perspective) that some of the research is not relevant to thesmallholder communities and that potentially useful research is not packaged in accessible forms.This would point to the need for mechanisms and intermediaries for packaging research basedknowledge for use by farmers. MACO field officers were concerned that basic “how to” manuals fora variety of crops were no longer available or accessible to both extension staff and farmers. Theliaison unit and NAIS were possible candidates for capacity building to provide such services aswere some of the Agri-BDS providers like ABF and commodity associations.There was a contested view from the stakeholder consultations that research and extension should recognisethe need for segmenting farmers for more effective targeting of their efforts. It is estimated that about 50% ofthe smallholder households are in the survival mode (very poor) and barely participate in the value/marketchains. The view was that these are perhaps more appropriately targeted by social protection programmeswhile the transitional and empowered farmers are the appropriate target for productivity enhancinginnovations. The later category is more likely to access and make use of research based knowledge toimprove their situation than the very poor category.50

Fig 1: Zambia Agric Innovation Systems StakeholdersDomain Key Actors Opportunities ChallengesFrameworkConditionsGovernment of ZambiaPolicy-related forums, such asthe Agricultural ConsultativeForum, Community NaturalResources ConsultativeForum, Agriculture SectorAdvisory GroupPolicies are largely in place,including covering key crosscuttingthemes.Commitment to CAADP.Openness to innovation.Interest in RIU.Lack of financial commitmentto the agricultural sector,emphasis on maize andsubsidies.History of loan write-offs.Politicization of cooperatives.DemandDomainEnterpriseDomainCulture and societyOtherConsumersLocal, regional, internationalmarketsResearch funders andincentivesDonor support to ZARI,NISIR, universitiesGovernment support toZARI, NISIR, universitiesProducers - localentrepreneurs involved in onfarmproductionFarmers and other naturalresource users - smallholdersStrong systems of socialcapital.Strong systems of localleadership.Strong presence of churchesand other forums for socialorganisation.Population has a history ofseeking economicopportunities anywhere in thecountry.Improving levels of education.Lessening in problem ofcorruption.Reasonably strong urbandemand for farm produce.Indications of strong urbandemand for certain types ofproduce (e.g., organic produce)Examples of export-orientedproduction (particularlycotton, but also coffee,flowers).Commodity focused researchby private sector (e.g., cotton).Some, albeit limited, researchby non-state actors.Markets active when attentionconcentrated in an area.Some farmers with surplusshow responsiveness toinitiatives.Very poor farmers showresponsiveness to incomegenerationinitiatives.High levels of poverty.History of dependency, lackof support for localinitiatives. Lack of history ofinnovation andentrepreneurship.Some social constraintsaffecting the ability of womento fully benefit from farmingactivities.Education standards remainconstrained by underfinancingand high levels ofpoverty, limited ability to payfor secondary and highereducation.Weak purchasing power.Poorly developed markets inrural areas.Consumer preferences forimported goods (China,South Africa).Poorly developed markets inrural areas.No clear regional competitiveadvantage for agriculturalproduce.Uncertain Governmentcommitment to expandingagricultural exports.Very inadequate andinappropriate financing ofnatural resources research.Lack of public financing, lackof private alternatives.Poor incentives forresearchers in publicinstitutes and universities.Poor market infrastructureweakens position ofproducers.History of subsidies, loanwrite-offs.Restricted market activity.Constrained production.Gender division of labour notcommensurate with benefitsfrom labour provision.51

Domain Key Actors Opportunities ChallengesHIV&AIDS has worsenedlabour shortages.On-farm smallholderproduction low wages.Severe poverty, especially inremote areas.Stakeholder mapping showedweak linkages of anyagencies to smallholderfarmers, except NGOs.Commercial farmersFarmer and producerorganisationsZambia National FarmersUnionNational Peasants and SmallscaleFarmers AssociationOrganic Producers andProcessors Association ofZambiaZambia Dairy ProducersAssociationPoultry ProducersAssociationCoffee Growers AssociationZambia Export GrowersAssociationCo-operative societiesAgro-industries in cotton,tobacco, sugar, maize, stockfeed and beer brewing alsoimportant.Cotton sector most welldeveloped (Dunavant, ClarkCotton, China-Mulungushi).Tobacco (Tombwe Processing,Zambia Leaf Company,Standard CommercialTobacco Services, TobaccoDevelopment Company,Daimon).Very responsive to marketopportunities.Out-grower employmentpotential.Suggest willingness to workwith smallholder farmers, butuncertain.Politically influential ZNFU.Active ZNFU membership,some 250,000 members indistrict associations andcommodity associations (thelatter mostly in cotton)Represented in consultativefora.Largely successful in somecommodity chains, notablycotton.Interests represented inconsultative fora.Limited out-growers,problems facing qualitycontrol, market price, etc.Limited horizontalintegration with smallholderfarmers.In some areas, affected bypoor infrastructure,inadequate transport.Most smallholder producersare not involved in anyfarmers union.Co-operatives are often weakand ineffective.Peasant Farmers Associationweak.Mixed success in somecommodity chains (e.g.,coffee).Limited agro-processingtakes place in Zambia.Markets for processed goodlimited in Zambia.Preference for importedproducts with low prices(e.g., China) or preferredquality (e.g., South Africa).IntermediaryDomainExtension Services -Government extension NGOextension officers - – KATC,others who employ extensionagents?Private sector extensionaffiliated with outgrowerschemes or employed by seedGovernment extension systemhas good coverage on thegroundWhen government extensionofficers have been providedwith additional resources andincentives through ADPs havebeen able to preform well.Government extensionsystem weak.Institional linkages betweenresearch and extension weak.Public extension officers haveno economic or institutionalincentives to seek newknowledge or transmit it to52

Domain Key Actors Opportunities Challengescompanies, processors orfarmers.organised groups of farmersNGOs – PAM, World Vision,CARE, Swedish CooperativeCentre, ConservationFarming Unit, etc.Community-basedOrganisations – churches,schools, Radio ListeningClubs, Study Circles, FarmerOrganisations (20 – 50members), community radiostationsTraining institutions - KasisiAgricultural TrainingInstitute (KATC), ZambiaForestry College, the NaturalResources DevelopmentCollege, Zambia College ofAgriculture, Popota TobaccoTraining College, ZambiaInstitute of Animal Health,Katete College of AgriculturalMarketing, ChapulaHorticultural TrainingInstitute, Kasaka FisheriesTraining InstituteProviding some workingmodels for enhancing localinnovation systems e.g. localagro dealer agent farmer tofarmer service system.Catalyzing and nurturinginnovations in value additione.g. cassava processing andproduct development.Demonstrated efficacy inimproving access to anduptake of new informationCan provide an entry point forservicesKATC in particular has beensuccessful in improving theuptake of organic farmingtechnologiesLargely weak connections tonational research institutionsQuality of extensionmessages variableLack of coordination withgovernment and other NGOsWeak linkages with privatesector companies.Short term initiatives that arenot sustainableLack of access to demanddriven services; inability topay for serviceLimited organizational andinstitutional capacity toarticulate their own needs.Weak linkages withmainstream research andextension systems to bringabout more widespreaduptake of research basedknowledge and povertyreduction.InfomediariesNational AgriculturalInformation Service (NAIS),National TechnologyBusiness Centre, journalists(Panos, farmer-agents(through PROFIT andDunavant). Also see NGOs,Farmer and Producerorganisations,ICT sector (radio, mobilephone, internetservices)CommunicationsAuthority of ZambiaInternet service providers (11in total), of which 6 provideservices in rural areasMobile telephone providers(MTN, Cell Z, CELTEL)National Science andTechnology Council (NSTC)Telecentre operatorseBrainCommunity radio stationsPositive Government attitudestowards greater private sectorinvolvement in the sector.Providing good service tobetter off farmersRapid advances in the ICTsector.Actors in the system knoweach other, scope for improvedco-ordination.LinkNet focused on improvingcommunications infrastructureand services for groups in ruralareas.Lack of appropriate businessmodels to supportsustainable informationservices to small-scalefarmers, particularly those inremote areasMost advances that arecentral to significantimprovement in ICT will notbe available during the life ofthe RIU supported initiativesin Zambia.High cost, heavily regulatedinternet environment, poorquality service provision torural areas.eBrain (a forum foradvancing the use of ICTs topromote development) isweak in the agricultural and53

Domain Key Actors Opportunities ChallengesLinkNetZNFU SMS marketinformation serviceRadioFarm Forum (operated byNAIS)natural resources arena.Private sector intermediaries -Cotton (Dunavant, ClarkCotton, China-Mulungushi);paprika (Cheetha, Bimzi);tobacco (Tombwe Processing,Zambia Leaf Company,Standard CommercialTobacco Services, TobaccoDevelopment Company,Daimon); Horticulture (York,Lusaka AgriculturalCooperative Union); Sugar(Zambia Sugar Co.); LivestockProducts (Land O’ Lakes).Private sector intermediarieslikely reach more smallholderfarmers than anyone else,mostly in cotton and paprikaThey provide more sustainableapproaches to servicesDealing with small andspreadout transaction thatlack of economies of scale.Poor infrastructural servicesBusiness developmentintermediaries - donorsupported intermediaries andforums, most notablyPROFIT.Agri-Business Forum.Zambia Chamber of Smalland Medium BusinessAssociations.Food Security ResearchProjectZambia AgribusinessTechnical Assistance CentreMACO’s Agribusiness UnitNational TechnologyBusiness CentreZambia Association ofChambers of Commerce andIndustry (ZACCI)Various small initiatives.Commodity and TradeAssociations - CottonAssociation of Zambia;Zambia Association of HighValue Crops; TobaccoAssociation of Zambia;Livestock ProcessorsAssociation; MillersAssociation of Zambia;Bankers Association ofZambia; Association of Micro-Financing Institutions;Zambia Chamber ofCommerce; Coffee Board ofZambia; Zambia Seed TradersAssociation; Grain TradersAssociation.The recent formation of twonew government agenciesdealing with business issuessuggest increasing awarenesson the part of government ofthe importance of businessdevelopment services (BDS).ADPs such as ASP and SHEMPhave demonstrated that oncefarmers have access to marketand market info andunderstand value of BDS, theyare willing to pay.Associations are providing aforum for increasing trust andtransparency in commodityvalue chainsA framework for buildingcommon standards andspreading best practices.Business developmentservices not reaching poorerfarmers.Many small-scale farmers’lack the mindset and theaccess to markets need toprofit from BDS.Current project based BDSapproaches are notsustainableNo culture of paying for BDSin the smallholder sector.Weak linkages betweenassociations and grassrootproducers.The voice of the smallholdercommunities is weak in theseassociations.Returns to the farmer are lowdue to poor productivity andlow prices.54

Domain Key Actors Opportunities ChallengesResearchDomainResearch institutes - ZARI,NISIR, Golden ValleyAgricultural Research Trust,NRDC, FSRP, NAIRC,Central Valley ResearchInstitute, CottonDevelopment Trust, LivestockDevelopment Trust. Alsoresearch services offered byDepartment of Research andSpecialist Services,Department of Agricultureand Field Services, FisheriesDepartment, ForestryDepartmentZARI has a network of nineresearch stations covering allnine provinces and is workingto strengthen links betweenresearch stations and extensionproviders (public, private,NGO) at the district level.Good collaboration betweenZARI, NISIR and UNZA.GART has a workingrelationship to the ZNFU andCommercial Farmers Union, aswell as ZARI.Formation of the public privatetrusts has increasedresponsiveness of researchinstitutions to some segmentsof the innovation system(agribusiness, commercialfarmers)In general poor linkages withextension and otherinformation serviceproviders.Lack of market orientedresearchFarmers have little input intosetting research agenda.Mechanisms that aresupposed to feed farmerdemand back up the line arenot functioning.Difficulty tapping farmerknowledgeUniversities - UNZA system,agricultural colleges. AtUNZA, School of Agriculture,School of VeterinaryMedicine, Department ofAgricultural EngineeringNTSC The National Scienceand Technology CouncilPrivate sector - ZNFU,FEWSNET, DUNAVANT,Agricultural Business Forum,Grain Milling Association, cooperatives,ZEGA, inputsuppliers.NGOs - CARE, World Vision,Programme AgainstMalnutrition, InternationalDevelopment Enterprises(IDE) are most active in thenatural resources arena inrural Zambia. Others includeHeifer International, HarvestHelp, Oxfam, Women inAgriculture, the CooperativeLeague of the United StatesOverseas (CLUSA), TotalLand Care, Pelum.Zambia Association forResearch and Development.Existing collaborativerelationships with otherresearch institutions.Research capacities currentlyunder utilizedWith a mandate that cutsacross all sectors of theeconomy its well placed toprovide leadership in settingan enabling science &technology policy frameworkThese stakeholders offeropportunities for shaping theresearch agenda and helpmake it more relevant tosmallholder communitiesConsiderable experience inworking with especially poorhouseholds.Extensive experience inintegrating livelihoodssupport, food security, andsocial protection.IDE and CLUSA experiencedin programmes targetingsmall-scale producers andvarious commoditiesUniversities suffer fromresource constraints and lowmorale.Despite being responsible for coordinatingresearch in Zambia, theNSTC is accountable under asingle sectoral ministry, limitingits ability to influence researchthat falls under other ministries.- It has a bureaucratic controlrather than a sharing and learningculture.The diversity of interests with nofacilitation limit the contributionof these stakeholders to shapingthe research agenda that is ofbenefit to smallholdercommunities.Some NGOs that work inlivelihoods support lack theexperience to do so, and mayapproach income generationin the agricultural sector froma social protectionperspective.Considerable confusion abouthow to mix social protectionand income generation, lackof recognition that the twocan be well integrated.Tendency of some state actorsto consider very poor farminghouseholds as not relevant tomarket developments.55

Domain Key Actors Opportunities ChallengesInfrastructureInternational and regionalorganisation research -CGIAR, CIAT (AfricanNetwork on Soil Biology andFertility; Pan-African BeanResearch Alliance; SouthernAfrican Bean ResearchNetwork); Southern AfricaRoot Crops ResearchNetwork, CIMMYT (SoilFertility Consortium forSouthern Africa), CIFOR,World Fish Centre, WorldAgro-forestry Centre (AgroforestryResearch Networkfor Southern Africa), IFPRI,Alliance for Green Revolutionin Africa, AfricanAgricultural TechnologyFoundation.CAADP - FARA, coordinatingthe RegionalAgricultural Information andLearning System, andDissemination of NewAgricultural Technologies inAfrica.Transport and marketingAgro-dealer and processingcompanies, FRAAligned with CAADP.Active in Zambia, linked withresearch agencies andprogrammes._ To a limited extent ICT’s areeasing some of the majorcommunication and marketingproblems in rural areas.No clear examples ofinternational organisationsupport for Zambianinitiatives to link researchfunding with partnershipswith farmers, NGOs, farmerorganisations, and the privatesector.land tenure system is in part therefor political control, rather thaninnovation and investmentlack of industrial developmentzones falling under land boardsfor business investments-the lack of or poor state ofphysical infrastructure fortransport & marketing insmallholder communities.-lack of economies of scale in themarketable surpluses ofsmallholder communities.Banking, savings and credit,informal financeMicro-Bankers Trust,Commercial BanksRegulations and standardsInnovation and businesssupport systemsEmergence of contract farmingand support services from suchBDS agencies as ABF helpbuild trust between the banksand producers.Opportunities for selfregulation through commodity& trade associationsDevelopment of domesticmarkets e.g. for organicproduce whose standards arewithin the reach of smallholdercommunities.Limited but expandingcoverage of ICT’sExisting working models e.g.Poor loan repayment cultureAbout seven banks have gonebroke in the past 30yrs due tonon performingEconomic PartnershipAgreements considered byZNFU and ESAFF to havenegative impact onsmallholder farmers.Limited infrastructuralservices (telecommunications& electricity)56

Domain Key Actors Opportunities ChallengesInformation systemsthe ZNFU cellphone basedmarket information services.Limited but expandingcoverage of ICT infrastructuralservicesto support innovation andbusiness support systemsCost of accessing the ICTservices is still prohibitive forsmallholder communities.3.2.3 Farmer OrganisationsThe Zambia National Farmers Union is the main farmers’ organisation and is viewed as strong andinfluential especially at national level. Its membership is comprised of:• 54 District Associations with a combined total of some 40-50,000 members;• 13 commodity associations (with about 200,000 members, of which 180,000 of these are in cotton);• Some 700 large scale commercial farmers and 18 corporate members and agro-businesses.This ZNFU membership structure reflects its strong business and commercial representation. The ZNFU isalso well linked and represented in research and policy arenas, for example it is a key member of ACF andGART. It has also a decentralised structure linked with MACO extension service through its Districtassociations and the rural information resource centres initiative in all districts that ZNFU is operational. Itscommodity associations are able to deal with sector specific issues, of which the cotton growers associationis the most active.Despite broad membership and its strong policy influence, it is still perceived by some stakeholders as notadequately catering for the majority of smallholder farmers in Zambia who are trapped in poverty, lowproductivity and risky production systems. At the community level farmers are weakly organised toarticulate their needs to research and extension services or to ZNFU. A Peasant Farmers Association isemerging to represent the bottom half of the smallholder communities. The peasant association initiative isrelatively new and lacks capacity. There is need for mechanisms for strengthening farmer organization at thecommunity level as part of enhancing demand for research knowledge and building innovation capacities atthat level.Cooperatives are another form of farmer organization that is active in the smallholder sector. The MACOhas promoted cooperatives in smallholder communities for a long time and these input/output marketingcooperatives provide the main entry points for such PRP programmes as FSP. There was a sense that thesecooperatives have been politicised and tend to be active towards national parliamentary elections. They arealso perceived to be promoting a culture of dependency as they are recipients of heavily subsidized inputsfrom government and have poor repayment records. The subsidized inputs not only distort thedevelopment of local input markets but also cause farmers who can otherwise afford to purchasecommercial inputs to wait for the FSP and loose out on planting time and therefore yield potential of theircrops.3.2.4 Agro-industry companies.There are a number of input/output and processing companies providing services to the farmingcommunity. These companies also belong to associations that are part of the Zambia National FarmersUnion and this should enhance their understanding of the challenges and opportunities in the smallholdercommunities.The agri-input/output companies are particularly active in cotton, tobacco, sugar and maize sectors. Cottonand maize are the main commercial crops of the smallholder sector. Although the number of cottonproducers has shrank over the past few years by up to 40%, investment into the cotton sector is increasing asfour more ginneries opened in the past two years. Cotton and agri-input companies have developed theirown farmer agent and input credit systems designed to increase productivity and secure produce for their57

own markets. These farmer based local support systems provide potential entry points for efforts aimed atenhancing knowledge flows and use of improved technologies to increase productivity and improvelivelihoods.The grain milling, stock feed and beer brewery companies are also major players in agriculture sector withpotential to enhance the diversification thrust in the smallholder sector by providing a market for alternativecrops like sorghum/millets and cassava.3.2.5 Business Development Services (BDS)—intermediariesThere is a wide range of service providers that provide advice and information services to farmingcommunities and these include private sector agro-companies, commodity and trade associations and sectorforums e.g. ABF, PROFIT. Some of the associations are affiliated to the Zambia Chamber of Small andMedium BusinessAssociations (ZCSMBA) and ZNFU. Their main aim is to improve the competitiveness and the operatingenvironment of their members.The agri-business forum (ABF) provides facilitation services in contract farming which include access toinformation and knowledge as well as access to financial and business support services. ABF is also engagedin advocacy to improve the policy environment of contract farming.PROFIT is a donor (USAID, SIDA &EU) funded business development support service programme. Itfacilitates/catalyzes value chain development through development of a network of rural village farmeragents and productivity enhancement in smallholder agriculture. It identifies opportunities for linkingfarmers with commercial service providers that lead to viable business transactions. It provides a costsharing mechanism between farmers and agro-dealers/suppliers in the training of farmers and farmer agents(who sell products & services on commission). To date it has a reach of 100 000 households with input agentscheme and 20 000 herd of cattle through its vet services.Although there are a number of BDS initiatives supporting SME’s and the agricultural sector, it was clearfrom the stakeholder consultation that there was little sharing and learning between the different initiatives.Some stakeholders even suggested that there were cultural constraints to sharing experiences in theZambian context. However its more likely that the different stakeholder agendas, funding and institutionalarrangements are the major constraints to more effective collaborative ways of working, sharing anddevelopment of adaptive capacities.3.2.6 Policy related IntermediariesThere a number of policy related forums which include Community Natural Resources Consultative Forum,the Agricultural Consultative Forum and the Agriculture Sector Advisory Group (AgSAG) which wasestablished during PRSP process and is chaired by the Permanent Secretary of the ministry of Agriculture.The AgSAG is used as a forum to engage with government, agree on policy direction.The ACF is a membership organization bringing together a wide range of institutional stakeholders fromfarmer organizations, private sector, government, research organisations and NGO’s. It facilitates policydialogue, advice and building of social capital among stakeholders. The Food Security Research Programmewhich provides support for ‘evidence based policy formulation’ is one of the main collaborating partners ofACF. In addition the ACF hosts other initiatives like the cassava working Groups exploring opportunities forcommercialization of cassava in collaboration with Programme Against Malnutrition (PAM).Despite the existence of policy related forums in the agriculture and natural resource sector there is still aweak culture of sharing, learning and collective accountability on what is working or not working insmallholder development intervention. For example the mis-alignment between policy priorities and58

esource allocation continues in the agricultural sector. One of the key missing ingredients to effectivesharing and learning is lack of facilitation capacities to support this interactive way of working.3.2.7 Non Government Organizations (NGO’s)Zambia has a vibrant NGO sector with most of the major international NGO’s represented, for exampleCARE, WVI, Africare, PLAN, CRS, Oxfam and SNV.In addition there are well established local NGO’s e.g. PAM; natural resource based NGO’s such as Kasisisand PELUM, and a network of faith based organizations delivering services to smallholder communities.The main thrust of NGO’s is humanitarian activities that range from relief and recovery activities in times ofemergencies like floods, drought; and HIV/AIDS and advocacy to development activities that supportcapacity building and income generation in smallholder communities. NGO’s play an important role insmallholder communities that are largely marginalized and trapped in low productivity and poverty.However the NGO sector face challenges of coordination, fragmentation and duplication of services, shortterm planning and funding horizons that do not allow sufficient time for development of social capital andcapacities necessary for sustainable development of these communities.In order to deal with some of the coordination challenges, most NGOs or network representatives participatein key government related stakeholder forums at national and district levels and have also developed anumber of sector NGO forums where they meet and share experiences of their programmes. For examplethere are NGO forums on agriculture, water and sanitation, advocacy and education and members taketurns to convene these coordination meetings.4. INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE FLOWS (Also see a separate report by Steen Joffe and Sarah Carriger)The key stakeholders in the innovation systems – ZARI, MACO, agro-industry companies and BDSintermediaries including NGO’s, farmers and farmer organizations, commodity/sector associations andforums are the main actors in information and knowledge flows in the smallholder sector. Althoughstakeholders face sector specific challenges in the supply and demand information & knowledge chain asoutlined in section 3, it is clear that communication between stakeholders and access to relevant informationare critical bottlenecks to vibrant innovation systems in the Zambian agricultural and natural resourcessector. ZNFU emphasised the need for infrastructural and information services that facilitate production andmarketing decision making in the smallholder sector.There are opportunities for RIU to build on existing initiatives in rural information centres, communityradios, rural farmer/agro-dealers schemes to enhance capacities in packaging and dissemination of demanddriven information in the smallholder sector. Some of the stakeholders already involved include ZNFU,ABF, MACO/NAIS; GART and ZARI.5. KEY CONSTRAINTS/BOTTLENECKS IN THE ZAMBIA AGRIC INNOVATION SYSTEMSThe stakeholder consultation identified a wide range of bottle necks in the agriculture and natural resourceinnovation systems for smallholder communities. These include policy, institutional, farmer organizationand markets; and they are summarised below:• There is a significant gap between policies articulated in the agriculture sector and implementationon the ground for example on budget investment targets and support to livelihood diversification.This is largely due to misalignment between priorities of policy objectives and resource allocation atnational level and within the sector ministries which do not adequately reflect realities in the field.The misaligned resource allocation priorities have severely degraded market, technical andinfrastructural services to the smallholder communities.59

• Institutional arrangements in the innovations value chain do not encourage effective collaboration,sharing and interactive learning between institutions and their programmes. Territorial prioritieslimit linkages and communications between key stakeholders in the value chain. In addition there isa weak or no culture of sharing lessons and experience and as result initiatives are always startingand not building on past experiences.• Productivity in smallholder communities is very low with maize yields of less than a ton and cottonyields of 600kg per hectare. In addition there is lack of recognition of farmer’s indigenousknowledge and diverse livelihood activities. The main focus is on maize and cotton at the expense ofother alternative crops, livestock especially small stock and fisheries.• There are weak innovation systems approaches in smallholder value chains—instead there isfragmentation of initiatives and services to the sector and limited market integration.• The majority of the smallholder farmers are resource-poor and weakly organized at the grassrootslevel to deal with rapid changes and emerging economic (e.g. strengthening of the ZMK), social,(HIV/AIDS) governance (managing contests for political power) and environmental (drought &floods) challenges. While ZNFU is strong at the policy level, at the grassroots levels farmers lack thecapacity to negotiate competitive conditions and terms with markets and other service providers(govt & NGO’s). As result some intervention programmes are inappropriate and in fact keepsmallholder communities busy but poor and promote a culture of dependency.• Information markets in the smallholder sector are generally dysfunctional and farmers are not ableto access information that they need to make informed decisions. Government extension services inthe smallholder sector are severely curtailed except where they are working closely with an ADP.• Low population densities spread out over vast territories make transaction costs of service provisionvery high. This is further worsened by poor infrastructural services in the rural areas.6. OPPORTUNITIES TO BUILD ON- FOR VIBRANT INNOVATION SYSTEMS IN THE NATURALRESOURCES SECTOR.The Zambian environment has many opportunities that the RIU can build on to achieve its purpose ofwidespread use of research outputs and poverty reduction. The stakeholder consultation identified somethese opportunities that are summarised below.• Zambia has a conducive investment environment as evidenced by investment inflows especially intothe mining sector that have contributed to the significant increase in the national revenue base. Thechallenge is on capacities and innovative ideas to use the resources effectively to improvelivelihoods of the majority smallholders.• There are already a number of networks and forums that bring stakeholders together and there areopportunities to make this function effectively as part of the innovation system.• ZNFU launched a cell-phone based market information system which offers opportunities forexpansion to cover other information and advisory services.• Community radios have been tried in a number of districts and there are opportunities to revieweffectiveness and potential for scaling up.• There are existing systems and working models for example the PROFIT rural farmer agent schemeand thematic initiatives e.g. conservation agriculture which offer opportunities for scaling up islandsof success.• The gaps between policy priorities and implementation provides an opportunity for developingmechanisms for stakeholder sharing, learning and development of collective accountability in thedevelopment arena.60

7. EMERGING PRIORITY ENTRY POINTS FOR RIUThere a number of opportunities that the RIU Programme can use to engage in the Zambia innovationsystem and the country assessment identified the following as priority areas.• Building a culture of sharing, interactive learning and collaborative action: Explore theopportunity of convening a national forum or mechanism designed to catalyze the innovationsystem in Zambia by building on existing innovation related platforms. This would involve bringingtogether existing platforms and stakeholders to address policy and institutional bottlenecks in theagricultural innovation systems of Zambia.• Operationalizing innovation systems approach in a district or thematic platform: The countryassessment process identified conservation agriculture (CA) and the agro-dealer farmer agentschemes as entry points for building geographic and thematic innovation platforms for practicalaction and building adaptive capacities in utilizing research outputs. These two schemes (CA &agro-dealer/farmer to farmer services) are particularly attractive as they bring together differentstakeholders and existing networks and allow stakeholders to identify new ways of doing thingsand adapt them to their circumstances.The two schemes are linked to resource intensive programmes that have economies of scale andwould facilitate scaling up of emerging lessons. Conservation agriculture is appropriate as itaddresses key issues of low productivity and low input farming in the light of rising costs of inputs.In addition there is debate and energy around the two subjects of 1) conservation agriculture andsustainable livelihoods 2) the need to reinvent public/private extension services as key componentsto transform smallholder communities in sustainable ways. These are strategies that promoteproduction and market linkages, secure rural livelihoods and do not condemn rural households toperi-urban slums in search of better but limited opportunities in the urban areas.• Building capacities for transforming information & knowledge into practical and accessibleforms for smallholder communities. This would involve bringing together stakeholders (technical,market info services etc) in this sector to collectively identify bottlenecks and develop options forremoving these and enhancing capacities for more effective info and knowledge flows in the sector.8. STRATEGIC THRUSTS FROM THE ZAMBIA CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOPThe strategic thrusts developed through the Zambia workshop process resonate well with the key entrypoints identified by the assessment team. The strategic thrusts provide a useful framework for guiding theZambia RIU engagement which would in turn further clarify priorities within these thrusts. We providebelow indicative areas to focus on within each strategic thrust, clearly further engagement with stakeholderswould be required to elaborate specific activities as part of the Zambia RIU implementation process.8.1 Strategic Thrust 1: Facilitation of Coalitions of Interests or PlatformsOne of the critical bottlenecks identified in the Zambia innovation systems is a weak culture of interactivelearning and joint or collaborative action among stakeholders. This is despite the existence of a number offorums that bring stakeholders together, e.g. ACF and sector advisory groups (SAG’s). Facilitation forcollective action and change is the key ingredient that is missing (not more single agency conventionalprojects). Facilitation allows stakeholders to engage with each other & themselves in open ways that enhancetheir ability to learn from, work with each other and hold each other accountable for example on what worksand what does not work in subsidized inputs, maize production and marketing policies and conservationagriculture. These multi-stakeholder platforms would be more effective if they are linked to resourceintensivesector programmes and/or Innovation Funds that allow stakeholders to creatively pursueidentified bottlenecks in the system. This strategic thrust would, through facilitation, contribute to:61

• Sharing, interactive learning and collective action in the innovation system• Mind set shift from supply driven mode to enhancing innovation systems approaches. For examplea systems thinking approach would allow stakeholders to put into context conservation agricultureversus what smallholder farming systems they envisage 10, 20, 30 yrs down the road in Zambia.Hopefully this would throw up questions on what policies, resource allocation and dominantapproaches are required to move in the selected direction.• Development of specialised innovation platforms which are linked to each other nationally andregionally (e.g. agro-BDS; CA)8.2 Strategic Thrust 2: Enhancing capacity to demand services and participate in value/market chains byfarmers and intermediaries.The basis for this strategic thrust is the recognition by stakeholders of weak representative and producerstructures at the community level and a sense that communities are regarded as beneficiaries and recipientsof services rather than people who have a right to those services. This dominant way of thinking has resultedin supply driven approaches, very weak demand pull for services and limited participation of smallholdercommunities in value/market chains. The challenge therefore is how to increase knowledge of availableoptions, voice and participation of farmers in the value chain. This would in turn increase demand forknowledge as smallholder representative voices and engagement with the market increase. There are anumber of possible activities that build on existing initiatives that can be used as vehicles to achieve theunderlying aim of this strategic thrust. These would include interlinked thematic and geographicalplatforms that allow stakeholders to come together to identify systemic bottlenecks and find solutions tothese. The table below indicates some of the actors already engaged in one way or another to enhancedemand for services and participation by farmers in the value chain.8.2.1 Capacity Facilitation:ZNFUFarmer mobilization, marketinformation servicesKATCResearch, demos, training inconservation agriculture.and organic farming,extensionMACOPolicy, extension, training,research, etc.ASP Farmer mobilization,farming as a business,linkagesABFFacilitating contract farmingPROFIT Facilitation of farmercommercial linkages;Farmer based servicesGART, LDT, CDT, CFU Research, training,extension, conservationagriculture.Commercial agriculturalSupply products andcompaniesservices and buy produce,transportation processingFacilitate organizations working on agro-BDS initiatives (aimed at enhancing capacity of farmers and theirorganizations to participate in value chains) to come together into a platform or learning group to share andlearn new ways of enhancing capacity of farmers & producer groups to demand services. The platform62

would need to be linked to specific learning geographical (district) and/or thematic sites. While selection ofthematic learning sites would depend on stakeholders, it is more appropriate to select those that allowsmallholder communities to participate actively and for their voices to be heard. This is particularlyimportant for this thrust which is aimed at enhancing capacity of farmers and intermediary groups todemand services and opportunities to participate in value chains. This strategic thrust would effectively:• Build facilitation capacities in key stakeholders to enhance demand by farmers and theirorganizations.• Support capacity building initiatives for effective participation in value chains (e.g. throughconservation stakeholder learning groups/platforms; agribusiness service centres e.g. by Zambiachamber of MSME• Identify and support initiatives that enhance market linkages (e.g. contract farming, agribusinessservices)8.2.2 Scaling-up working modelsThe country assessment process identified some working models that can be reviewed and scaled upthrough RIU support. For example Farmer-Farmer based services are used by many agro-dealers and agroindustrycompanies for input supplies and for produce procurement. Although in general companies arereluctant to share their incentive structures in their schemes there is scope to learn about the potential of thisway of service delivery to expand participation in value chains and increase demand for knowledge by ruralcommunities. There is potential to drive rural non-farm enterprises by building on the current efforts ofagro-dealers and processors.This thrust would effectively:• Identify and review working models of service provision through the innovation platform processes• Facilitate linkages for scaling-up working models of smallholder service provision.8.3 Strategic Thrust 3: Knowledge sharing mechanisms and servicesThis strategic thrust cuts across the other thrusts and some of the components under this thrust would beintegrated into the first two. However there is scope to bring together actors in knowledge management andservices to share experiences, identify good practices and working models. This would include identifyingmarket based information and knowledge services and seeking ways to strengthen and scale them up.9. THE CONSULTATION PROCESS• Review of key policy and programme documents of the agriculture and natural resources sector ofZambia- May• Inception meeting and consultation with key informants & stakeholder interviews - May• Assessment of the agric & NR innovation systems context- -bottlenecks & opportunities.• Field visits – May-June• National consultative workshop & feedback – June• Innovation systems assessment report and strategy outline – July63

10. APPENDICESAppendix 1: Zambia Policy Context:Zambia Policy context and Information and Knowledge FlowD.J.BandaJune 20081.0 Zambia Context1.1 Policy EnvironmentThe Government of the Republic of Zambia has since 1991 made significant strides in restructuring itseconomy that for a long time was characterized by copper monoculture. Over the years, and as a result ofZambia’s preference for an open market system, momentous changes in terms of priority setting andresources allocation has been brought about. The general policy of the Government since 1991 has been toprovide an enabling policy environment for the provision of services and goods. The development ofsectoral strategies by the various public institutions has therefore resulted in the existence and adoption oflegal policy frameworks. A number of strategies, policies and key reforms that focus on poverty reduction inthe country have been formulated. This section provides a summary of the relevant legal instruments usedin addressing issues of poverty reduction namely; Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs), National Agricultural Policy (NAP), Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP),Commerce and Trade Policy, Infrastructure- Transport policy; Science and Technology Policy.a) Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP-2000)The Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) introduced in the year 2000 was used by the Government inits attempt to move the economy towards a higher growth rate of between 6-8% per annum and in assistingthe government reduce poverty by intensifying its effort to remove obstacles to private sector development.Such growth scenario entailed undertaking capital-intensive and investment driven growth in key economicsectors with a special focus on agriculture and rural development. The main elements of the strategy were toimprove rural infrastructure; create rural employment opportunities through the promotion of large –scaleenterprises; strengthen the linkage of smallholder farmers to commercial producers and agribusinesses;stimulate smallholder rural enterprises; help poor people improve food production techniques andstrengthen social services in education, health and sanitation. There were also attempts to integrate policiesrelated to HIV/AIDS, gender and protection of the environment into all rural poverty reduction initiativesand across the main sectors of the economy.(http://ruralpovertyportal.org/English/regions/Africa/zmb/approaches.htm).b) Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) ushered in an era which opened up the whole process ofhaving rich and poor countries declare their solidarity and determination to ridding the World of poverty by2015. Zambia is a member to the Millennium Declaration which has paved a way to ensuring that worldleaders worked together to promote human dignity and equality to achieve peace, democracy andenvironmental sustainability (HDR, UNDP, 2003). The Government as a condition to the MDGs remainscommitted to tackling issues of extreme poverty and hunger; achievement of universal primary education;reduction of child mortality; improving maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases;ensuring environmental sustainability and developing a global partnership for development(http://www.milleniumcompaign.org/site/pp.asp). To a larger extent, the indigenization of the MDGspresents a human development challenge not only to the government but also to the Zambian people and allits cooperating partners. Zambia’s major initiative to realizing the MDGs presently has been through thedevelopment of an MDG-based National Development and the undertaking of an intensive publicitycampaigns since 2003 by the MDG Task Force comprising Government, civil society, academia, private64

sector and the UN System. This includes holding the established Government and the UN system MDGsRace every year until 2015 (http://www.mdgmonitor.org/factsheet_00.cfm?c=ZMB).c) National Agricultural Policy (NAP, 2004-2015)The Government also recognises the need to strengthening and expanding emerging opportunities in thecountry and indeed the important role agricultural sector plays in an economy. According to the currentNational Agricultural Policy (NAP,2004-2015), the overall policy objective is to facilitate and support thedevelopment of a sustainable and competitive agricultural sector that secures food security at national andhousehold levels and maximizes the sector’s contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In principal,agricultural sector is expected to contribute to the economy in terms of increased production, sectorliberalization, and commercialization, promotion of public and private sectors partnerships and provision ofeffective services that will ensure sustainable agricultural growth.Within the policy of the liberalization of the agricultural sector, the Government is mandated to ensureprivate sector participation in inputs distribution, output marketing, agro–processing and to encourage agribusinessstrengthen linkages with smallholder farmers. Under these institutional reforms, the role of thepublic sector is being confined to policy formulation, enforcement of legislation, provision of marketinformation, regulation and inspection, maintenance of the national strategic food reserves, financing andcontrol of pest and diseases of national importance control, and providing rural and agriculturalinfrastructure needed for efficient sector growth etc. In partnership with private sector, the provision ofagricultural services i.e. research and extension, (NAP, 2006).d) Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP2006-2010)The President of the Republic of Zambia President Levy Mwanawasa S.C. in 2007 officially launched theFifth National Development Plan (FNDP2006-2010) and the Vision 2030. As a legal instrument, the FNPDfocuses on issues of good governance, improving health, education and the infrastructure, and encouragingforeign investment. The FNDP embraces the PRSP which until very recently used to be the main instrumentfor poverty reduction in the country, the Transitional National Development Plan (TNDP, 2002) anddomesticates the millennium Development Goals and all other international development initiatives. Thetheme of the FNDP is “Broad Based Wealth and Job Creation through Citizenry Participation andTechnological Advancement”. The major focus will be on 1) pro-poor growth-oriented sectors that createemployment and income opportunities for the poor, including in particular rural development, agricultureand manufacturing, and 2) economic infrastructure and human resources development. The FNDP drawsattention to those sectors that maximise growth stimulation as well as those, such as agriculture, educationand health, that best address the plight of the poor.The primary objective of Vision 2030 is to make Zambia a prosperous middle income nation that wouldprovide opportunities for the improvement of its people’s lives. It is also stipulated that both the FNDP andthe Vision should lead to the consolidation of district development plans as articulated by the people ofZambia through the District Development Coordinating Committees (DDCCs), Provincial DevelopmentCoordinating Committees (PDCC) and Sector Advisory Groups (SAG) and other civic organisations.Apart from the FNDP being a broad based approach that seeks the means to improve the standards of livingof people and to provide interactive ways of fostering development, The FNDP is currently well receivedand perceived to have been very consultative having involved stakeholders from diverse occupations andall areas of the country (i.e. at grassroots, district, province and national levels). Its major focus that ofidentifying of growth areas in the districts, identifying priority development areas and obtaining keyrecommendations that would ensure economic growth and wealth creation is also a positive development.65

e) Commerce and Trade Policy.The commerce and trade policy is committed to ensuring that Zambia benefits from various trade links. Thecountry is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) at multilateral level and a member of theCommon Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and the Southern African DevelopmentCommunity (SADC) at the regional level. The country also benefits from the various preferential tradearrangements providing access to foreign markets such as EU Everything-But-Arms initiative (EBA) and theUSA and ‘Canadian Initiative’ African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) including its participation inthe European Union- African Caribbean Pacific Cotonou Trade Protocol and current negotiations toEconomic Partnership Agreements- an outfit of the Eastern and Southern Africa. It is the Government desirethrough the Private Sector Development Programme(PSDP) to continue with the identification ofappropriate trade expansion measures while, the promotion of domestic trade, investment and export issuesshall continue to be worked on using the Multi-Facility Economic export Zones (MFEZ) (FNDP, 2006-2010).f) Infrastructure- The Transport policyThe Government in 1995 adopted the Construction Industry Policy and constituted through the Act of 2003the National Council for Construction (NCC) which is now the legal body for the registration and regulationof all contractors and consultants in the sub-sector and enforces construction standardsThe Transport policy of 2002 in particular, instituted the Road Development Agency (RDA) as unit underthe Ministry of Works and Supply. RDA manages all roads in Zambia. It is expected that the policy, willduring the FNDP period help the sector address the challenges of poor state of infrastructure, low privatesector participation, slow pace of sector restructuring and poor funding for infrastructure, vandalism andthe like. In this vein , the Ministry of Works and Supply will continue to review and develop appropriatepolicy and legal frameworks that promote public–private partnerships in the construction and maintenanceof public infrastructure while, a comprehensive Information Management System is to be established andmaintained for tracking and storing of the operations of the sector at the same time acting as an informationprovision for clients and stakeholders.In conformity with the Decentralisation (i.e. seeks to devolve power to the lower levels) Policy of 2002, theimplementation of FNDP is expected to take on board the district and province concerns as expressed inregional plans to catalyze the whole process of mobility and quality of life of communities by providingaccess to education and health amenities (FNDP, 2006-2010)..g) Science and Technology PolicyThe1996 formulated National Science and technology policy currently under review generally allows thepromotion and exploitation of science and technology as an instrument for developing environmentally,friendly and indigenous technology aimed at improving the quality of life in Zambia while, the objective ofresearch and development is to embed science and technology as part of the culture of the key economicsector and to promote competitiveness in the production of a wide range of quality goods and services.There are a number of research centres established namely Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI),National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research ( NISIR)-formerly National Council for ScientificResearch (NCSR), National Malaria Control Centre (NMCR), Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trust(GART), Universities, and the Tropical Diseases Research Centre (TDRC) to undertake science and relatedresearch.Following the rationalisation programme of the science and technology, two units have been created. TheNational Science and Technology Council with a view to coordinate, monitor and implement science andtechnology policies as well as to advise the Government on the same and; the National Technology BusinessCentre (NTBC) whose function is to promote research and development products to the end users - i.e.industry and the commercial sector (FNDP, 2006-2010).66

h) InformationInformation service sector has as its goal the mandate to increase media and access and out reach throughoutthe country in order to promote free information on development programmes as well as to have a wellinformed citizenry fully utilizing Information and Communication Technology for national development.During the PRSP/TNDP, a number of programmes were implemented most significant of these being theimprovement of radio reception in the country. The Government procured 56 FM radio transmitters thathave since been installed in a number of districts and therefore the existence of Community radios.The sector currently operates under a number of statutes such as the Independent Broadcasting Authority(IBA) Act of No. 17of 2002; Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC) Amendment Act No. 20 of2002 Cap. 154. It is however expected that more harmonisation and review and work still will continue to beoperationalised through the FNDP.(FNDP, 2006-2010).i) Social protectionWith reference to policies and practices that protect the livelihoods and welfare of people suffering fromcritical levels of poverty and deprivation and/or vulnerable to risks and shocks, the social protection seeksthrough the Ministry of Community Development and Social Services (MCDSS) during the FNDP placeemphasis on the asisting the most vulnerable with basic services that enhance their standard of living.It is expected that relevant Ministries will in collaboration with the affected communities handle some of theinterventions aimed at addressing the challenges of vulnerability in general and in particular the socialprotection. The Government has put in place the Disaster Management structure with its Secretariat as a hubfor coordination mechanism and promotes the vision of “safety net” (FNDP, 2006-2010).1.2 Socio-economic contextZambia is a country well endowed with an abundance of natural resources and a rich biodiversity. Thecountry has a conducive climate, labour and a landmass of 752,000 square km (58% of which is suitable forarable use though only 14% is currently under cultivation), and water resources. Zambia is considered oneof the country’s among the wettest in Southern Africa Approximately 13% of Zambia’s total land area iswetland. Agriculture in Zambia therefore is of high potential for it offers enormous unrealized potential thatneeds to be fully exploited that can have positive impact on national food security, incomes for the majorityof the population, the balance of payments account and economic growth at the same time generate exportearnings.The spurred growth in the mining, construction and transport sectors including economic reform measurestaken have over the years led to the country attain a tolerable level of stability in major macro economicindicators. The country’s economy is for instance, reported to be enjoying a sustained growth of around 5.5%per annum in 2005 and 6.2% per annum in 2006 (UNDP Report, 2006 and World Bank (2006). The economicgrowth scenario is being planned to average 6.1% per annum during the period of 2006-2011.The institutionalised reforms that aimed at liberalising the agricultural markets especially, have recordedsome positive results. The Zambia-European Community Country Strategy Paper and National IndicativeProgramme for the period 2008-2013 report, states that substantial increases have been achieved in primaryagricultural commodities, floricultural products, horticultural products and processed foods while, the netenrolment rates for primary education have improved from 71% in 2000 to 85% in 2004. Good progress isalso being made in the fight against HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases with services becoming widelyavailable for the Mother to Child Transmission (PMTCT) of HIV. Currently, over 90% of the districts arehaving some PMCT service sites (DFID, 2008).According to the National Agricultural Policy (2004-2015), agriculture currently contributes 18-20% to GDP,provides livelihood to 50% of the country’s population. Agriculture also employs 67% of the working67

population and 65% rural of the women. In this way, agriculture has very strong links to the economy and istherefore one of the most powerful vehicle to generating overall economic growth and to the reduction ofoverall poverty.However, the growth in GDP has not been accompanied by a significant growth neither in the livingstandards of the Zambia people nor in the growth in employment.Zambia a country with a population of 11.7 million (World Bank, 2006) is one of the poorest and ranks lowon UNDP 2006 Human Development Index, at 165 out of 177 countries. Infant mortality rates are among theworst in Sub Sahara Africa. The poverty levels though have improved in the recent years, 73% in 1998 to68% in 2008, it is estimated that 80% of the population live in conditions of acute poverty. Zambia still is oneof the poorest country with over two-thirds (i.e. around 7 million) of its population living below the nationalpoverty line of less than a $1per day. The current MDG progress on the poverty, hunger, child and maternalmortality and environmental sustainability targets is also poor and a big effort is required if Zambia is toachieve these targets by 2015 (DFID, 2006). The implication being that the reforms have to a great extentfailed to translate into higher economic growth and reduction in poverty especially among majority ruralpeople.1.3 Information and Knowledge flowsa) The environmentThe Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives has a National Agriculture Information Service (NAIS) as itsoutreach army in ensuring that the flow of agricultural information takes place between informationproducers and information consumers. NAIS is mandated to provide an information link between thefarming community and agricultural technocrats and is being encouraged to disseminate agriculturalinformation of all kinds through the radio, print and electric media to promote improved farmingknowledge among rural households. The well established agricultural extension department of, MACOthroughout the country including the farmer to farmer and out - grower schemes interfaces beingencouraged at the village level are all involved in the dissemination of information to end users.Information sharing more especially at national levels takes place through established networks, fora e.g.where various stakeholders from different sectors such as water and sanitation, education, advocacy, childprotection, agriculture and energy sectors meet. Facilitation of sector meetings usually rotates betweenmembers. Networking is currently a popular media for information sharing among NGOs such as WorldVision and Profit as well as holding of monthly or quarterly meetings. Information flow is also taking placethrough community radios and through the contact farmer approach anchored in the current extensionapproach. ASP is on record as one of those very successful programmes using the contact farmer approachon the ground in promoting “farming as a business” among small scale farmers in rural communities.In addition, there are donor funded programs that encourage innovative field days and demonstrationsincluding the usage of (most of which though is dilapidated) Farmer Training Institutes as outreach pointsfor farmer programs. Technical staff linkages between NGOs and MACO staff at the field level during thepromotion of agro-products to farmers during field days and establishment of associations (e.g. VeterinaryAssociations) have started becoming very good avenues for sector interactions and sharing of informationwhile, training resource manuals, booklets and leaflets continue to be other sources of information reachingto end-users. Croppack input supply provides manuals and fliers to their farmers through the CommunityAgents.b) The issuesIndications from the field discussions are that scientific research findings rarely gets to end users for thereason that most researchers prefer carrying out more of the adaptive research on their own without askingconsumers what their research needs are. Even where good research outputs are generated, the researchersare not in the habit of publishing any of their research findings. As such, there is no information coming68

through pamphlets, guides or any such to be given to farmers for knowledge and guidance on correctpractices. For example, it is recommended in some of the past manual guides that fertilizer must always beapplied at ploughing (where maize crop is concerned) but farmers up to now do so after plant hasgerminated - sometimes fertilizing their crops when it is at knee high level.The current policy does not seem to support research in terms of budget allocation as usually very smallbudgetary amounts are allocated towards research activities and this poses a serious constraint to researchand development activities. The investment that goes into research in terms of cost and implementation ofinnovation is a disincentive to many end users and cannot by far be met by smallholder farmers. Coupledwith this, is the poor funding of research institutions, poor rewarding system of researches, poor marketingstrategies for research and the unfair placement of research/innovation. Despite there being lots of goodresearch outputs, due to recent institutional reforms very weak linkages between research and extensionnow exist. It was also observed that the isolated way in which researchers are developing technologieswithout the involvement of extension workers at farm trials stage has further contributed to the existingweak linkages, the communication chain between generators of research and end users becoming too longthus, hindering the flow of information from reaching farmers. The research – extension – farmer linkagewas identified to be a major constraint to information dissemination. To some extent, this has led to thehighly compromised ability of the farmer to making a choice with regard to best agricultural practices.Though most researchers prefer carrying out more of the adaptive research, the Intellectual Property Rights(IPS) that is silent on benefit sharing procedure for instance for the role played by plant breeders, continuesto be a disincentive to research undertakings. Researchers feel there is no mandate for them to brag abouttheir successes in coming up with research outputs. Besides, there is neither up to date specific policy oninnovation nor a legally constituted forum for research institutions to come together and share research/technology information as was the case in the past when a national committee under the former NationalScientific Research Council (NRSC) existed. During then, regular meetings for sharing information used tobe held.c) Public/private partnerships in info marketsThe Government policies in place have all been passed through an Act of Parliament and therefore providean enabling environment in which public/private partnerships have both the political and governmentsupport to exist. Evidence in the districts reveals that some private partnerships between the public andprivate sector with sometimes some element of suspicion have been successfully forged. For instance,Croppack agents get trained by extension officer from the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives(MACO) while joint field days among farmers with regard to the promotion of agro-products beingpromoted by the private sector take place in collaboration with the public sector workers.However, there is evidence of such partnerships duplicating each others effort or work in the catchmentareas. Likewise NGOs who tend to work directly with farmers have sometimes collided in these catchmentswith other service providers offering similar services. Many NGOs operating in the SIMILAR catchmentareas, do not know what each one of them does and generally, the coordination of efforts is usually weakamong them. Such situations are actually compounded by the fact that there is no policy that provides aguiding framework to linking various stakeholders. As a result, emerging practical issues at ground levelremain unaddressed. For instance, even though the current advocacies on use of lime in farmers’ fields byASP seem to be contrary to MACO’s research recommendations, there is no forum to bring this and iron itout. Despite there being an elaborate policy that stipulates the importance of monitoring and evaluation ofthe implementation of the Agricultural programmes and activities to determine the rate of implementationimpact, the implementation of the National Agriculture Policy is weak. When consultative meetings arecalled to discuss implementation, such meetings called have been poorly attended by especially highprofiled people such as the Directors.Through the public restructuring processes, MACO has continued to lose experienced staff most of whohave left for greener pastures. This move has affected both the block and camp levels in terms of staffing,69

coverage areas and farmer targets. To a large extent staff morale has been lowered, coverage distances haveincreased and very little information trickle to farmers is taking place. Transport is also still a great challengein the way dissemination of information to farmers by extension agents is concerned. Farmers are in factreported to be complaining that the extension and the whole liberalization process are not responsive totheir needs e.g. the presence of briefcase maize traders has not provided the much needed Maize marketlinks while plenty wrong things (e.g. knowledge gap in plant spacing) continue to be done withoutextension advices.While it can be said that there generally is no policy constraint on forging of links with farmingcommunities, majority farmers continue to be constrained in terms of resource such as inputs, labour,financial, information and knowledge. Farmers still display some rather high dependency syndrome wherethey still want to be given agro-products on credit or things free of any charge. They also seem not to graspthe concept of pulling of resources together to meet for instance transport costs for their goods and services.Instead, they expect free service deliveries to be made or to be engaged in out-grower scheme arrangements.Such farmers’ environment is making it slightly difficult to convincing service providers to believe thatsmallholder farmers are a viable group and presents a readily available good market for agri-business. Thepolicy contradictions inherent especially in the Fertilizer Support Programme (FSP) whereby it is nowsupposed to be weaning off cooperatives that seem to have started acquiring agricultural inputs on theirown and the continued display of weak mechanisms for phasing out such co-operators has not helped intrying to encourage farmers to stand on their own.Researchers feel that the major constraint at the farmers’ level pertaining to use of research and thus forgingof partnerships is the farmers’ attitude towards technology. Farmers’ social cultural perception totechnology is that of suspicion and both their tradition and lack of knowledge hinders them from adoptinginnovations. Coupled with this is the element of technological benefits or in economic terms “opportunitycosts”. Farmers prefer adopting technologies with short term benefits to long term yielding benefits such asgrowing of trees. Farmers also tend to be resistant to new technology the first time e.g. ConservationFarming upon its introduction was associated with cultural interference with some farmers being scared ofthe new ways of farming as they were not prepared to take up risks.d) Specific CaseProfit facilitate service providers that are willing to engage in models that enable smallholders access toagro-inputs targeting mainly farmers above just ‘surviving’ levels and are relatively secure and are aspiringto create wealth or reap profits. Profit is currently working with 3 input suppliers (i.e. Croppack AgoServices, Mineland Agricultural Development Services and AgiVet Africa) and in their collaboration, aCommunity Agent concept has been introduced in Mumbwa.Service providers work directly with community based suppliers i.e. farmers who have been catalyzed intobeing agents chosen based on the following selection criteria:-Steps in Selection process –1) Gives information to input suppliers2) A meeting is held to introduce willing agents to the community- meant to seek acceptance ofagents by community people3) Once selected (based on agents credibility, trustworthiness business mindedness i.e. traders),agent undergoes training to be able to translate information to farmers4) Agents encouraged to sale 3-4 products of the approved 7 products and presents productknowledge to farmers in a community meetingUpon selection, farmers place orders with agent on pre-paid arrangements and the main focus of the modelis that farmers must receive product knowledge before or on delivery of ordered products. Agents work oncommission basis ranging from 10% mainly for crops to 20% for mainly livestock products.Farmers incentives are through:-70

• Inputs are delivered to farmers by agent thereby cutting on farmers transport, time andeffort to securing the same• Product knowledge is provided to farmers unlike when they purchase products off shelf inshops-normally will purchase without obtaining proper information• Agents sell products throughout the seasons unlike where retailers only sell productsduring peak season• Farmers allowed to make payments on agro inputs in two instalments first as advancepayment during the first 6months and the other after another 6 months at an agreed uponperiod.Input suppliers have technical staff on the teams who provide the technical information to agents. Someagents are also into sprayer services so far 17 such agents have received training and are certified sprayers.This group is expected to increase in June during the planned training sessions being organized by Profit.Agents working on livestock products are expected to graduate into Community Livestock Workers(minimum qualification required grade 9). Presently, there are 90 community based agents in Mumbwa.These offer service in delineated catchment areas. Sometimes due to distances, agents have sub contractedother sub-agents to assist in the promotion activities.The common modes of Information Flow include technical staff interacting with MACO staff at ground levelduring the promotion of products to farmers especially during field days, Coordinators meetings being heldon monthly basis, belonging to Veterinary Association established where doctors meet and share ideas,through Agro associations, field days for Agro-inputs and provision of training resource manuals andleaflets including holding Community promotion events, event that affords input suppliers get feedback onpromoted products, collaboration through other fora such as through the established laboratory located inthe show ground in Lusaka and duringStrategic planning meetings that on individual basis are held every 6 months with Profit. Individual serviceproviders also conduct on regular meetings, produce monthly work plans and may seek the services of aconsultantThrough the Fertilizer Support Program (FSP) most input suppliers have been linked up with MACO andthis has motivated input suppliers. Agri-Veterinary staff goes through government veterinary on cattlepopulation and submits monthly report of activity to be undertaken while government veterinary explainswhich diseases are handled by government such as foot and mouth. MACO also trains Agric Veterinary’sCommunity Livestock Agents,The main feedback loop in all this is through the community promotion events, consumer surveys carried onmaize variety called bullet-being promoted by Croppack and carrying out contact reviews after 12 months.d) Information marketsA number of respondents indicated not knowing of any known established Information markets but areaware of the direct links being forged between agro dealers and farmers. The Farmers National FarmersUnion (ZNFU) was identified as one such an institution on the ground trying to establish some kind of amarket information system. Through their facilities one could access and purchase agricultural products viaa mobile phone service.71

Annex C: Specialist Sub-Report on CommunicationsRIU Zambia ProgrammeCommunication to Support Agricultural InnovationAssessment and Strategy (DRAFT)July 2008Sarah Carriger72

IntroductionAt the country-level, RIU’s communication activities focus on:• promoting an information markets approach to improve sustainable, demand-driven provision ofresearch-based NR knowledge;• strengthening capacity of information intermediaries to source, package and deliver knowledge tomeet demand;• identifying and resolving communication gaps in innovation platforms to remove bottlenecks, buildtrust, and encourage common action;• and documenting and sharing lessons learned with partners and the larger development community.As a foundation for these activities, this report focuses on mapping knowledge flows between different actors inthe Zambian innovation system, analysing the factors that influence those flows, and identifying possible entrypoints for RIU to add value to existing initiatives.The potential role of ICTs in improving knowledge flows and the prospects for fostering an information andknowledge services market in Zambia are treated in more detail in the report on information and knowledgeservices markets.Communication for innovationRIU’s approach considers communication—the transfer of information from one person or organisation toanother—within an agricultural innovation systems context. This means looking at the flows of informationamong the different actors necessary for innovation—researchers, farmers, processors, traders, buyers,consumers, credit institutions—with particular attention to intermediary organisations that facilitate the flow ofinformation between other actors. Such “infomediaries” might include NGOs, farmer organisations, public andprivate extensionists, training organisations, schools.To improve communication for innovation requires developing more holistic communication models thataddress the incentives and constraints for different actors to demand and supply new knowledge. In contrast tothe traditional research communication model where information is transferred from researcher to extensionistto farmer, RIU takes the perspective that:• Everybody in the system is both a potential provider and user of information.• Different types of information are required for innovation—not just research-based information, butalso farmer knowledge, market information, etc.• Information and knowledge services that will support pro-poor innovation can be stimulatedthrough market-making arrangements and improved financial and other incentives.Mapping knowledge flows in the Zambian innovation systemPoorly functioning innovation systems often suffer from two communications-related problems: limited flow ofappropriate information between actors (because of infrastructural, institutional, social or economic factors) andlimited ability of actors to use information received. Zambia’s innovation system suffers from both of theseproblems to a degree.Gaps and blockages in the knowledge flow in the Zambian innovation system:• In general there are poor linkages between Zambia’s infomediaries and its knowledge generatinginstitutions. The result is that little new knowledge enters the system and what little does enter is eithernot adapted to the Zambian smallholder context or is not of good quality.• The vast bulk of Zambia’s small farmers—an estimated 85%—do not have access to the informationthey need to improve their livelihoods. Channels for farmers to convey demand are for the most partabsent, and most small farmers do not have the mindset or incentives to demand information.73

• The public extension system is poorly resourced and extension agents have no economic or institutionalincentive to seek new knowledge or transmit it to farmers.• Knowledge users have little input into research agendas. Mechanisms that are supposed to feedfarmers’ research needs back up the line are not functioning.• With few exceptions (e.g. KATC) researchers and knowledge infomediaries have not been able toeffectively tap farmer knowledge, including indigenous knowledge.Several reasons for hope:• Some of the government agencies (e.g. ZARI and the NAIS) are aware of these gaps and are looking forsolutions and new partnerships.• Zambian agricultural researchers do publish their results, which means knowledge is captured andcould be repackaged for other audiences.• The creation of the public-private trusts has made research more responsive to certain segments of theinnovation system—primarily large-scale agribusiness.• There are a number of private infomediaries servicing large- and medium-scale farmers, agribusinessesand organised groups of small farmers—suggesting that there is an emerging information andknowledge services market in Zambia.• Agricultural Development Programmes (ADPs) have had some success in sensitizing farmers to thevalue of information and linking them to service providers. Farmers who have seen the value ofinformation are willing to pay for it, if it meets their specific needs and can be clearly linked to marketopportunities.a. Knowledge GeneratorsIn the formal sector, agricultural knowledge generation is dominated by the Zambia Agricultural ResearchInstitute, followed by the three public-private trusts, and the University of Zambia. Other players include:Copperbelt University; several specialized departments under the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives(MACO); the National Institute for Scientific & Industrial Research (NISIR) under the Ministry of Science,Technology & Vocational Training; and the Forestry Department under the Ministry of Tourism, Environment& Natural Resources.In addition to the two major universities, there are a number of small colleges and training institutes, many ofwhich engage in some degree of collaborative research. These include the Zambia Forestry College, the NaturalResources Development College, Zambia College of Agriculture, Popota Tobacco Training College, ZambiaInstitute of Animal Health, Katete College of Agricultural Marketing, Chapula Horticultural Training Institute,Kasaka Fisheries Training Institute, and Kasisi Agricultural Training Centre.There are also several private companies engaged in research, including: Dunavant (cotton production),Zamseed (breeding, seed production), and the Maize Research Institute (breeding).Table 1: Primary formal knowledge generating institutionsOrganization Area of research Communication channels/linksGovernment agenciesZambia Agricultural ResearchInstitute (ZARI)Department of Research &Specialist Services, MACOapplied & adaptive research incrops & livestock production,post-harvest, socio-economics &farming systemsveterinary services & tsetse flycontroloutreach through provincialresearch centres, training, fielddays, publications (bulletins,brochures, crop productionguides), website (in progress)outreach74

Fisheries Research Branch,Fisheries Department, MACOCentral Veterinary ResearchInstitute, MACOForest Research Unit, ForestryDepartment, MTENRNational Institute for Scientific& Industrial Research, MSTVTPublic-Private TrustsGolden Valley AgriculturalResearch Trust (GART)capture fisheries & aquaculturediseases, animal healthforestry management,utilization, appropriatetechnologiesfood technology, livestock &pests, water resourcesconservation farming,smallholder livestock systems,technologies (production &post-harvest)extension (through 19 aquaculturestations, 5 of which do research),training, demonstrations,publicationsservices, publicationspublications, extension, trainingtraining, publicationsfield days, field schools, training,publications (technical manuals,fact sheets), workshops, radio, TV,websiteLivestock Development Trustlivestock production & diseases,breedingtraining, outreach, publicationsCotton Development Trust production technologies outreachUniversitiesUniversity of Zambia (UNZA),School of AgricultureUNZA, School of VeterinaryMedicineUNZA, Dept. of AgriculturalEngineeringUNZA, Institute for Economic& Social Research, Ag. & RuralDevelopment ProgrammeCopperbelt University, Schoolof Natural Resources &Environmental Sciencescrops, soils & animalproductionanimal health—livestock, fishland and water managementtechnologies, food processingpolicy, socio-economics,farming systemsforestry biology &management, fisheriesmanagementBSc & MSc programme, in-servicetraining, partnerships (projectbased),consultancies, publicationsBSc & MSc programmes,veterinary services, publicationsBSc programme, in-servicetraining, consultancies,workshops, publicationspublications, workshops,partnerships (project based)BSc programme in forestry,extension, consultanciesi. Research networksResearch in Zambia is ostensibly coordinated by the National Science and Technology Council. However, whatthis means in practice is unclear. Annual research meetings used to be held by the National Commission of TheNational Research Council, but this institution no longer exists. Researchers from different institution shareknowledge with each other primarily through scholarly publications, participation in workshops andconferences, and through direct collaboration on specific projects.Zambia’s research institutions are linked to others in the region through the activities of SADC’s FoodAgriculture and Natural Resources Directorate. Specific networks and projects involving Zambian researchersinclude: the Seed Security Network, the Information Core for Southern African Migratory Pests, theManagement of Indigenous Forests Project, and the Domestication and Commercialization of Indigenous TreeFruits Project.75

Zambian researchers also participate in a number of regional networks managed by CGIAR Centres (CIAT,IITA, CIMMYT and the World Agroforestry Centre). These include:• African Network on Soil Biology and Fertility (AfNET)• Pan-African Bean Research Alliance (PABRA)• Southern African Bean Research Network (SABRN).• Southern Africa Root Crops Research Network (SARRNET);• Soil Fertility Consortium for Southern Africa (SOFESCA);• Agro-forestry Research Network for Southern Africa (ARENA-SA).ii.Communication channels/links from knowledge generators to knowledge usersZambia’s research institutions use a variety of channels (see Table 1) to communicate their knowledge to otheractors in the innovations system—including farmers, infomediaries, and agribusinesses. Main channels forknowledge flow include: publications, extension, field days and other types of demonstrations.In general, research institutions do not employ staff specialized in packaging information for non-scientificaudiences. At ZARI, the capacity of the Central Services department, which is responsible for packaging, isoriented towards providing documentation and library services rather than producing materials for nonscientificaudiences.Publication: Most of the research institutions produce publications—although the budget for this type ofactivity is declining. Publications aimed at farmers and extension providers include crop production guides,bulletins, pamphlets, manuals, and posters. Very few of these are available in local languages. The majority ofpublications are produced on an ad hoc basis as outputs of specific (often donor-funded) projects, rather than aspart of a systematic process of packaging research findings.Extension: ZARI and many of the other institutes transfer knowledge to extension providers and farmersthrough training courses and collaboration on specific projects. In addition, several research institutes providesome degree of extension and/or advisory service directly to farmers, for example, the Livestock DevelopmentTrust and the Cotton Development Trust.On the whole, institutional linkages between Zambian agricultural research institutions and public and privateextension are weak. They are slightly stronger in fisheries and forestry, since both research and extension fallunder the purview of the same department. Due to restructuring or lack of budget, a number of the institutionallinkages that connected research and extension under MACO have been lost.In theory, the NAIS is supposed to facilitate transfer of knowledge from research institutions to the publicextension system; in practice the budget and institutional mechanisms for this are absent. ZARI is attempting toremedy this situation by restructuring its research stations to focus more on outreach to extension providers(public, private, NGO) at the district level.Field days: Most of the research institutes and private sector entities engaged in research hold field days topublicise new varieties and technologies to farmers and extension providers. GART’s in particular were praisedby informants. GART also has a network of contact farmers who assist in conducting on-farm demonstrationsand field schools.Field demonstrations seem to be an effective channel for technology transfer in Zambia—the most effectiveaccording to GART (2004). But the reach of this channel is limited since most farmers and extension agentscannot afford the expense of travelling outside of their immediate area.ICTs—radio, TV, internet: Researchers from ZARI, GART, and UNZA contribute regularly to radioprogrammes produced by the National Agricultural Information Service and the Zambia National FarmersUnion (ZNFU). These programmes reach large numbers of farmers and their efficacy is increased by longstandingradio listening groups, many of which are driven by women. There are also examples of researchinstitutions disseminating findings through community radio stations operating in project areas.ZARI and GART both have functioning websites and ZARI is the process of making its website an informationhub. However, internet access is still limited for the vast majority of farmers and extension providers.76

. InfomediariesThe main types of information service providers operating in Zambia include membership-based organisations,public and private extension providers, NGOs, farmer-agents, business service providers, and governmentagencies tasked with disseminating information produced by the national research system. Although mediaoutlets do not provide information services per se, they do serve as important infomediaries—community radiostations in particular.Membership-based organisations, e.g. the Agribusiness Forum, the Organic Producers and ProcessorsAssociation (OPPAZ), ZNFU, provide a range of services to their members—primarily large and medium scalecommercial farmers, organized groups of small-scale farmers, and agribusinesses. Such services includesourcing and packaging production information to meet member needs; printing and distributing informationof potential interest to members in the form of e-bulletins, magazines, position and research papers; and linkingmembers to other service providers. Most of these services are provided from Lusaka, although ZNFU hasinformation centres at the district level.Private extension: The vacuum caused by the failure of public extension has opened up a market for privateextension services to farmers. Private extension agents are employed by seed companies, processors, andorganized groups of commercial small-scale farmers.NGOs: Many NGOs also provide extension information, although few provide regular, on-going services. TheKasisi Agricultural Training Institute (KATC) is an exception—providing a range of information services tofarmers in the Chongwe district and beyond. These include training, extension, a school-based demonstrationprogramme, and a radio programme. The Swedish Cooperative Centre and the Conservation Farming Unit arealso quite active in this area, as well as PAM through its work with the Cassava Task Force.Public extension: MACO has an extensive public extension network that spans national, provincial, district,block and camp levels. The network is poorly resourced and considered by many to be dysfunctional. However,when camp and district extension officers were linked to ADPs who provided additional resources andincentives, they were able to perform well.Farmer-Agents: The cotton ginner Dunavant and the ADP PROFIT have facilitated the training of farmer agentswho provide extension information as well as serving as agents for the ginner in the case of Dunavant and agrodealersin the case of PROFIT.Government agencies responsible for disseminating information: The NAIS is tasked with packaging anddisseminating agricultural information and serving as a liaison between ZARI and extension, primarily throughDistrict Agricultural Information Officers. The national-level link appears to have broken during therestructuring process that eliminated the post of Research Liaison Officer. The National Technology BusinessCentre (NTBC) is a newly formed agency under the Ministry of Science, Technology & Vocational Training topromote R&D products and facilitate technology transfer.c. Knowledge users and access to information servicesThe country’s 1,500 large- and medium-scale farmers and agribusinesses have relatively good access toinformation services. They are able to demand information through membership organizations such as theAgribusiness Forum (ABF) and the Zambia National Farmers Union (ZNFU), and they have the facility tocontract research directly from the public-private research trusts—The Golden Valley Development Trust(GART), The Livestock Development Trust (LDT) and The Cotton Development Trust (CDT)—and engageconsultants from the university research system.Better-off smallholders—generally those farming from 5 – 20 ha—are also able to access many of these servicesby banding together in cooperatives and associations. These so called “cell-phone farmers” are able to accessmarket information (and markets) through ZNFU’s SMS-based market information system. They are able todemand and access information and link to other service providers through group memberships inorganizations such as ABF, ZNFU, and OPPAZ. Through ZNFU’s contract with GART, they are able to demandresearch. They are able to access business development services, microfinance, and market linkages throughorganisations such as Zambia Agribusiness Technical Assistance Centre (ZATAC) and the Zambia Chamber ofSmall and Medium Business Associations (ZCSMBA). A number of the associations also employ their own77

extension officers. These farmers are well-situated to take up and apply new technologies and to benefit frominternet and cell-phone based interventions.Zambia’s poorer farmers—generally those farming less than one hectare—do not have good access toinformation services. These farmers, who account for approximately 85% of Zambia’s smallholders, are cut offfrom information flows by poor transportation and communication infrastructure and are forced to rely on thedysfunctional public extension system for information. Because of lack of access to input and output marketsand other types of services (financial, business development), they have little incentive to demand and applynew knowledge. The National Association for Peasant and Small-Scale Farmers of Zambia has emerged to meetthe needs of this group, but currently it has no capacity to provide regular information and knowledge servicesto its members.Agricultural Development Programmes (ADPs) such as SHEMP, ASP and PROFIT have had some success inreaching poorer farmers (although not the poorest) and enabling them to participate in knowledge services.These programmes have provided evidence that poor farmers are willing to pay for services, even informationservices (although most consider such services MACO’s responsibility), if the information provided meets theirspecific needs and can be linked to market opportunities. In general, the ADPs worked by encouraging farmersto approach farming as a business (rather than a subsistence activity) and by helping them to link to input andoutput markets and service providers (information, financing, business development). ASP and the farmer agentschemes run by Profit and Dunavant have also had some success in supporting the development of local serviceproviders.Opportunitiesd. Radio and other ICTsThe potential of cell phones and the internet to connect different actors and improve the delivery of demanddriveninformation is discussed in the report on information and knowledge services markets. Thesetechnologies do offer exciting opportunities, but in terms of achieving significant impact within the projecttimeframe and reaching women and poorer farmers, radio offers the best opportunity in Zambia for thefollowing reasons:• Radio reaches more farmers than all other ICTs combined (internet, TV, and cell phones) and unlikeother ICTs, it is readily accessible to women and poorer farmers.• Farmers are accustomed to using radio as medium for accessing information and learning—radiolistening clubs affiliated with Radio Farm Forum (RFF) have been active since the 1960s. Sibalwa (2000)reports that 52% of 240 farmers interviewed reported that they had learned new methods of farmingand had increased their yields through RFF Listening Groups.• Community radio stations are strong in Zambia, providing localized, community-driven content in allnine of Zambia’s provinces. These stations have helped to empower local communities and connectthem to government and other services. For example, Musanshi (2004) documents examples of farmersusing community radio to demand information on inputs and women using their local radio station todemand literacy classes.There are several projects focused on the use of radio for development that are already operating in Zambia. Themost significant for RIU is the Panos/NAIS project to improve the interactivity of Radio Farm Forum. The projecthas supplied listening clubs, over half of which are driven by women, with mini-discs so that they can recordtheir questions after listening to the programme. These recordings are collected, and the questions are addressedat the beginning of the following week’s programme. Panos also provides three day training for the clubs,including leadership, thematic issues and technical training. They are also training District AgriculturalInformation Officers to work with the listening clubs. RIU could add value to this initiative by working withPanos and NAIS to include a focus on use of the clubs as platforms for farmers to demand information andaccess services.There are also two USAID programmes that offer potential lessons:78

• Zambia Quality Education Services Through Technology (QUEST) - uses the Interactive RadioInstruction methodology to teach life skills and AIDS education to out-of-school children throughcommunity radio stations.• Zambia Community Radio Project (ZCR) - is partnering with community radio stations to create aseries of village-based radio programmes. Entitled Our Village, the programmes are designed bycommunities to address their development needs and tap local technical knowledge.e. Projects to improve knowledge flowsThere are a number of programmes and projects in Zambia aimed at improving information flows inagriculture. These programmes offer opportunities for cooperation and lesson learning for RIU.National:• Development of an Effective Information Flow System—focuses on Misamfu, Northern Province andMount Makulu near Lusaka (IICD)• Strengthening the Agricultural Information Flow and Dissemination System of the National AgriculturalInformation Services (IICD)• Communicating Research (implemented by Panos with support from DFID) – strengthens links betweenresearchers and journalistsRegional:• Regional Agricultural Information & Learning System (RAILS)• Dissemination of New Agricultural Technologies in Africa (DONATA)Both of these are coordinated by the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) and have timelines(2007-2012) that roughly coincide with RIU’s. These initiatives are still fairly new and have yet to engage widelywith Zambian researchers. However, the potential for RIU to feed into these programmes or vice versa is worthexploring.• Strategic Analysis Knowledge Support System (SAKSS) coordinated by IFPRIf. Functioning innovation platform on cassavaThe Cassava Task Force is an existing innovation platform that could offer a quick win for RIU. The Task Forcebrings together innovation system actors (research institutions, farmer organisations, NGOs, governmentagencies, processors and other private sector companies) to accelerate commercialization of cassava, a highpotential crop in Zambia. The Task force has already gone a long way in identifying gaps and blockages andworking towards common solutions. Research-based knowledge was one of the key gaps identified.RIU could add value by facilitating the evaluation and possible promotion of RNRRS outputs (10 dealspecifically with cassava) and by building communications capacity within the platform—this was identified asa key need by the task force coordinator. Specifically the Task Force needs support to develop and implement acommunication strategy targeted at different audiences (farmers, industry, policy makers and consumers) andto document and share lessons learned.The Task Force offers a significant learning opportunity for RIU. By documenting the process RIU could providea convincing example of the innovations system approach and potential lessons for RIU Zambia and the largerRIU programme.g. Information-related constraints to agricultural innovation• Weak linkages between information and knowledge service providers (including public extension) andresearch institutions. Most of the information and knowledge service providers interviewed reported thatthe country’s research institutions were unresponsive to requests for information and that they source mostof the information they provide to their clients through the internet, international partners, and privatesector commercial entities.79

• Much of the information produced by the Zambian research system is not packaged appropriately for smallscalefarmers or even information service providers. The vast bulk of publications produced by researchinstitutions are aimed at other researchers. Of publications aimed at farmers and extension providers (cropproduction guides, bulletins, pamphlets, manuals, posters), very few are available in local languages. Themajority are produced on an ad hoc basis as outputs of specific (often donor-funded) projects, rather than aspart of a systematic process of communicating research findings.• Knowledge users have little input into setting research agendas. Mechanisms that are supposed to feedfarmer information needs back up the line don’t work. ZARI and other public research institutions arestruggling to find cost-acceptable methods of soliciting stakeholder input in an environment where theirfunding is decreasing.• Policy makers do not value research (at least when it comes to budget allocations) nor do they appreciate therole of information and knowledge services (particularly private sector services) in fostering innovation andeconomic growth in the agricultural sector.• The vast majority of poor farmers are not able to access the information services. They also do not have themindset or capacity necessary to use information to improve their livelihoods.h. StrategyTo have the biggest impact on poverty, RIU needs to concentrate on reaching small-scale farmers farming lessthan one hectare. Improving knowledge flows to these farmers will not be enough; poor farmers also need to beturned on to the value of information and given the capacity to articulate demand and plug information intodecision-making frameworks—enabling them to make decisions that will improve their livelihoods, not merelytheir productivity.Strategically, given the programme’s short timeframe, it makes sense to build on initiatives that are alreadyhaving some impact on the ground, such as the ADPs (particularly the ones that are coming to an end thisyear—SHEMP and ASP), and to take advantage of communication technologies that are already widespreadand that have proved acceptable and accessible to both men and women and the poorer segments of thepopulation—i.e. radio.To improve the functioning of the agricultural innovation systems as a whole, RIU needs to explore ways offostering local information service markets—for example, through the farmer-agent model used by Dunavantand PROFIT and the lead farmer model established by ASP. And it needs to strengthen the capacity of existingservice providers to source, package, and deliver information to smallholders. This would include:• Strengthening linkages to research institutions,• Identifying business models to make service provision to smallholders financially sustainable, and• Finding ways of using ICTs to reduce transaction costs.Finally, RIU could help to create an enabling environment for improved knowledge flows by publicising successstories and contributing evidence to support existing advocacy efforts—for example, those led by ACF, FSRPand the Zambia Community Media Forum.The specific entry points/opportunities described in the next section contribute to all three strategic thrustsidentified during the stakeholder consultation process:Thrust 1: Facilitating coalitions of interest or platformsThrust 2: Enhancing the capacity of farmers and intermediaries to demand services and participate in valuechainsThrust 3: Developing knowledge sharing mechanisms and servicesIn terms of operationalising the strategy, most of the communications activities described could be carried outunder a platform on information and knowledge services. This platform could bring together different actorsinto task groups—for example, one focused on internet/cell phone-based mechanisms for strengthening linkagesamong service providers and potential clients (including other service providers) and one using radio to80

strengthen farmer demand for and access to information. Where possible, RIU should link to other programmes(regional and national) aimed at improving knowledge flows in agriculture.i. Entry points/opportunities for RIU to add valueOpportunity 1: Facilitating a platform (or task group under a larger platform on information and knowledgeservices) to strengthen radio as a channel for farmers to demand and access information and for infomediariesto market services. Possible activities include:• Working with community radio stations to improve the quality of their agricultural programming.Could include knowledge sharing and capacity building on how to involve the community, source andpackage information, highlight farmer knowledge and success stories, and attract advertisers ofagricultural goods and services.• Working with Panos and NAIS to make Radio Farm Forum more responsive to farmer demand andbuild the capacity of Farmer Listening Groups to demand information and access services.• Developing a radio-based distance learning package that would give farmers the skills and decisionmakingframeworks they need to source information and use it to improve their livelihoods. Could belinked to Radio Farm Forum Listening Clubs and Swedish Cooperative Centre Study Circles, many ofwhich have retired teachers as facilitators. Also this is a possible mechanism for scaling up some of thetraining provided by the successful Agricultural Development Programmes, such as SHEMP and ASP.Potential partners: Panos, Zambia Community Media Forum, Zambia Media Trust, NAIS, ZNFU (particularlydistrict information centres), SCC, NTBC, community radio stationsLinks to other programmes: Zambia Community Radio Project (USAID), PANOS/NAIS project (DANIDA), ADPsPotential outputs, outcomes and results: Better provision of farmer-driven information, farmers able to demand anduse information to improve livelihoods, farmers better able to access service providers.Risks/constraints: Poaching of community radio staff by commercial stations, possibility of government controlthrough threats to revoke license (risk is slight unless content is politicised)Opportunity 2: Capacity building for information service providers on sourcing and packaging information tomeet client needs (drawing on RNRRS models and outputs), marketing their services, and developing businessmodels for extending service to poorer farmers (could also be an activity under a platform on information andknowledge services)Potential Partners: ZNFU, NAIS, OPPAZ, ABF, KATCPotential outputs, outcomes and results: Capacity of information service providers to source and packageinformation and to participate in information and knowledge service market improved, expansion of services topoorer farmersOpportunity 3: Building communications capacity in the Cassava Task Force and documenting lessonslearned. Specifically building communications capacity of staff from one or more task force members andproviding MIL support.Potential partners: PAM, ACF, Zambia Association of Chambers of Commerce & Industry (ZACCI), FreshPict,Tiger Feeds, MACO (Agribusiness Unit), NSRI, UNZA, FRSPLinks to other projects and programmes: FAO cassava project and JICA food diversification project, FRSP, CassavaTransformation in Southern Africa project (covers Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania & Zambia), CAADP(through pillar 4 objective: To mobilize the large potential of cassava to contribute to food security and income).Potential outputs, outcomes and results: RNRRS outputs put into use, evidence for innovations system hypothesisgenerated, lessons on facilitating commodity-based innovations platform documented and shared, increasedparticipation of farmers in cassava value chain.Risks/constraints: Trained communications staff poached by another organisation or prevented from working ontask force activities81

Opportunity 4: Improving knowledge flows between research institutions and infomediaries and farmers. Inparticular building on RNRRS outputs documented in the “Spreading the Word section of the database, e.g.CPP58: Capturing farmer’s demands and involving them in research and CPP37: Finding better ways ofdisseminating research results, LPP28: Helping people access the information they need.Potential partners: ZARI, MACO, NSIR, GART, CDT, LDTLinks to other projects and programmes: see section e above on projects to improve knowledge flowsPotential outputs, outcomes and results: use of RNRRS outputs to improve knowledge flows in the Zambianinnovations systemRisks: partner interest, willingness to institutionalise new approaches, human/financial resource constraintsOpportunity 5: Communicating to policy makers and farmers the importance of research-based information.RIU could add value to existing efforts by providing evidence and success stories to support advocacy.Potential partners: ACF, FRSP, ZARI, NTSC, ZNFU (Institute for Economic & Social Research), ADPs, PanosLinks to other projects and programmes: Communicating Research (the DFID-funded Panos project) could be a wayof linking to a network of journalists who have been sensitised to research into use issues.Potential outputs, outcomes and results: Budget allocated for research increased; role of information and knowledgeservices in fostering innovation and the role of the private sector in providing those services considered in therevision of the National Science and Technology Policy and MACO policy and institutional arrangements.Risks/constraints: Policy changes not made or made on paper but not implementedj. Other issues/constraints with implications for RIU’s success in Zambia• Literacy in Zambia is fairly high according to official statistics, with around 80% of the population overthe age of 15 able to read and write in English (CIA Factbook). However, informant interviews suggestthat in rural areas the percentage is significantly lower. Since the literacy level is lower for women thanfor men according to both official statistics and informant interviews, fewer women than men are ableto directly access knowledge through text-based mediums (publications, internet, SMS).• In 2002, the government passed the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation Act, which would ineffect restructure ZNBC into an authentic public service broadcaster, with an independent board ofdirectors and ultimate regulation by an Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA). The IBA wouldgovern all forms of broadcasting under the aegis of a transparently recruited board of directors.Implementation, which is to be carried out by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Services(MIBS), has been held up by the Ministry’s opposition to nominations for the Boards of Directors.• To reach communities, getting the support of the local headperson or chief is critical. These traditionalauthority figures have the power to spread new knowledge and mobilise communities or, if they aren’tbrought on board, to block knowledge flows and participation.82

Annex D: Specialist Sub-Report on Information MarketsRIU ZAMBIA PROGRAMMEINFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE SERVICE MARKETSASSESSMENT AND STRATEGYSeptember 2008Steen Joffe83

IntroductionThe Zambia CSPDT Terms of reference include an element shared between the Communications Consultantand the Information Markets Consultant.This report focuses in particular on the role of ICTs in Zambia to network different actors, the opportunitiesfor intermediaries in such networks and the prospects for emergence of an information and knowledgeservices marketplace that works to deliver benefits for the rural poor. The separate Communications reportfocuses on mapping information and knowledge flows and modes of communication; also on identifying themain 'knowledge generating' agencies and networks.Information and Knowledge Service Markets (IKSM)In the context of an innovation systems approach, the information and knowledge services market can bethought of as operating between innovation system actors; in other words the interactions between theseactors and the services that enable flows of information and knowledge between them.These interactions and flows are often weak in low income emerging economies, and the rural poorparticularly disadvantaged : Thus, the Knowledge Markets approach:Works through existing development initiatives at the community and small enterprise level tostrengthen effective demand for, and use of, knowledge services.Supports initiatives that build networks between rural service providers, their clients, and otheractors – facilitating ‘many-to-many’ exchanges of information.Promotes sustainable business models to pay for the provision of information, content andbrokerage services through these networks using smart subsidies where necessary.Such actions strengthen rural markets as more and better information becomes available about theavailability, nature, price and quality of essential services that can make markets work for small farmers. Theresult is a better coordinated system that complements existing local knowledge through interactions withadvisory and training services, credit providers, and input and output market intermediaries, bringingtogether value-chains and strengthening demand ‘pull’ on research agencies.IKSM in Practice : methodologyUnderstand the existing structure of the knowledge economy : how knowledge flows and whatfactors influence these flows in relation to rural/nr livelihoodsUnderstand major drivers of change : economic, social, policies and programmes that influencethese flows and the people/enterprises involved, with particular attention to the intermediaryservices sectorIdentify (potential) services, providers and institutional/networking arrangements that will enablethese key people/enterprises to be better connected, informed, knowledgeable, and make optimumuse of research based knowledgeAssess conditions for the provision of these services and networks and help to bring them aboutmaking best use of public-private partnerships and alliances between ICT service providers andother actors based on sustainable business models that incentivise information flows.84

Zambia ICTs Sector : MappingPolicy and RegulationZambia recognises ICT as a priority sector within the Poverty Reduction Strategy Programme and the FifthNational Development Plan 2006-2010, where-in "ICT shall be integrated in the agricultural sector reformprocess in order to contribute to the social and economic revival of the country." At the sub-regional levelZambia has been an active player in ICT initiatives under COMESA and SADC. The UN ECA's Sub-RegionalDevelopment Centre for Southern Africa (SRDC-SA) is located in Lusaka.A new ICT Policy was agreed in 2006. The Ministry of Communications and Transport is charged withcoordination, oversight and implementation. Within agriculture, the policy makes a number ofcommitments oriented towards improving productivity and competitiveness of the agricultural sectorthrough increased use of ICTs, including facilitating private sector investment in infrastructure and servicesin all Farming Blocks and Farm Resettlement Schemes, and instituting necessary supportive policymeasures.The Communications Authority of Zambia (CAZ) is responsible for regulating the provision oftelecommunications products and services in the country : issuing licences, promoting competition,promoting the interests of consumers and other users of ICT services/ products etc. Additionally, CAZ isresponsible for administering the utilisation of the Radio Frequency Spectrum. CAZ administers a RuralICT Development Basket financed through a 5% levy on licensed operators in the communications sector,which is intended to subsidies the provision of ICT services in rural and underserved areas.International Gateway for Satellite AccessThe International Gateway is terrestrial and based at Mwambeshi Satellite Station. under the control of theZambia Telecommunications Company (ZAMTEL). Both the voice and data international gateways areliberalised, however a $12 million license fee is payable by licensees; this situation has led to complaints byGSM mobile companies and ISPs about unfair competition.National and Regional Optical Fibre Cable Network ProjectsZambia is not yet linked to the and The East African Submarine Cable System (EASSy) fibre optic project isintended to connect Zambia and five other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa to the global internet backbone;this will improve access and reduce costs for connectivity, but it is unlikely to be effective within the nextfive years. In the interim the country depends on foreign satellites for its Internet and fixed telephone linecommunications. There are initiatives underway to establish a fibre optic backbone for national use and inpreparation for international fibre link. These are being carried out by the Copperbelt Energy Corporationand the Zambian institutions, ZAMTEL and ZESCO. The ZESCO fibre network is likely to reach a theoreticalcoverage of 80% of real population within a year.Internet Service ProvidersIn the early 1990s Zambia was, after South Africa, the first country in Sub-Saharan Africa to pioneer the useof Internet services. The driving force behind this was the University of Zambia (UNZA) which, in 1994,spun-off ZAMNET, which is now a separate ISP Company. However, this advantage has not been exploitedand the country now lags behind many African countries that started Internet services in a more liberalisedand low cost environment. There are eleven registered Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in Zambia. Out ofthese, six provide services to rural areas with an estimated 17,800+ clients, these are:ZAMTEL OnlineZamnet Communication Systems85

Coppernet SolutionsMicrolink TechnologiesUUNet ZambiaAfriconnectOver 50% of services provided by the ISPs are concentrated in the major towns along the line of rail wherethere is relatively good telecommunication infrastructure, lower capital and operations costs and a highnumber of potential customers. Services available for the rural areas include CDMA, offered by ZAMTEL,and GPRS, offered by CELTEl and MTN, as well as VSAT satellite systems offered by some ISP companies.VSAT systems are more frequently used in the rural areas than in the towns. Wireless broadband ispredominantly available to urban users. WiMaX and MESH are also being introduced and will further thepotential for rural connectivity solutions.Mobile telephone providersMTN, Cell Z and CELTEL are the main mobile telephone service providers in Zambia. Celtel haveapproximately 80% of the market, with circa 2 milllion subscribers (AfricConnect pers comm). Celtel andMTN offer internet conectivity via mobile phones, using GPRS and EDGE, while WiMaX is beingconsidered.The access speed ranges from 30 to 160 kbps. To use GPRS with Celtel one needs to have a PC-card (ZMK950,000) or USB-card (ZMK 1,170,000), referred to as ‘SAMBA’. Cost of usage are ZMK 1,600/ MB and onecan also purchase bundles of 100 MB for ZMK 85,000.Telecentres and other localised ICT initiativesInternet cafés and business bureaus offer telephone, email/Internet access in major urban centres; much lessso in rural towns. There were about 300 licensed telecenters across the country by 2004 against 108 in theyear 2000. There are a number of local projects aimed at integrating use ICT initiatives in rural Zambia. TheZambia Association for Advancement of Information and Communication Technologies (ZAA-ICT), is anactive NGO in this area; the International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD) hassupported a number of such initiatives.The Macha Mission multipurpose community telecentre, supported by LinkNet(www.linknet.zm), is usingKu-Band and C-band VSAT for its connectivity services. This centre is linked with the South African MerakaInstitute, a leading wireless technlogy R&D centre, and also has a Memorandum of Undertanding with TNOin Holland for the application of research outputs from that organisation. It has ambitious plans to establishadditional centres in other Districts of Zambia. Another community access initiative operates in Namwala inSouthern Province where AfriConnect is supporting a rural connectivity business outlet in partnership witha local entrepreneur. The Namwala project uses the CELTEL mast on a rental basis (www.namwala.com).Another multipurpose teleentre, at Chinyunyu, Chongwe District is was established by the KasisiAgricultural Training Centre (KATC) with technical and financial assistance from UNIDO. This centre uses50 * 50 watt solar panels for it’s energy supply.Other initiatives are the Lusaka’s peri-urban Chawama Youth Project that offers of ICT skills to local youthsin the Chawama Compound; similarly the Kalomo Women’s Group in Kalomo, Southern Province. TheKachabe Youth enterprise that was supported by IICD through partnerships to use ICT in its business is nowreported to be ‘a growing small scale manufacturing enterprise in Lusaka’. Other community projects are inNdola, Copperbelt province. There are also upcoming telecenter initiatives in Lusaka Matero compound andUniversity of Zambia supported by UNESCO and Microsoft respectively.86

Overview of connectivity in Zambia : issues and constraintsThere are estimated to be approximately 12,000 Internet subscribers in Zambia and an additional30,000 Internet users mainly patronising Internet cafes.The quality of internet services is variable; poor in rural areas. Much of rural Zambia has nolandlines; local copper is poor and won't carry adsl broadband. Private and community informationcentres, telecentres and Internet cafés are beginning to enhance access for populations in rural areas,however rural mobile and wireless services are also subject to outages due to poor electricityinfrastructure.Within the last 10 years Cell Z, CELTEL and MTN have extended their services and coverage torural districts with technologies such as GPRS and EDGE. However, the cost of using the Internetthrough the mobile phone services is still relatively high.The cost accessing the Internet cafes in rural areas is five times higher than in the urban areas. Insome cases, it costs between ZMK 500 – ZMK 1,000 to access the Internet (about 0.10-0.25 USD) inthe rural areas compared to an average of ZMK 100.00 (0.025 USD) per minute in Lusaka and theCopperbelt.Connectivity is relatively expensive in Zambia compared to other countries in the region. In 2007, atypical monthly cost of domestic internet access varied from ZMK 200,000 to ZMK 20,000,000 (40-400US dollars). The cost of a 1 mbs fibre connection is currently approximately $6,000/month versus$300/month for a similar service in Kenya. The minimum total investments for Ku-Band V-SATrange from $25,000 to $30,000, with monthly rates starting at around $770 for 256 kbps download.It is expensive to operate as an ISP; each wireless transmitter cost about $40 - 50k and can serveapproximately 200 access points within a radius of 30km. Relatively high import tariffs and taxesare imposed on ICT products and services ; there is a 5% duty on all PCs and 15 - 25 % duty on othercomputer hardware (routers, servers etc).The current regulatory framework in telecommunications and broadcasting sub-sectors is widelyseen as failing in important respects to address the challenge of expanding access and provision ofservices required to meet National ICT policy goals. One oft-cited issue is ZAMTEL’s monopoly andde facto exclusion from the sector regulator’s jurisdiction (CAZ). This is seen as raising costs andweakening competition in fixed, mobile and internet services, while the prohibitive IGW licence feeof US$ 12 million is estimated by the World Bank to be depriving 30,000 households of access totelephone services.The National ICT Policy has drawn criticism from those who say it should emphasise private-sectorinvolvement. For example the policy does not address Zambia's involvement in the East AfricanSubmarine Cable (EASSy) project. The only telecommunications company so far signed up toEASSy, ZAMTEL, is state-run and enjoys a near monopoly over the project in Zambia, leaving littleroom for private sector involvement.Intermediaries in the Information and Knowledge Services MarketIn a thriving agricultural sector, farmers utilise a range of services that provide access to knowledge acrossall fronts – indeed their success and outlook in the modern world is increasingly defined by their uptake ofsuch services. In innovation system terms such services and their providers are often termed‘intermediaries’. The interactions between these organisations form the distribution channels and linkagesthat enable research based knowledge to circulate and mix with other forms of knowledge and flow withinthe innovation system. The extent to which these interactions are supported by relevant services to enable adynamic exchange, and the incentives to engage in such interactions, are key elements of the scope forsupporting IKSM.It is possible to distinguish key types of intermediaries and examples in the Zambian context :87

Note : more specific detail on these organisations and initiatives is provided elsewhere within thisAssessment report.Public sector/NGO Information 'outreach'The main government mandated body is the National Agricultural Information Service (NAIS), thisis fundamentally an information dissemination service, primarily by broadcasting via ZNBC, butalso through literature, and as an advisory service.MACO extension services including field days with research agencies.Many NGOs and faith-based organisations engaged in providing information (Women for Change,PAM, Envirogreen, PELUM etc).Market linkage services and intermediaries : technical advisory, credit, business development, agents,buyers, processors etc.Various programmes such as ASP and PROFIT that are operating as market linkage schemes,embodying a value chain approach and providing a structured programme through organisedgroups to train/develop capacity of lead farmers/services providers to operate as ruralentrepreneurs.Those operating as technical services and market linkage providers within a specific sub-sector, e.gOPPAZ and KATC for organics, or value chain, e.g. Dunavant in cotton outgrowing and others intobacco, sugar etc.Those providing market information services, e.g. the ZNFU SMS (text message) price and buyerinformation services.Those operating within input and output distribution channels.Small enterprise networks and BDS such as via the Zambia Chamber of Small and Medium BusinessAssociations and the new BDS voucher scheme to be operated through District AgriculturalBusiness AssociationsTelecentres, (rural) ICT initiatives, and other interactive communications servicesAs discussed above there is much going on in this area. Telecentres have the potential to be furtherinvolved in market linkage and knowledge services but often struggle to develop sustainablebusiness models.Community radios also have potential to operate as an interactive medium for rural communities.In Zambia there is also an (inter)active 'blogosphere' which are a useful source of information,discussion and contacts; some of the main ones areo Maravio Mine Watch Blogo Gershom Ndlovuo Mwankoleo Zambia Landsafe Investmento Zambia Chronicleo Zambia Conservationo Zambia Forestso Lusaka Sunriseo Manenao Mweshio Young African Leaders88

Coordination/Learning'top level' policy forums such as ACF; apex organisatations such as ABF and OPPAZThe eBrain Agriculture Thematic GroupIICD supported networks between NAIS/ZARI/eBrainStudy circles supported by Swedish Cooperation CentreOther research and technology networksSome Factors Affecting Development of the Information and Knowledge Services Market for Pro-PoorInnovation in ZambiaICT service environmentThis dimension was discussed extensively above : a combination of high costs; weak regulatoryenvironment; limited incentives for private operators; lack of capacity to implement the new ICT Policy. Oneof the evident factors is the difficulty that the relevant public sector elements of the communications sector :the Ministry of Transport and Communications, MACO, CAZ, and forums such as eBrain, are having incoordinating initiatives to support expansion of rural services and particularly the interface with and relativeroles of these bodies and private sector operators such as Celtel and others. The lack of a common vision or'gameplan' is very evident.'Demand side' for knowledge servicesSome of the 'empowerment' dimensions affecting demand are discussed in other sub-reports. A key issue isthe necessary transition between decades of dependency on public services towards the capacity of farmersto make land use and production decsions geared towards markets. This change of mindset and attitude torisk will not come quickly or easily, although (apparently) successful programmes such as the ASP aredemonstrating ways forward, at least for some section of the one million or so village households inZambia.One factor not covered in the sub-report but nonetheless essential is an understanding of the relationshipbetween the farm and non-farm economy and livelihoods, and linkages between these and other sectors;also social and political economic drivers influencing knowledge flows. The orientation of any newinformation services that may be proposed by RIU in Zambia must take these in to account.Intermediary ServicesAs the rural economy becomes more market oriented then the nature of the knowledge requirementschanges; becomes more dynamic and more specialised. At the moment the 'intermediary knowledgeservices' sector, including NAIS and the many NGO initiatives, is not well geared up to respond to suchdemands; they are generally supply driven and have problems of sustainability in the absence of links intocentres of effective demand for Knowledge. There seems to be a lack of coordination or clear policyconcerning agricultural services (a vital knowledge intermediary function); multiple parallel initiatives exist;initiatives such as : ASP, PROFIT, CFU, various outgrower schemes, etc. ‘go their own way’ with limitedevidence of lesson learning or institutional development at the 'centre'. Indeed some of the initiatves areeffectively parallel extension serivces and some also overlap with each other. Without coordination andcompetition in the market for such services such duplication and a lack of specialisation is inevitable.89

Policy EnvironmentThe political nature of the maize production system and the related subsidy regime has a number of knockoneffects for the knowledge market. For one thing this environment undermines incentives for low inputmixed agricultural systems and thus also demand for new knowledge to raise productivity of these systems.The same distorted environment, inefficiencies in the distribution, timing and pricing of inputs, allied toinformation asymmetries, increases opportunity for rent seeking behaviour of 'brief case' traders with theknock on effect of undermining trust in the private sector intermediary system.The Other Side of the Coin : Positive FactorsNote : no account taken here of potential effects of the President's illness or of short-medium term impactsof rising world food prices on the Zambian economy.Zambia has a relatively stable and fast growing economy. The recent Euromoney conference inLusaka is evidence of the interest in this economy within international finance markets. Within theagriculture sector slow but steady market reforms are taking place.There is long term commitment from donors including DFID to continue to support economicdevelopment in Zambia.There is a great deal of tacit 'how-to' knowledge within a variety of existing actors operating withinthe agriculture sector.Within the ICT sector there is also evidence of an accelerating pace of change. The government hasrecently called for greater participation of the private sector in expansion of services into rural areasand the CAZ rural development fund is allocated specifically to this end. There has been recentdiscussion about additional incentives including tax-breaks for rural expansion; also some progressre: the intrenational gateway license, and restructuring of ZAMTEL. The recently announcedinvestment by Malysian firm M-mobile in the first mobile-phone handset manufacturing plant inZambia, should be good for the sector.Notwithstanding the constrained environment, there are some centres of strong capacity in the ICTsector and strong linkages with regional centres of expertise. The successful ZNFU price/buyerinformation services is evidence of the potential for existing actors (in this case ZNFU, Celtel,AfriConnect and the SHEMP programme) to coordinate activities to good effect.RIU Zambia Information Markets StrategyThere are many existing component elements of an information and knowledge services market within theZambian innovation system. These are outlined and discussed in table 1. Existing actors already havecapacity and access to capital and could identify/implement solutions; by and large these actors alreadyknow each other; viable service solutions almost certainly exist technically and even commercially throughan appropriate public-private partnership. Essentially all the necessary ‘pieces’ exist, however there iscoordination problem in that no player acting alone has has either individual incentive or in some cases anappropriate mandate or implementation capacity.RIU potentially has a role to play in facilitating common ground between the key actors in this area. On thebasis of discussions to date these would seem to be : the regulator CAZ; MACO and the Ministry ofCommunications; one or more mobile phone companies (initial discussions with Celtel illustrate a degree ofinterest); one or more ISPs, such as Africonnect; one or more farmers organisations such as ZNFU and strongprogrammes working with them such as SHEMP, ASP; one or more agribusiness apex organisations such asZCSMBA, ABF, OPPAZ; one or more of the telecentre initiatives particularly Macha and Chiniyunyu; oneone or more technical service providers with an existing 'clientele' or potential users of such a service such asKATC, PROFIT; additionally, from a capacity development perspective : NAIS and eBrain.90

An Innovation Platform in this area could be charged with developing/enabling:opportunities for networking/information service that would work well in Zambia to linkinnovation system actors including rural actors, technical and market linkage service providers,research agencies, credit providers and others;the basis for public-private partnerships where the provision of such services is not commerciallyviable;enhanced institutional capacity at the interface of agriculture and communications sectors to resolvecoordination problems and overcome bottlenecks in implementation of existing ICT policy including'unlocking' the Rural Development Fund currently administered by CAZ.Capacities required for IKSM in Zambia and availability of relevant servicesServices that strengthen capacity of rural communities and/or service providers to participate beneficially in IKSM and exert aneffective demand for knowledge through an intermediary network.Organisation and prorammes such as KATC and ZACSMBA, ASP, SHEMP, PROFIT, and some of the telecentre inittiatives,notably LinkNet, making some headway; however cultural elements of the rural 'knowledge system' and dependency issuesmitigate against rapid progress.Services that offer low cost communications in rural areas.ISPs and ICT providers but are currently constrained by high costs and weak regulatory system.Services that help AIS actors to ‘find’ each other, and find out about each other, puts them in touch, and enables them toidentify themselves as part of an innovation system.'Offline' fora such as ACF, OPPAZ, Agriculture Business Forum and eBrain; community radio, telecentre services and otherinteractive services; the existing science, technology and research networks all provide this role to some extent. Howeverthere is little ‘horizontal’ information flows between these networks.Services that facilitate and support low cost peer to peer communications for information and knowledge exchange betweeninnovation system actors.The ZNFU SMS price/buyer information services is one good partial solution. Discussions with Celtel and others suggestthat there is interest and potential to develop further.Services that enable low cost transactional exchanges of agricultural information and services including cashless paymentmechanisms.Again ZNFU is one mechanism (to the extent that the service is paid for via the price of the SMS) but there is no currentservice operating for financial transfers via mobile phones in payment for services. AfriConnect (and probably others) areworking on an m-banking scheme.Services that actively broker information and knowledge flows within the market (that might otherwise not take place,including promoting linkages with other regional/international knowledge services).This independent brokerage role is essentially missing. The District Agribusiness Centres (ZACSMBA) and perhaps the ZNFUinformation centres (not clear)) provide elements of this function if effective as a 'clearing house' for problems faced byfarmers and potential solutions. Forums such as OPPAZ and ABF are also partial solutions within their own networks.Services that selectively subsidise participation in IKSM transactions through provision or administration of electronic vouchersor other suitable mechanismNo service available via ICT service but an offline equivalent is starting up via the voucher scheme for business developmentservices to be administered by ZACSMBAServices to generate suitably packaged content for farmersThe classic 'knowledge on the shelf' problem is pervasive. The bottleneck in Zambia is probably not capacity to generatesuch material, but the lack of coordinating market mechanisms to link people that can generate such content with clearlyarticulated demands, distribution networks and adequate financial/professional rewards.91

Note : within Zambia, unlike some other RIU focus countries, the potential exist for a distributed approachto the provision of information market services, rather than necessarily via a single provider or service. Thekey issue is to address incentives for the private sector to offer services, rather than, necessarily, to 'pick awinner'. Any public funding or subsidy element should be directed at (i) coordination activities, (ii) demandside support and capacity development, and potentially (iii) supporting development of generic underlyingtechnologies, such as mobile software interfaces that will be easily utilised by (farmers/)service providers inlocal language. The means to direct any demand side subsidy must be thought through carefully as the longtradition of subsidised services in Zambia has been a contributing factor in the slow progress towards amarket economy benefitting the smallholder sector.Note : such a platform MUST be practically oriented and private sector friendly otherwise it will beineffective. The facilitation skills to work with such a platform should include technical/business experiencewithin the ICT sector.It will be important for any IKSM initiative/platform that it is linked into parallel activities that help todevelop specific capacity and effective demand within rural communities to ‘pull’ on ICT based informationnetworks. Note : Existing DFID-financed work from Bolivia may be highly relevant here.The means to implement a suitable, targeted voucher-based demand subsidy for information or informationbrokerage services should be explored. The existing ZACSMBA voucher mechanism may provide an entrypoint to look at innovations in this area, including potentially use of mobile phone airtime transfers.Involvement of NAIS may potentially help to reorient and capacitate NAIS towards a more service/demandoriented approach.Strategically, the main focus should be to work at the intermediary level with service providers and mesoorganisations rather than directly with farmers (except lead/commercial farmers). Graduates fromprogrammes such as ASP, or PROFIT, or agents within the Cotton value chain, are fledgling ruralenterprises that need support.The approach should be to work in an action research mode to pilot use of service within existing activities(or platforms RIU supports) with emphasis on horizontal networking between these rather thancentralisation : e.g. demonstrate cross exchange of knowledge and development of services betweenintermediaries already working with or linked to KATC and/or Chinyunyu plus the Macha Community,ZCSMBA District Agribusiness Centres, relevant research agencies etc.92

SOURCESPers communications : meetings (see Annex)Haantuba, H., Hichaambwa, M., Nawiko, M. 2007. “Zambia : Trends in growth of modern retail andwholesale chains and related agribusiness. Information Sheet. April 2007.http://www.regoverningmarkets.orgHoorik, P and Mweeta, F. (Date?) “Use of internet in rural areas of Zambia. LinkNet Multi-Purpose CooperativeSociety. http://www.icdev.info/contributions/328.pdfIICD 2008. “Rural Access: Options and Challenges for Connectivity and Energy in Zambia”. Findings of astudy carried out for the International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD) by Dean L.Mulozi, Zambia Association for Advancement of Information and Communication Technology (ZAA-ICT),Zambia. Jointly published by eBrain Forum of Zambia/IICD. 1st edition: January 2008 – KEY SOURCEMulozi, D (undated) “The important role of telecentres and/or community ICTs in Zambian ruraldevelopment”. Zambian Association for the Advancement of ICTs (ZAA-ICT).Mweemba, G. Pais, A.V. Stam, G van. 2007. “Bringing Internet connectivity to rural Zambia using acollaborative approach”. Linknet. http://link.net.zm/files/Macha_Paper_for_ICTD2007.pdfZambia Ministry of Communications and Transport 2006. National Information and CommunicationsTecnology Policy. Ministry of Communications and Transport. Lusaka April, 2006.Miscellaneous Links and Articles on the NetSciDev 2007. “Zambian ICT policy 'fails to address key issues”. April 2007.http://www.scidev.net/en/news/zambian-ict-policy-fails-to-address-key-issues.htmlZambian Economist (blog) 2007 “Zamtel's monopoly....why I oppose it”. Posted Sunday, 22 July 2007.http://zambian-economist.blogspot.com/search?q=zamtel+monopolyIDG News Service 2008 “First Zambian mobile-phone plant to open in August”.07/07/2008.http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/070708-first-zambian-mobile-phone-plant-to.html?hpg1=bneBrain - http://www.ebrain.org.zm/AfriConnect - http://www.africonnect.co.zm/Celtel Zambia appeals to lawmakers for cheap IGW :http://www.telecompaper.com/news/article.aspx?cid=614902Zambia raises US$4 million for rural ICT fund : IDG News Service Daily Stories - http://www.idgns.comZambia invites private sector for ICTs. Jun. 06, 2008. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/060608-zambia-invites-private- sector-for.htmlWorld Bank Economist gives Zambia's IGW fee thumbs-down. Monday, April 14, 2008.http://www.postzambia.com/post-read_article.php?articleId=4029693

Annex E: Specialist Sub-Report on Policy Context andInformation and Knowledge FlowsDRAFT REPORTD.J.BandaJune 20081.0 Zambia Context1.1 Policy EnvironmentThe Government of the Republic of Zambia has since 1991 made significant strides in restructuringits economy that for a long time was characterized by copper monoculture. Over the years, and asa result of Zambia’s preference for an open market system, momentous changes in terms ofpriority setting and resources allocation has been brought about. The general policy of theGovernment since 1991 has been to provide an enabling policy environment for the provision ofservices and goods. The development of sectoral strategies by the various public institutions hastherefore resulted in the existence and adoption of legal policy frameworks. A number ofstrategies, policies and key reforms that focus on poverty reduction in the country have beenformulated. This section provides a summary of the relevant legal instruments used in addressingissues of poverty reduction namely; Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs), National Agricultural Policy (NAP), Fifth National DevelopmentPlan (FNDP), Commerce and Trade Policy, Infrastructure- Transport policy; Science andTechnology Policy.a) Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP-2000)The Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) introduced in the year 2000 was used by theGovernment in its attempt to move the economy towards a higher growth rate of between 6-8%per annum and in assisting the government reduce poverty by intensifying its effort to removeobstacles to private sector development. Such growth scenario entailed undertaking capitalintensiveand investment driven growth in key economic sectors with a special focus onagriculture and rural development. The main elements of the strategy were to improve ruralinfrastructure; create rural employment opportunities through the promotion of large –scaleenterprises; strengthen the linkage of smallholder farmers to commercial producers andagribusinesses; stimulate smallholder rural enterprises; help poor people improve food productiontechniques and strengthen social services in education, health and sanitation. There were alsoattempts to integrate policies related to HIV/AIDS, gender and protection of the environment intoall rural poverty reduction initiatives and across the main sectors of the economy.(http://ruralpovertyportal.org/English/regions/Africa/zmb/approaches.htm).b) Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) ushered in an era which opened up the wholeprocess of having rich and poor countries declare their solidarity and determination to ridding theWorld of poverty by 2015. Zambia is a member to the Millennium Declaration which has paved away to ensuring that world leaders worked together to promote human dignity and equality toachieve peace, democracy and environmental sustainability (HDR, UNDP, 2003). The Government94

as a condition to the MDGs remains committed to tackling issues of extreme poverty and hunger;achievement of universal primary education; reduction of child mortality; improving maternalhealth, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainabilityand developing a global partnership for development(http://www.milleniumcompaign.org/site/pp.asp). To a larger extent, the indigenization of theMDGs presents a human development challenge not only to the government but also to theZambian people and all its cooperating partners. Zambia’s major initiative to realizing the MDGspresently has been through the development of an MDG-based National Development and theundertaking of an intensive publicity campaigns since 2003 by the MDG Task Force comprisingGovernment, civil society, academia, private sector and the UN System. This includes holding theestablished Government and the UN system MDGs Race every year until 2015(http://www.mdgmonitor.org/factsheet_00.cfm?c=ZMB).c) National Agricultural Policy (NAP, 2004-2015)The Government also recognises the need to strengthening and expanding emerging opportunitiesin the country and indeed the important role agricultural sector plays in an economy. According tothe current National Agricultural Policy (NAP,2004-2015), the overall policy objective is tofacilitate and support the development of a sustainable and competitive agricultural sector thatsecures food security at national and household levels and maximizes the sector’s contribution toGross Domestic Product (GDP). In principal, agricultural sector is expected to contribute to theeconomy in terms of increased production, sector liberalization, and commercialization, promotionof public and private sectors partnerships and provision of effective services that will ensuresustainable agricultural growth.Within the policy of the liberalization of the agricultural sector, the Government is mandated toensure private sector participation in inputs distribution, output marketing, agro–processing andto encourage agri-business strengthen linkages with smallholder farmers. Under theseinstitutional reforms, the role of the public sector is being confined to policy formulation,enforcement of legislation, provision of market information, regulation and inspection,maintenance of the national strategic food reserves, financing and control of pest and diseases ofnational importance control, and providing rural and agricultural infrastructure needed forefficient sector growth etc. In partnership with private sector, the provision of agricultural servicesi.e. research and extension, (NAP, 2006).d) Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP2006-2010)The President of the Republic of Zambia President Levy Mwanawasa S.C. in 2007 officiallylaunched the Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP2006-2010) and the Vision 2030. As a legalinstrument, the FNPD focuses on issues of good governance, improving health, education and theinfrastructure, and encouraging foreign investment. The FNDP embraces the PRSP which untilvery recently used to be the main instrument for poverty reduction in the country, the TransitionalNational Development Plan (TNDP, 2002) and domesticates the millennium Development Goalsand all other international development initiatives. The theme of the FNDP is “Broad BasedWealth and Job Creation through Citizenry Participation and Technological Advancement”. Themajor focus will be on 1) pro-poor growth-oriented sectors that create employment and incomeopportunities for the poor, including in particular rural development, agriculture andmanufacturing, and 2) economic infrastructure and human resources development. The FNDP95

draws attention to those sectors that maximise growth stimulation as well as those, such asagriculture, education and health, that best address the plight of the poor.The primary objective of Vision 2030 is to make Zambia a prosperous middle income nation thatwould provide opportunities for the improvement of its people’s lives. It is also stipulated thatboth the FNDP and the Vision should lead to the consolidation of district development plans asarticulated by the people of Zambia through the District Development Coordinating Committees(DDCCs), Provincial Development Coordinating Committees (PDCC) and Sector Advisory Groups(SAG) and other civic organisations.Apart from the FNDP being a broad based approach that seeks the means to improve thestandards of living of people and to provide interactive ways of fostering development, The FNDPis currently well received and perceived to have been very consultative having involvedstakeholders from diverse occupations and all areas of the country (i.e. at grassroots, district,province and national levels). Its major focus that of identifying of growth areas in the districts,identifying priority development areas and obtaining key recommendations that would ensureeconomic growth and wealth creation is also a positive development.e) Commerce and Trade Policy.The commerce and trade policy is committed to ensuring that Zambia benefits from various tradelinks. The country is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) at multilateral level and amember of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and the SouthernAfrican Development Community (SADC) at the regional level. The country also benefits from thevarious preferential trade arrangements providing access to foreign markets such as EUEverything-But-Arms initiative (EBA) and the USA and ‘Canadian Initiative’ African Growth andOpportunity Act (AGOA) including its participation in the European Union- African CaribbeanPacific Cotonou Trade Protocol and current negotiations to Economic Partnership Agreements- anoutfit of the Eastern and Southern Africa. It is the Government desire through the Private SectorDevelopment Programme(PSDP) to continue with the identification of appropriate tradeexpansion measures while, the promotion of domestic trade, investment and export issues shallcontinue to be worked on using the Multi-Facility Economic export Zones (MFEZ) (FNDP, 2006-2010).f) Infrastructure- The Transport policyThe Government in 1995 adopted the Construction Industry Policy and constituted through theAct of 2003 the National Council for Construction (NCC) which is now the legal body for theregistration and regulation of all contractors and consultants in the sub-sector and enforcesconstruction standardsThe Transport policy of 2002 in particular, instituted the Road Development Agency (RDA) as unitunder the Ministry of Works and Supply. RDA manages all roads in Zambia. It is expected thatthe policy, will during the FNDP period help the sector address the challenges of poor state ofinfrastructure, low private sector participation, slow pace of sector restructuring and poor fundingfor infrastructure, vandalism and the like. In this vein , the Ministry of Works and Supply willcontinue to review and develop appropriate policy and legal frameworks that promote public–private partnerships in the construction and maintenance of public infrastructure while, acomprehensive Information Management System is to be established and maintained for tracking96

and storing of the operations of the sector at the same time acting as an information provision forclients and stakeholders.In conformity with the Decentralisation (i.e. seeks to devolve power to the lower levels) Policy of2002, the implementation of FNDP is expected to take on board the district and province concernsas expressed in regional plans to catalyze the whole process of mobility and quality of life ofcommunities by providing access to education and health amenities (FNDP, 2006-2010)..g) Science and Technology PolicyThe1996 formulated National Science and technology policy currently under review generallyallows the promotion and exploitation of science and technology as an instrument for developingenvironmentally, friendly and indigenous technology aimed at improving the quality of life inZambia while, the objective of research and development is to embed science and technology aspart of the culture of the key economic sector and to promote competitiveness in the production ofa wide range of quality goods and services. There are a number of research centres establishednamely Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI), National Institute for Scientific andIndustrial Research ( NISIR)-formerly National Council for Scientific Research (NCSR), NationalMalaria Control Centre (NMCR), Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trust (GART), Universities,and the Tropical Diseases Research Centre (TDRC) to undertake science and related research.Following the rationalisation programme of the science and technology, two units have beencreated. The National Science and Technology Council with a view to coordinate, monitor andimplement science and technology policies as well as to advise the Government on the same and;the National Technology Business Centre (NTBC) whose function is to promote research anddevelopment products to the end users - i.e. industry and the commercial sector (FNDP, 2006-2010).h) InformationInformation service sector has as its goal the mandate to increase media and access and out reachthroughout the country in order to promote free information on development programmes as wellas to have a well informed citizenry fully utilizing Information and Communication Technologyfor national development. During the PRSP/TNDP, a number of programmes were implementedmost significant of these being the improvement of radio reception in the country. TheGovernment procured 56 FM radio transmitters that have since been installed in a number ofdistricts and therefore the existence of Community radios.The sector currently operates under a number of statutes such as the Independent BroadcastingAuthority (IBA) Act of No. 17of 2002; Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC)Amendment Act No. 20 of 2002 Cap. 154. It is however expected that more harmonisation andreview and work still will continue to be operationalised through the FNDP.(FNDP, 2006-2010).i) Social protectionWith reference to policies and practices that protect the livelihoods and welfare of people sufferingfrom critical levels of poverty and deprivation and/or vulnerable to risks and shocks, the socialprotection seeks through the Ministry of Community Development and Social Services (MCDSS)during the FNDP place emphasis on assisting the most vulnerable with basic services that enhancetheir standard of living.97

It is expected that relevant Ministries will in collaboration with the affected communities handlesome of the interventions aimed at addressing the challenges of vulnerability in general and inparticular the social protection. The Government has put in place the Disaster Managementstructure with its Secretariat as a hub for coordination mechanism and promotes the vision of“safety net” (FNDP, 2006-2010).1.2 Socio-economic contextZambia is a country well endowed with an abundance of natural resources and a rich biodiversity.The country has a conducive climate, labour and a landmass of 752,000 square km (58% of which issuitable for arable use though only 14% is currently under cultivation), and water resources.Zambia is considered one of the country’s among the wettest in Southern Africa Approximately13% of Zambia’s total land area is wetland. Agriculture in Zambia therefore is of high potential forit offers enormous unrealized potential that needs to be fully exploited that can have positiveimpact on national food security, incomes for the majority of the population, the balance ofpayments account and economic growth at the same time generate export earnings.The spurred growth in the mining, construction and transport sectors including economic reformmeasures taken have over the years led to the country attain a tolerable level of stability in majormacro economic indicators. The country’s economy is for instance, reported to be enjoying asustained growth of around 5.5% per annum in 2005 and 6.2% per annum in 2006 (UNDP Report,2006 and World Bank (2006). The economic growth scenario is being planned to average 6.1% perannum during the period of 2006-2011.The institutionalised reforms that aimed at liberalising the agricultural markets especially, haverecorded some positive results. The Zambia-European Community Country Strategy Paper andNational Indicative Programme for the period 2008-2013 report, states that substantial increaseshave been achieved in primary agricultural commodities, floricultural products, horticulturalproducts and processed foods while, the net enrolment rates for primary education have improvedfrom 71% in 2000 to 85% in 2004. Good progress is also being made in the fight against HIV/AIDS,malaria and other diseases with services becoming widely available for the Mother to ChildTransmission (PMTCT) of HIV. Currently, over 90% of the districts are having some PMCT servicesites (DFID, 2008).According to the National Agricultural Policy (2004-2015), agriculture currently contributes 18-20% to GDP, provides livelihood to 50% of the country’s population. Agriculture also employs67% of the working population and 65% rural of the women. In this way, agriculture has verystrong links to the economy and is therefore one of the most powerful vehicle to generating overalleconomic growth and to the reduction of overall poverty.However, the growth in GDP has not bee accompanied by a significant growth neither in theliving standards of the Zambia people nor in the growth in employment.Zambia a country with a population of 11.7 million (World Bank, 2006) is one of the poorest andranks low on UNDP 2006 Human Development Index, at 165 out of 177 countries. Infant mortalityrates are among the worst in Sub Sahara Africa. The poverty levels though have improved in therecent years, 73% in 1998 to 68% in 2008, it is estimated that 80% of the population live inconditions of acute poverty. Zambia still is one of the poorest country with over two-thirds (i.e.around 7 million) of its population living below the national poverty line of less than a $1per day.98

The current MDG progress on the poverty, hunger, child and maternal mortality andenvironmental sustainability targets is also poor and a big effort is required if Zambia is to achievethese targets by 2015 (DFID, 2006). The implication being that the reforms have to a great extentfailed to translate into higher economic growth and reduction in poverty especially amongmajority rural people.1.3 Information and Knowledge flowsc) The environmentThe Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives has a National Agriculture Information Service(NAIS) as its outreach army in ensuring that the flow of agricultural information takes placebetween information producers and information consumers. NAIS is mandated to provide aninformation link between the farming community and agricultural technocrats and is beingencouraged to disseminate agricultural information of all kinds through the radio, print andelectric media to promote improved farming knowledge among rural households. The wellestablished agricultural extension department of, MACO throughout the country including thefarmer to farmer and out - grower schemes interfaces being encouraged at the village level are allinvolved in the dissemination of information to end users.Information sharing more especially at national levels takes place through established networks,fora e.g. where various stakeholders from different sectors such as water and sanitation, education,advocacy, child protection, agriculture and energy sectors meet. Facilitation of sector meetingsusually rotates between members. Networking is currently a popular media for informationsharing among NGOs such as World Vision and Profit as well as holding of monthly or quarterlymeetings. Information flow is also taking place through community radios and through thecontact farmer approach anchored in the current extension approach. ASP is on record as one ofthose very successful programmes using the contact farmer approach on the ground in promoting“farming as a business” among small scale farmers in rural communities.In addition, there are donor funded programs that encourage innovative field days anddemonstrations including the usage of (most of which though is dilapidated) Farmer TrainingInstitutes as outreach points for farmer programs. Technical staff linkages between NGOs andMACO staff at the field level during the promotion of agro-products to farmers during field daysand establishment of associations (e.g. Veterinary Associations) have started becoming very goodavenues for sector interactions and sharing of information while, training resource manuals,booklets and leaflets continue to be other sources of information reaching to end-users. Croppackinput supply provides manuals and fliers to their farmers through the Community Agents.d) The issuesIndications from the field discussions are that scientific research findings rarely gets to end usersfor the reason that most researchers prefer carrying out more of the adaptive research on their ownwithout asking consumers what their research needs are. Even where good research outputs aregenerated, the researchers are not in the habit of publishing any of their research findings. As such,there is no information coming through pamphlets, guides or any such to be given to farmers forknowledge and guidance on correct practices. For example, it is recommended in some of the pastmanual guides that fertilizer must always be applied at ploughing (where maize crop is99

concerned) but farmers up to now do so after plant has germinated - sometimes fertilizing theircrops when it is at knee high level.The current policy does not seem to support research in terms of budget allocation as usually verysmall budgetary amounts are allocated towards research activities and this poses a seriousconstraint to research and development activities. The investment that goes into research in termsof cost and implementation of innovation is a disincentive to many end users and cannot by far bemet by smallholder farmers. Coupled with this, is the poor funding of research institutions, poorrewarding system of researches, poor marketing strategies for research and the unfair placementof research/innovation. Despite there being lots of good research outputs, due to recentinstitutional reforms very weak linkages between research and extension now exist. It was alsoobserved that the isolated way in which researchers are developing technologies without theinvolvement of extension workers at farm trials stage has further contributed to the existing weaklinkages, the communication chain between generators of research and end users becoming toolong thus, hindering the flow of information from reaching farmers. The research – extension –farmer linkage was identified to be a major constraint to information dissemination. To someextent, this has led to the highly compromised ability of the farmer to making a choice with regardto best agricultural practices.Though most researchers prefer carrying out more of the adaptive research, the IntellectualProperty Rights (IPS) that is silent on benefit sharing procedure for instance for the role played byplant breeders, continues to be a disincentive to research undertakings. Researchers feel there isno mandate for them to brag about their successes in coming up with research outputs. Besides,there is neither up to date specific policy on innovation nor a legally constituted forum for researchinstitutions to come together and share research /technology information as was the case in thepast when a national committee under the former National Scientific Research Council (NRSC)existed. During then, regular meetings for sharing information used to be held.e) Public/private partnerships in info marketsThe Government policies in place have all been passed through an Act of Parliament and thereforeprovide an enabling environment in which public/private partnerships have both the political andgovernment support to exist. Evidence in the districts reveals that some private partnershipsbetween the public and private sector with sometimes some element of suspicion have beensuccessfully forged. For instance, Croppack agents get trained by extension officer from theMinistry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MACO) while joint field days among farmers withregard to the promotion of agro-products being promoted by the private sector take place incollaboration with the public sector workers.However, there is evidence of such partnerships duplicating each others effort or work in thecatchment areas. Likewise NGOs who tend to work directly with farmers have sometimescollided in these catchments with other service providers offering similar services. Many NGOsoperating in the SIMILAR catchment areas, do not know what each one of them does andgenerally, the coordination of efforts is usually weak among them. Such situations are actuallycompounded by the fact that there is no policy that provides a guiding framework to linkingvarious stakeholders. As a result, emerging practical issues at ground level remain un addressed.For instance, even though the current advocacies on use of lime in farmers’ fields by ASP seem tobe contrary to MACO’s research recommendations, there is no forum to bring this and iron it out.Despite there being an elaborate policy that stipulates the importance of monitoring and100

evaluation of the implementation of the Agricultural programmes and activities to determine therate of implementation impact, the implementation of the National Agriculture Policy is weak.When consultative meetings are called to discuss implementation, such meetings called have beenpoorly attended by especially high profiled people such as the Directors.Through the public restructuring processes, MACO has continued to lose experienced staff most ofwho have left for greener pastures. This move has affected both the block and camp levels in termsof staffing, coverage areas and farmer targets. To a large extent staff morale has been lowered,coverage distances have increased and very little information trickle to farmers is taking place.Transport is also still a great challenge in the way dissemination of information to farmers byextension agents is concerned. Farmers are in fact reported to be complaining that the extensionand the whole liberalization process are not responsive to their needs e.g. the presence of briefcasemaize traders has not provided the much needed Maize market links while plenty wrong things(e.g. knowledge gap in plant spacing) continue to be done without extension advices.While it can be said that there generally is no policy constraint on forging of links with farmingcommunities, majority farmers continue to be constrained in terms of resource such as inputs,labour, financial, information and knowledge. Farmers still display some rather high dependencysyndrome where they still want to be given agro-products on credit or things free of any charge.They also seem not to grasp the concept of pulling of resources together to meet for instancetransport costs for their goods and services. Instead, they expect free service deliveries to be madeor to be engaged in out-grower scheme arrangements. Such farmers’ environment is making itslightly difficult to convincing service providers to believe that smallholder farmers are a viablegroup and presents a readily available good market for agri-business. The policy contradictionsinherent especially in the Fertilizer Support Programme (FSP) whereby it is now supposed to beweaning off cooperatives that seem to have started acquiring agricultural inputs on their own andthe continued display of weak mechanisms for phasing out such co-operators has not helped intrying to encourage farmers to stand on their own.Researchers feel that the major constraint at the farmers’ level pertaining to use of research andthus forging of partnerships is the farmers’ attitude towards technology. Farmers’ social culturalperception to technology is that of suspicion and both their tradition and lack of knowledgehinders them from adopting innovations. Coupled with this is the element of technologicalbenefits or in economic terms “opportunity costs”. Farmers prefer adopting technologies withshort term benefits to long term yielding benefits such as growing of trees. Farmers also tend to beresistant to new technology the first time e.g. Conservation Farming upon its introduction wasassociated with cultural interference with some farmers being scared of the new ways of farmingas they were not prepared to take up risks.f) Specific CaseProfit facilitate service providers that are willing to engage in models that enable smallholdersaccess to agro-inputs targeting mainly farmers above just ‘surviving’ levels and are relativelysecure and are aspiring to create wealth or reap profits. Profit is currently working with 3 inputsuppliers (i.e. Croppack Ago Services, Mineland Agricultural Development Services and AgiVetAfrica) and in their collaboration, a Community Agent concept has been introduced in Mumbwa.Service providers work directly with community based suppliers i.e. farmers who have beencatalyzed into being agents chosen based on the following selection criteria:-101

Steps in Selection process –5) Gives information to input suppliers6) A meeting is held to introduce willing agents to the community- meant to seekacceptance of agents by community people7) Once selected (based on agents credibility, trustworthiness business mindedness i.e.traders), agent undergoes training to be able to translate information to farmers8) Agents encouraged to sale 3-4 products of the approved 7 products and presentsproduct knowledge to farmers in a community meetingUpon selection, farmers place orders with agent on pre-paid arrangements and the main focus ofthe model is that farmers must receive product knowledge before or on delivery of orderedproducts. Agents work on commission basis ranging from 10% mainly for crops to 20% for mainlylivestock products.Farmers incentives are through:-• Inputs are delivered to farmers by agent thereby cutting on farmers transport, timeand effort to securing the same• Product knowledge is provided to farmers unlike when they purchase products offshelf in shops-normally will purchase without obtaining proper information• Agents sell products throughout the seasons unlike where retailers only sellproducts during peak season• Farmers allowed to make payments on agro inputs in two instalments first asadvance payment during the first 6months and the other after another 6 months atan agreed upon period.Input suppliers have technical staff on the teams who provide the technical information to agents.Some agents are also into sprayer services so far 17 such agents have received training and arecertified sprayers. This group is expected to increase in June during the planned training sessionsbeing organized by Profit. Agents working on livestock products are expected to graduate intoCommunity Livestock Workers (minimum qualification required grade 9). Presently, there are 90community based agents in Mumbwa. These offer service in delineated catchment areas.Sometimes due to distances, agents have sub contracted other sub-agents to assist in thepromotion activities.The common modes of Information Flow include technical staff interacting with MACO staff atground level during the promotion of products to farmers especially during field days,Coordinators meetings being held on monthly basis, belonging to Veterinary Associationestablished where doctors meet and share ideas, through Agro associations, field days for Agroinputsand provision of training resource manuals and leaflets including holding Communitypromotion events, event that affords input suppliers get feedback on promoted products,collaboration through other fora such as through the established laboratory located in the showground in Lusaka and duringstrategic planning meetings that on individual basis, are held every 6 months with Profit.Individual service providers also conduct on regular meetings, produce monthly work plans andmay seek the services of a consultantThrough the Fertilizer Support Program (FSP) most input suppliers have been linked up withMACO and this has motivated input suppliers. Agri-Veterinary staff goes through governmentveterinary on cattle population and submits monthly report of activity to be undertaken while102

government veterinary explains which diseases are handled by government such as foot andmouth. MACO also trains Agric Veterinary’s Community Livestock Agents,The main feedback loop in all this is through the community promotion events, consumer surveyscarried on maize variety called bullet-being promoted by Croppack and carrying out contactreviews after 12 months.d) Information marketsA number of respondents indicated not knowing of any known established Information marketsbut are aware of the direct links being forged between agro dealers and farmers. The FarmersNational Farmers Union (ZNFU) was identified as one such an institution on the ground trying toestablish some kind of a market information system. Through their facilities one could access andpurchase agricultural products via a mobile phone service.103

Annex F: Specialist Sub-Report on Cross-Cutting ThemesSPECIALIST SUB-REPORT ON CROSS CUTTING ISSUES:ENVIRONMENT, LIVELIHOODS, POVERTY, HIV/AIDS, GENDERJULY 2008SUBMITTED TODR DAVID COWNIE, PhDTEAM LEADER – LIVELIHOODS/POVERTY SPECIALISTSRESEARCH INTO USE PROGRAMMEBYMONICA MUNACHONGA, MPhilGENDER SPECIALIST & MANAGING CONSULTANTJULE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL (JUDAI)P O BOX 51097 LUSAKA ZAMBIACELL: 260 977 773309; e-mail: judai@coppernet.zm104

1.0 INTRODUCTIONAccording to the Terms of Reference, the purpose of the assignment under Research Into Use(RIU) Programme is to assess the development context in Zambia and opportunities that exist for RIUengagement and, based on the assessment, to propose a strategy that will contribute, among other things, topromotion of environmentally sound management practices and production of improved livelihoods for arange of stakeholders including those of the vulnerable poor. This is based on recognition that there is aclose relationship between environmentally sound management and sustainable livelihoodsChidumayo (2002), defines environment as “the totality of the surroundings within which humans liveand exploit resources for their welfare and development....poverty can contribute to environmentaldegradation…and environmental degradation can contribute to poverty”.This Sub-Report focuses on cross cutting issues (gender, environment, livelihoods, poverty) withinthe country context of Zambia. It critically analyses the cross cutting issues in an inter-relatedmanner with gender being an over-riding cross cutting issue that acts as an intervening socialvariable in terms of the other cross cutting issues of concern to RIU. The report is placed in bothbroad and agriculture-specific context around the following aspects that are considered key tounderstanding factors for trends of change in livelihood patterns and experiences. These includethe following:• Demographic characteristics,• Socio-cultural and legal factors,• Macroeconomic factors;• Poverty levels• Human development indicators• Other public services provision• Gender roles in agriculture and related activities• Government policies and measures to address poverty and gender inequalities,• Conclusions: trends of change and impact on cross cutting issues.• Suggestions on what RIU can consider for action2.0 COUNTRY CONTEXT2.1 Demographic characteristicsa) Population size, composition and distributionZambia’s population has grown from 3.1 million in 1969, to 5.7 million in 1980, 7.8 million in 1990,and 9.9 million in 2000. In terms of sex composition, in 2000, women constituted 51 percent of totalpopulation. Another feature of Zambia’s population is that it is youthful. In 2000, for example, 45percent of the total population was below 15 years, indicating a very high dependency ratio, whichnegatively impacts national economic development. The high dependency ratio has beenworsened by the increasing number of orphans and vulnerable children due to HIV/AIDS andhigh poverty levels. In terms of geographical distribution, 65% of total population lives in ruralareas. The rural population has increased from 60 percent in 1980 to 65 percent in 2000 implyingan urban-rural migration trend (CSO, 2000 Census).105

).Headship of households and gender implicationsHeadship of a household is a very important role as it entails responsibilities such as findinghousing/shelter for family members and food or cash provisioning to support the family. In urbanareas, ownership of a house can also provide a means of income-generation, to run a business fromor rent. The head also has the role of being the link between the domestic or care economy, on theone hand, and, on the other hand, the market economy. In the case of Zambia, three categories offemale-headed households (FHHs) have been identified – i.e. those headed by divorced andwidowed women and single mothers (de jure FHHs), those headed by women whose husbandshave temporarily migrated for wage employment (de facto FHHs), and those headed by women inpolygynous marriages (autonomous polygynous FHHs) (JUDAI 2002). This suggests the need fordifferent strategies to address women in different situations. Available statistics indicate that theproportion of female-headed households has been fluctuating – it was17% in 1985; 20% in 1991;18% in 1993; 24% in 1996; and 19% in 2000, and that the incidence of female-headed households(FHHs) is higher in rural than urban areas (CSO, 2003). Table 1 presents details on heads ofhouseholds by sex, residence and marital status.Table 1: Household headship by sex, marital status, and residence, Zambia 2000Residence/maritalstatusNo. ofMaleFemaleResidence:ZambiaRuralUrbanMarital status:MarriedSeparatedDivorcedWidowedNever marriedLiving together -(cohabiting)Householdsheads1,884,7411,241,534643,2071,412,76457,484102,489200,339107,8393,826Total % ofHouseholdheads100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.081.180.582.495.735.228.219.281.146.418.919.517.64.364.871.880.818.953.6Source: Compiled from CSO (2003), 2000 Census of Population, Table 3.8, page 36c).Fertility ratesMany factors combine to negatively affect women’s fertility and reproductive health status inZambia, including predominant pro-natal values, the tendency to perceive children as havingmultiple functions (source of labour and social security, etc). Consequently, the ZDHS 2001-2002Report revealed that Total Fertility Rate was higher in rural areas (6.9 births) than in urban areas(4.3 births). For women with little or no formal education, childlessness is associated with stigmaand may a ground for divorce or a man taking additional wives. The incidence of adolescentchildbearing was also reported to be higher in rural areas than in urban areas, which is largelyexplained in terms of predominance of traditional values and low levels of education. Teenagepregnancies have negative consequences, not only in terms of pregnancy and delivery106

complications as well as high morbidity and mortality for teenage mother and their children, butalso in terms of teenage mothers’ inability to pursue educational and employment opportunities.This makes it difficult for women to move out of the cycle of poverty.d).Rural-Urban migrationInternal migration (within the country) usually arises primarily for economic reasons, thoughother factors may play a part. Available data on population movements (2000 Census Report;Zambia Demographic Health Survey 2002-2003 Report) indicate that 35% of total population livein urban areas, compared to the majority (65%) who still lives in rural areas and are engaged insmall-scale farming as the main economic activity for their livelihoods.Rural-urban migration has a gender differentiated impact. Men have a long history of migrationto urban centres for wage employment under the colonial migrant labour policy. By contrast,women have migrated to towns for economic and, mainly, social reasons – e.g. to join husbandsalready working in towns, to join relatives, or to escape from abusive marriage relationships(Schlyter 1988). Since Independence in 1964, female migration has also been facilitated by theintroduction of gender-responsive policy and legislation in favour of free movement of people,and increase in educational attainments by females. However, although there are no longer legalrestrictions regarding migration from villages to towns or across borders for income earningactivities, women’s mobility and movement continue to be constrained by the cultural division oflabour between females and males. Consequently, there are gender differentials against females interms of participation in livelihood activities that involve travelling away from home.3.0 SOCIO-CULTURAL AND LEGAL FACTORSThe importance of the existence of relevant legal and institutional frameworks for promoting socialand gender equality in development cannot be over-emphasized. This section looks at legal andsocio-cultural factors considered relevant to achievement of poverty reduction.a) The ConstitutionThe constitution of any country is of critical importance, both as a reflection of national values(including gender values and ideology), norms, as well as the fact that all other laws derive theirlegitimacy from it. From a gender perspective, the Zambian Constitution contains contradictionsin that, while Article 11 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, among other grounds, Article23(4) negates this guarantee by allowing application of customary law in matters of personal law(marriage, divorce, inheritance, devolution of property). This means that the Constitution lays thefoundation for discrimination against women in terms of access to and control over productiveresources. Customary law (which is unwritten and varies according to the 73 ethnic groups)governs areas of economic and social life and operates to the detriment of women who are treatedas minors irrespective of their age or marital status. The dual legal system undermines women’sfinancial and property rights. Therefore, in matters of personal law, the Zambian Constitution hasdefined a power relationship between men and women that disadvantages women in the privatesphere, which is translated into gender-based inequalities in the public sphere (education, skillstraining, employment, business enterprise development, access to and ownership of agriculturalland, participation in decision making, access to agricultural information and knowledge).107

) Gender and lawZambia has a dual legal system comprising civil and customary law, inherited from the Britishcolonial government. Examples of options individuals make between either civil or customary lawsystems exist in specific areas e.g. marriage, inheritance, property rights, and access to andownership of land. However, although the existing legal framework is based on the assumptionthat men and women have a choice of law, in actual practice, customary laws still influence men’sand women’s behaviour.In the context of this report, land is one of the key natural resources for earning a livelihood. Landis important for its central function in production relations, and also has special significance inother aspects of life (socio-cultural, political). For instance, land is not only valued where it isscarce (e.g. urban/industrial areas), but also where it is in plentiful supply (e.g. rural areas). Intraditional subsistence economies, the abundance of land and its multiple functions (in support ofhuman and other life) made land a priceless commodity. The dual land tenure system providesfor traditional land (no title) and statutory land (titled). In terms of gender and access to/controlover land, although the Land Act of 1995 does not discriminate on the basis of sex and gender, inpractice, women are disadvantaged by many factors (including predominant patriarchal attitudesagainst married women and young women of marriageable age, high costs involved in acquisitionof title to land, and conditions for developing such land) (Himonga and Munachonga, 1991).Other aspects of life where the dual systems has a gender differentiated impact include:a).b).The Intestate Succession Act Cap 59 of 1989, which, although it provides for women’s shareof a deceased spouse’s estate, still disadvantages women more than men as confirmed bythe distribution pattern: 50% to children; 20% to the widow (or all the widows in case of apolygamous marriage; 20% to parents; and 10% to dependants (World Bank Report,2004:3). The incidence of polygamy tends to increase with men’s progression intocommercial farming due to increased demand for family labour.The Zambian Government recognizes the legality of marriages under both the customarylaw and statute, both of which operate to the detriment of women in terms of ambivalencein their legal status and access to and control over resources. The dual marriage systemhas contributed to ambivalence in the legal status and rights of married women.4.0 MACRO-ECONOMIC SITUATION.a) Trends of changeLiterature available indicates that since Independence in 1964, Zambia has moved from being oneof the middle income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), with US $1200 per capita atIndependence in 1964, to being one of the poorest, its human development ranked at 165 out of 174countries in 2004. The downward trend has been due to both internal and external factors – e.g.decline in terms of trade for copper, economic mismanagement, acceleration of the implementationof structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) measures since 1991. The SAP measures introducedentailed, among other things, implementation of a rapid privatization programme, resulting inmany closures of former parastatal companies and loss of jobs, which has contributed to increasedpoverty levels. Consequently, Zambia came to be classified as a Highly Indebted Poor Country108

(HIPC). Even under this status, however, the country still had to make substantial foreign debtrepayments, so that repayments relief through HIPC has not really altered the adverse economicconditions affecting the majority of the people.SAP measures have had a gender-differentiated impact. For example, gender inequalities havebeen reflected in terms of access to formal employment where male participation increased from80% in 1996 to 88% in 2000, compared to female participation which declined from 20% in 1996 toonly 12% in 2000 (CSO, 2000 Census).b) Poverty levelsIn terms of income poverty, the Fifth National Development Plan 2006-2010 indicates that 68% ofthe country’s population fell below national poverty line in spite of the implementation of thePoverty Reduction Strategy Paper. The literature indicates that the sections of the population whowere below the national poverty line included: (i) small-scale farming households (84%) of whom72.1% were below extreme poverty line; and (ii) female-headed households (60.4%) compared tothose headed by males (51.5%). High poverty levels continue to be associated with more remoteprovinces – i.e. Western Province (83%), Luapula (79%), and North Western Province (76%).Extreme poverty was at 64% in Luapula Province. In general, poverty levels tend to be moresevere in rural than urban areas. The country profile of poverty levels is presented in Table 3.Table 3: Incidence of Poverty by Residence, Province and Poverty Status, Zambia, 2002-2003ResidenceExtremelypoorModeratelypoorPoverty StatusTotal poor Non Poor Total TotalpopulationAll Zambia 46 21 67 33 100 10,757,192Rural/Urban• Rural• Urban52322220745226481001007,002,9323,754,260ProvincesCentral 50 19 69 31 100 1,097,632Copperbelt 38 20 58 42 100 1,707,843Eastern 49 22 71 29 100 1,440,604Luapula 47 23 70 30 100 852,351Lusaka 36 21 57 43 100 1,496,428Northern 63 18 81 19 100 1,371,234North Western 51 21 72 28 100 637,112Southern 40 23 63 37 100 1,335,538Western 38 27 65 35 100 818,450Source: Compiled from CSO (2004) Living Conditions Monitoring Survey, 2002-2003, page 115c) Gender-differentiated impact of povertyAvailable literature emphasizes that poverty has a gender differentiated impact. For example,food poverty tends to be more prevalent among female-headed households (61%) compared tomale-headed households (52%). Factors identified in the PRSP (2001) as contributing to higherpoverty levels among females as include:109

• Low levels of education among women – e.g. in 1996, 29% of females had no educationcompared to only 8.5% of males; 15.6% of males had completed Grade 10 or highercompared to only 8.5% of females• The very small and declining share of formal sector employment held by women (12% in2000 compared to 88% by men);• The higher risk women face in contracting HIV and other opportunistic infections due tobiological factors, lack of access to resources, gender roles that leave them morevulnerable, and cultural norms and practices relating to sexuality.Literature also show that household coping strategies tended to vary according to sex of head ofthe household.Table 4: Percentage distribution of Households by Main Type of Coping Strategy Used in timesof need, rural/urban and sex of head, Zambia 2002/2003Coping strategies All Zambia Rural Urban Male heads Female headsNumber of households 2,005,677 1,329,702 675,975 1,541,437 464,240Piecework on farms 37 49 13 36 42Other piecework 37 43 26 38 35Food for work/assets 13 17 5 13 14programsRelief food 26 37 3 24 30Eating wild fruits only 20 27 7 19 25Substituting ordinary meals 64 69 56 63 71Reducing number pf meals 75 78 67 74 77Reducing other h/hold items 73 75 68 72 74Informal borrowing (e.g. 34 29 42 35 30Kaloba)Formal borrowing 7 5 13 8 5Church charity 6 6 5 5 7NGOs charity 7 9 3 7 9Pulling children out of 7 7 8 7 9schoolSale of assets 19 20 16 19 16Petty vending 14 12 17 13 14Askingfrom 69 71 65 68 73friends/relatives/ neighboursBegging from streets 1 1 1 1 1Other 1 1 1 1 1Source: Compiled from CSO/LCMS, 2002/2003, page 125d) Environmental and natural resources management and livelihoodsIn rural Zambia, agriculture is the main source of people’s livelihoods; the majority of ruralhouseholds are involved in crop production in which women predominate. Forestry is treated aspart of agriculture in official statistics, thus emphasizing the complementarities of agriculturalproduction and forestry. In terms of performance, available literature indicates that agriculturalproduction has declined due to liberalization, which has negatively impacted livelihoods of ruralpopulation, particularly female-headed households. Reduced agricultural production in thecontext of rising poverty levels means that for many rural households. as indicated above, copingstrategies among the poor include engaging in hunting for meat and gathering wild from the110

forests for survival. Therefore, loss of forests can undermine further rural livelihoods and foodsecurity for the vulnerable poor, women and children. Private ownership of land, which isassociated with commercial agriculture, contributes to permanent deforestation because landclearing involves uprooting of trees and deep ploughing with machinery. By contrast, traditionalshifting cultivation systems and charcoal production are associated with temporary deforestationand are, therefore, destructive of the forests because stumps, roots, seeds, etc are not completelydestroyed by the activities.It should be pointed out that forests have other important uses to rural people – e.g. as sources ofmedicinal plants (which has increasingly become common due to deterioration in health servicesprovision), as well as fuel wood. The majority of urban households use charcoal (produced fromindigenous woodlands in rural areas, for cooking and heating (Chidumayo, 2002). Other forestproducts that are often traded include carvings, carpentry, basketry, weaving, fishing, etc) withpeople from urban areas in order to generate incomes. Therefore, the importance of theenvironment and natural resources to rural livelihoods cannot be over-emphasized. It is mainlyfor this reason that the Government has identified five priority environmental problems in Zambia– namely, water pollution and inadequate sanitation; soil degradation; air pollution in theCopperbelt towns; wildlife (fish and game) depletion; and deforestation. To address the problemof imbalances between environment and development, the Government adopted a NationalConservation Strategy (1984) and a National Environment action Plan (1994), as well as enactedwildlife and forestry laws. However, despite these policy and legal initiatives, not much has beenachieved in terms of reducing poverty.To conclude, the challenge facing Government is that of reconciling between the interests andhuman rights of the rural poor, on the one hand, and those of the commercial enterprises stressingprofit-making from agricultural production.5.0 GENDER ROLES IN AGRICULTURE IN RURAL ZAMBIAa) IntroductionWomen play an important role in agricultural production, providing over 80% of labour insubsistence production and over 70% in cash crop production. Available official statistics indicatethat the proportion of women involved in agricultural activities as their main economic activityhas remained higher than that of men, and increased from 71.8% in 1990 to 91.5% in 2000,compared to that of men which increased from 70.1% in 1990 to 87.6% in 2000 (CSO, 2000 Census).This section of the paper critically analyzes issues relating to socio-economic roles of men andwomen and female/male access to productive resources in agriculture, as well as the situationrelating to human development indicators (education, health care, decision-making power,HIV/AIDS) and other public services provision .b) Gender roles at rural household levelAvailable literature indicates that both men and women participate in all types of roles/work (i.e.productive, reproductive, and community-linked work within the context of a disproportionatesexual/gender division of labour against women and girls). Women and girls tend to predominatein performance of household chores, in particular care-giving and other activities related to the111

maintenance of the household and its members. In the rural socio-economic system, householdchores include the following:• Grain processing (foe example of maize, sorghum, millet, groundnuts), which is extremelytime-consuming, is predominantly a female activity, even where labour-savingtechnologies such as hammer mills have been introduced;• Transportation of harvested crops to homesteads and storing the grain involves bothsexes. However, shelling for marketing purposes is also predominantly a female activity,while transportation to markets tends to be mainly a male activity arising from the fact thatgrain marketing is generally done through male heads of households;• Collection of water (for different uses: cooking, bathing, laundry, drinking) and firewoodare activities whose transportation is mainly through head-loading, and are predominantlyperformed by women and girls. With increasing deforestation, women and girls have towalk long distances to collect these items. The tendency is for men to get involved whenimproved technology such as ox-carts is applied.• Cooking meals and sharing food among family members, governed by cultural norms andtaboos on food consumption, which tend to operate in favour of males, is done by womenand girls;• Cleaning the house and surroundings (ensuring environmental hygiene) is a femaleresponsibility;• Care-giving, which covers a number of aspects including: childcare (minding, growthmonitoring at under-five clinics), education (moral education, providing survival skills),caring for sick family members (within the home, bedside nursing, preparing patients’ foodand feeding them) is predominantly a female responsibility,Most of the above tasks are time-consuming, thereby contributing to women’s time poverty.c) Agricultural crop productionMaize productionMaize is the staple food crop in Zambia. The proportion of households that were engaged inagricultural production during the period 2002-2003 varied by province – it was highest in EasternProvince (94%), followed by Luapula and Western Provinces (93%), Northern and North WesternProvinces (92%). Lusaka Province had the lowest proportion (21%). A variety of food crops aregrown, but maize predominates and is grown widely in all the nine provinces. However, EasternProvince had the highest proportion of households (97%) that grew maize during 2002-2003,followed by Southern Province (93%), while Luapula recorded the lowest proportion (33%)(CSO/LCMS, 2002-2003).Production of other food cropsOther staple food crops grown in different parts of Zambia are:• Cassava grown in many parts of the country but mostly grown in Luapula, Northern andNorth western Provinces• Sorghum with production highest in Northern and North Western Provinces, followed insecond place by Western Province• Millet mostly grown in Northern, western and Central Provinces with Northern Provincehaving had the highest production112

• Rice, with highest number of households that grew rice reported in Western Province• Groundnuts are widely grown in Zambia• Sweet potatoes grown mostly in Northern Province, central and Copperbelt provinces• Mixed beans, with highest production in Northern Province (50.7%).Labour inputs in crop production by men and womenVarious food and cash crops are grown around the country, with maize being the predominantcrop as both cash and food crop. Research findings on gender roles in agriculture from variousparts of the country including Central, Northern and Southern Provinces emphasize genderdifferentials in terms of participation rates by men in household chores and farming activities.Women tend to work longer hours than men once agricultural and non-agricultural tasks areadded up. Data from Northern Province illustrates variations in labour inputs by men and womenin agricultural production (Table 6).Table 6: Division of Labour by Crop and Activity (Values in Hours per Lima)Activity Maize F/millet Cassava Beans G/nuts TotalM F M F M F M F M FSoil prep. 32 2 102 12 70 10 23 3 63 23 340Ridging 39 20 - - 30 11 14 14 - - 128Planting & 4 5 4 5 9 9 - 16 4 20 76sowingBasal 3 2 - - - - - - - - 5dressingTop 2 1 - - - - - - - - 3dressingWeeding 9 17 4 12 6 20 2 11 6 33 120Harvesting 10 10 - 121 - - 5 9 61 82 298Total 99 57 110 150 115 50 44 53 134 158labour% labour 63 36 42 58 70 30 45 55 46 54Source: Keller_herzog and Munachonga (1995), Gender and the Micro-Meso-Macro Linkages of structural Adjustment:Zambia Case Study, page 40. Adapted from Adaptive Research Planning Team (ARPT), Table 10, page 18.Table 6 above indicates that women experience more labour constraint (time poverty) than menespecially during the growing season. Within the disproportionate sexual/gender division oflabour, against females, men and women allocate their labour time to both subsistence andmarket-directed production.d) Non-farm enterprises and type of activitiesAccording to the CSO/LCMS Report 2002-2003, 30% of all households in Zambia operated a nonfarmenterprise of one sort or another. The proportion of non-farm businesses was higher in urbanhouseholds (37%) than in rural households (26%). In general, the most common non-farmenterprise was trading, which occurs between rural and urban areas (54%), followed in secondplace by manufacturing, forestry and fishing activities (28% together). In terms of comparison, theproportion of businesses in forestry and fishing was higher in rural areas (21%) than in urban areas(4%).113

A comparison by province shows that Luapula Province had the highest percentage of householdswith non-farm enterprises (57%), while North Western Province had the lowest (5%) (CSO/LCMS2002-2003, Table 9.1, page 75). The major constraints identified in running non-farm enterprisesvaried between rural and urban households; it was lack of technical know-how for ruralhouseholds and lack of capital for urban households. The common major constraints identified forboth rural and urban households related to ‘Government regulation in establishing a business’,and lack of access to credit facilities which means that the majority of entrepreneurs rely on theirown savings (ILO/GIDD, 2003). In terms of main sources of capital used to set up a non-farmenterprise, statistics indicate that in both rural and urban areas, household savings constituted themain sources though to varying extents. For example, in rural areas the sources were reported, inpriority order, as household savings (32%), proceeds from family farm (27%) and relatives (19%),while for urban households it was household savings (42%), relatives (32%) and other sources(11%).e) Livestock-raisingDuring the 2002-2003 Living Conditions Monitoring Survey, 30% of households in Zambia wereengaged in raising livestock of various types and to varying extents: 55% owned goats; 52% ownedcattle; 25% owned pigs, and 4% owned sheep. A comparison by province indicated that theproportion of households that owned livestock was highest in Southern Province (48%), followedin second place by Eastern Province (39%), in third place by Western and Lusaka (32% each),Central Province (31%), and Copperbelt Province (7%). Both cattle and goat populations werehighest in Southern Province (32.4% cattle, 32.1% goats). Sheep population was highest in CentralProvince, while pig population was highest in Eastern Province. In terms of owning poultry,Northern Province had the highest proportion of households that owned poultry (21.5%) whileNorth Western Province had the least (5.5%).Management and ownership of livestock by men and womenAvailable literature indicates that both women and men can own livestock (cattle, small livestock).Findings of a study on “Women and Livestock Management in Mazabuka and Namwala, SouthernProvince” revealed that women as a social category tended to own fewer cattle than men, whilethey compared favourably with men in terms of small livestock (goats, pigs, chickens, ducks,guinea fowls) (Kyewalabye and Munachonga (1993). The findings indicated that the mostcommon mode of acquisition of cattle for men was ‘purchase’, while for women it was throughgifts or inheritance or share of own marriage payments. The predominant herding arrangementsfor cattle whereby women tend to entrust their cattle with male relatives (as a security measureagainst property grabbing by in-laws in the event of death of husband) undermines women’ssituation – e.g. decision-making power about sale of their animals, use of their cattle forproduction purposes, access to veterinary knowledge, and other benefits derived from ownership(nutritional, manure).6.0 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDICATORSHuman development encompasses many indicators that are key to poverty reduction andeconomic growth. The term ‘human development’ refers to the process of enlarging people’schoices (United Nations Human Development Report, 1995). Although in principle, these choicescan be infinite and can change over time, the three essential ones are for people to lead a longand healthy life, to acquire knowledge and to have access to the resources needed for a decent114

standard of living. This section focuses on four critical human development indicators – i.e.education, health care, decision-making, and HIV/AIDS, and from a gender perspective.a) EducationEducation (which is the starting point of human development and acts as the springboard of allprofessional and technical training) is recognized as the key human development indicators withstrong connections to other human development indicators (e.g. enhanced health status, povertyreduction, low fertility rates, participation in decision-making, poverty reduction). The level ofeducation attained is an important indicator of well being and is key to ensuring access to otherhuman development indicators referred to above. However, available data, not only indicate thatthe majority of Zambians including those in formal employment have only primary or no formaleducation, but also indicate that there are gender inequalities in favour of males at all levels ofeducation (primary, secondary, tertiary/university) and, particularly in the fields of science,mathematics and technology (World Bank, Zambia Strategic Country Gender Assessment Report 2004).Although Government policy since independence has emphasized education for personal andnational development with affirmative action in favour of females, in actual practice, femaleenrolments at primary and secondary levels have continued to be below 50% and about 20% asuniversity level (Kelly 1994 and 1999). This indicates that Government still faces practicalproblems of mainstreaming gender for achievement of gender equality. For example, in 2000,male literacy was much higher at 76.6% compared to 58.3% for females (CSO, 2000 Census).Disparities against females in education are explained in terms of both generic and gender-specificfactors – i.e. generic factors (poverty, insufficient school places, inadequate government funding)and gender-specific factors (cultural sexual/gender division of labour at household level againstgirls, teenage pregnancies, early marriages, negative expectations of girls’ performance amongteachers). Low levels of education and literacy among females is one of the contributing factorsthat make it difficult for women to move out of the cycle of poverty.Reduced Government funding to education and introduction of user fees has further reducedaccess to education particularly for the poor, mostly living in rural areas. This has given rise tomushrooming of Community Schools, providing basic education and skills training programmestargeted at vulnerable groups (orphans, girl children, persons with disabilities, poorest people,and children with special needs) (ILO Report Work-Family Conflict, 2004). However, previousstudy findings indicate that Community Schools have tended to be concentrated in urban areas. Ingeneral, Community Schools play an important role of filling in the gap created throughmacroeconomic policies in favour of cuts in social sector spending. Their establishment, thoughlikely to reinforce class and gender disparities, they can be seen as a response of NGOs andchurches to reduced Government funding to education.b) Health careZambia’s Health Policy (1992) stresses equity of access and quality of services as close to the familyas possible. However, provision of health services has been negatively affected by macroeconomicmeasures such as cuts in social sector spending and introduction of medical fees (which havecontributed to the shift in health costs from public institutions to the family, and particularly towomen and girls). Home-based care in the context of HIV/AIDS has negatively affected womenand girls, who are the traditional care givers. Illness in the family is a common reason forwomen’s absence from economic activities and for school girls not attending school or droppingout of school. Not only do chronic illnesses increase women’s and girls’ domestic responsibilities,115

ut they also place them in a vulnerable position in terms of contracting the diseases (JUDAI 2002).Deterioration in provision of health care services and the health care provision has also negativelyimpacted on women more than men, arising from their biologically determined gender needs(ante-natal, maternity, postnatal, and under-five clinics which are utilized by women). In ruralareas, people have to walk long distances to health care facilities, drugs are not often available, andhealth personnel are not well trained. All this contributes to rural people resorting to use of wildmedicinal plants for health care.c) HIV and AIDS PrevalenceHIV/AIDS is acknowledged as the most serious public health, social and economic challenge facedin Zambia today – it viewed as the biggest tragedy taking toll on all sectors of economy andsociety. HIV and AIDS national prevalence rate stood at 16% in 2000, with the prevalence beinghigher among women (18%) than among men (13%) (CSO, 2000 Census). Table below showsdifferentials by sex. The recently completed Zambia Demographic Health Survey (2007) hasrevealed a slight drop in the national HIV/AIDS prevalence at 14.3% down from 16% for 2002. Thepandemic has a gender-differentiated impact and is essentially a gender issue in terms ofprevalence rates (see Table 7), burden of care for sick family members, (which exacerbates povertylevels among women and girls.Table 7: HIV prevalence by age and sex, 2001-2002Age Group Females Males15-19 6.6 1.920-24 16.3 4.445-49 13.6 20.2Source: Central Statistical Office (2002); ZDHS 2001-2002d) Participation in decision makingParticipation in decision-making at national levelPolitics and government are critical institutions because of the central role they play in decisionmakingabout allocation of development resources and benefits derived from development processamong various sections of the population. Available literature for Zambia emphasizes thatdevelopment policies and plans have generally been unfavourable to women’s participation andbenefit (Munachonga 1989; JUDAI 2002). Under both the one-party and multi-party governments,the State and political party structures have continued to be male-dominated, which suggests anegative relationship between women and the State. Under-representation of women in nationaldecision-making structures is one of the issues for advocacy by the Women’s Movement in thecountry. Statistics indicate that Parliament, which is expected to be the mirror of society, does notin actual practice represent reality in terms of population composition (NB: women outnumbermen). This means that the interests of women are not adequately represented at that level. Table 8below illustrates participation rates in national politics by men and women from 1964 to 2006.116

Table 8: Elected Members of Parliament by sex, 1964-2001Year Members of Parliament Total ElectiveSeatsFemalesF M % of Total % Incr./Decr.1964-1968 5 70 75 6.7 -1968-1972 2 103 105 1.9 - 4.81973-1978 7 118 125 5.6 3.71978-1983 6 119 125 4.8 - 0.81983-1988 4 121 125 3.2 - 1.61988-1991 6 119 125 4.8 1.61991-1996 10 140 150 6.7 1.91996-1999 16 134 150 10.7 4.02001 19 131 150 12.7 2.02006 22 128 150 14.6 2.0Source: M. Munachonga & E. Mbozi (2003), Evaluation of Zambia National Women’s Lobby;Elections Commission of Zambia (2006)In terms of women’s participation at local government level, in 2002, men predominated asCouncillors (93%) and Mayors (94%). The trend applies to decision making positions in the wholePublic Service (line ministries, commissions, etc).Participation in decision-making at community and household levelsParticipation in decision making structures such as parliament and cabinet is a wider national rolethat men and women can play. It is important to note that the issue of participation in decisionmakingis not confined to the national level, but it is also relevant at the household and communitylevels. Gender roles are of three broad types – i.e. (i) productive roles/work involving theproduction of goods and services for consumption and for the market; (ii) reproductive roles/workinvolving the care and maintenance of the household and its members; and (iii) community-linkedroles/work which involves the management of resources for collective use/interest e.g. water,forests, as well as participation at events aimed at holding the community together (politics anddecision making).Research findings indicate that women’s participation in decision-making at community andhousehold levels, where women patriarchal norms and values are much stronger than in urbanareas, women are expected to defer to men (husbands or male relatives) in terms of decisionmaking on various types of issues, including decision on what to crop to plant, when to plant,where to plant, and whether or not to sell surplus crop. With regard to community based activitiesincluding those relating to community based natural resources management programmes, womentend to be more easily mobilized to provide voluntary labour or to work on communityprogrammes for food (payment in kind), while men tend to participate as supervisors who arepaid cash.117

7.0 OTHER SOCIAL SERVICES PROVISIONa) Water and sanitationAlthough the Government stresses the importance of providing safe drinking water and sanitationthrough local authorities and private sector enterprises, implementation of the policy isproblematic (Changa Management Services Ltd, 2005). Statistics show that in 2000, the proportionof households with access to safe drinking water was 49.1% and that access to safe water was morepronounced in urban areas (86.1%) than in rural areas (29.5%) (CSO, 2003). In the absence ofprotected water sources near homes, women especially in rural areas have to travel long distancesto collect water for various household uses. Lack of safe drinking water, which mostly affectspeople living in rural and peri-urban areas often results in break up of water borne diseases (suchas cholera and dysentery), which in turn increases women’s burden of care for sick familymembers.b) Energy sources supply factorsProvision of electricity is an important labour saving technology (which is more critical for womenarising from their multiple roles). However, statistics available show that only 17% of totalhouseholds in Zambia had access to electricity in 2000, and that access was even much lower inrural areas (2.2%) (CSO, 2003). This means that the overwhelming majority of households,particularly in rural areas, depends on fuel wood (for which responsibility for collection rests withwomen) or charcoal whose production threatens forests. Deforestation due to factors such asincreased human settlements, charcoal burning and commercial farming has, not only negativelyaffected economic development, but also impacted on rural women more than men arising fromtheir traditional role of collecting fire wood for cooking and heating. .c) Infrastructure (roads, transport and marketing facilities)In most parts of rural Zambia, roads are in very bad condition and are impassable during the rainyseason due to lack of Government funds for road rehabilitation. The majority of local authoritiesare unable to fulfil their role of maintaining feeder roads, due to lack of funding. Poor roadnetworks in rural areas contribute to agricultural marketing problems e.g. high costs fortransportation of produce by small-scale farmers, the majority of whom are women.Government’s withdrawal subsidized agricultural services, which was not accompanied with anorientation programme for village farmers, also resulted in neglect and, consequently, dilapidationof Farmers Training Centres and Institutes (which previously served as important channels ofimparting farming technologies) countrywide. Although the present Government has recognizedthe importance of agricultural cooperatives for mobilizing and increasing productivity amongsmall-scale farmers, the implementation of the policy with regard to agricultural input supply andcrop marketing is still problematic. From a gender perspective, women’s participation in theagricultural cooperative movement and travel for purposes of marketing agricultural producehave historically been low.118

8.0 GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND MEASURES TO ADDRESS POVERTYVarious policies and measures have been introduced reflecting national response to poverty andrelated issues. With regard to sectoral policies that derive from the PRSP, TNDP and FNDP, thereare a number of approved policies relevant to the Sub-Report – e.g. on gender, youth, agriculture,education, population, health, land, environment, forest, etc. these are highlighted below.Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2002-2004), which will roll over every three years, iscoordinated by the Ministry of Finance and National Planning. Prepared after broad basedconsultations, the PRSP stands as the overarching national development policy on which all sectorpolicies will be pivoted for sustainable development. The PRSP is premised on broad coordinationand harmonization of various economic growth and other development interventions. The basicstrategy of poverty reduction is economic growth and employment creation, which will entailimprovements in national resources management, sectoral performance in identified key sectorsincluding agriculture and social services, infrastructure, governance and public service deliverycapacity. The PRSP aims at assisting the poor and vulnerable people in order to prevent, mitigateagainst, and cope with poverty vulnerability risks. This is being done by supporting communitybased and managed initiatives (social services infrastructure improvements) as prioritized by thecommunities themselves.The special focus of the PRSP is on economic management ministries and social sector ministries –to enable them become more effective in reducing poverty. Both the Transitional NationalDevelopment Plan (TNDP) 2002-2005 and the Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP) 2006-2010built on the PRSP and have provided the most comprehensive national framework for sectoralpolicies and priorities in implementing activities. Both the TNDP and FNDP have focused onimproved natural resources management and have the guiding theme of sustainable growth,employment creation and poverty reduction, with agricultural development viewed as the engineof income expansion and economic growth.Although gender is recognized as an important cross cutting issue that has to be mainstreamed toachieve poverty reduction, the PRSP is weakened in this regard in that it does not adequatelyaddress and analyze the gender dynamics of the many complex barriers to poverty reduction (i.e.huge foreign debt, misdirection of public resources, non-prioritization of human development,general economic decline, HIV/AIDS). Secondly, gender mainstreaming into the PRSP, TNDP andFNDP have not been systematic and, therefore, not being effectively implemented.The National Population Policy introduced in 1989 was revised in 2000 to bring it in line with thefoals of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) of 1995. The policyis Ministry of Finance and National Planning This provided for the institutionalization ofreproductive health rights, safe motherhood, adolescent sexual and reproductive health, andfamily planning. However, available literature indicates that although Zambia has performed wellwith regard to adult literacy, the country is still below the threshold in the other indicatorsincluding maternal mortality rates and infant mortality rates (UNFPA Fifth Country ProgrammeEvaluation Report, 2007:26). The impact of the policy has also been constrained by, among others,socio-cultural factors in favour of high fertility rates that limit opportunities for formalemployment and business enterprise development, particularly for women (JUDAI 2002).National Agricultural Policy (2004), executed by Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, hasspecific objectives of improving household and national food security, promoting better use of119

natural resources, generating income and employment, and increasing export earnings, andcontributing to balance of payments. Strategies include liberalization of agricultural markets,support to private sector, diversification of crop production, service delivery to small-scalefarmers, and improving the economic status of women. In order to promote mainstreaming ofcross cutting issues, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives has Focal Points for gender andHIV/AIDS as well as specific strategies. However, liberalization which has meant reducedgovernment funding has contributed to failure to control animal diseases such as corridor, whichin many cases has wiped out whole herds of cattle especially in Central and Southern Provinces.This has also contributed to decline in a traditional source of wealth and social status and,consequently, to increasing poverty levels among small-scale farmers (Munachonga andWhitehead 2001).Natural Policy on Environment (2006), executed by the Ministry of Tourism Environment andNatural Resources, seeks to integrate environmental concerns into the social and economicnational development planning process. The Government treats environment as one of the crosscutting issues, along with gender, HIV/AIDS, as it cuts across various sectors – e.g. agriculture,forestry, land, energy, water, wildlife, population, etc. This has important gender implications,given the fact that men and women interact and manage the environment and natural resourcesdifferently arising from differences in the traditional roles they play in society. However, theNational Policy on Environment (2006) does not incorporate gender (JUDAI 2007)Land Administration and Management Policy (2006), executed by the Ministry of Lands,incorporates a quota system – i.e. 30% of all available land for allocation specifically to women, inaddition to their participation in the remaining 70%. However, there are a number of constraintsto implementing the policy. One of the constraints, particularly for women (who are morefinancially and economically disadvantaged) is related to the short period of eighteen (18) monthsrequired by the Government for developing the land. Secondly, Zambia has a dual land tenuresystem providing for traditional land (no title) and statutory land (titled), which operates to thedetriment of women because they are treated as minors under customary law and, therefore, lackequal access with men to land. Further, predominant patriarchal attitudes against married womenand young women of marriageable age contribute to rural women’s lack of access to agriculturalland (Himonga and Munachonga, 1995).National Forest Policy (1996), executed by the Ministry of Tourism Environment and NaturalResources, has the objective of conserving indigenous forests, protection of water catchment areas,and promotion of viable forestry through training, research, extension, regeneration and woodprocessing programmes. However, in practice, certain livelihood activities such as charcoalburning, which occurs in rural areas, for sale in urban areas, are having a negative impact onconservation of forests.National Gender Policy (2000), executed by Cabinet Office, reflects the national vision stated as“attainment of gender equality and equity”. The policy advocates increased active participation ofwomen in the market economy as well as the promotion of shared roles and responsibilitiesthrough influencing change in patterns of socialization and the sexual/gender division of labour.However, it is has not yet been widely circulated and publicized, or understood even within lineministries, and many ministries do not have sectoral policies with gender incorporated. Most ofthe sectoral institutions that have incorporated gender in their policy frameworks have not done itin a systematic manner due largely to lack of adequate knowledge and skills in gender analysisand mainstreaming.120

National Youth Policy (1996), executed by Ministry of Sport Youth and Child Development, seeksto promote self-employment among youth through entrepreneurship development, provide basicskills training facilities (infrastructure, finance, business advisory services), to reduce youthunemployment. However, implementation of the policy has been constrained by lack ofGovernment funding and ineffective management of programmes (JUDAI 2002:29). Further, mostfacilities need rehabilitation.National Education Policy: Educating Our Future (1996), executed by Ministry of Education,addresses the entire educational system, from pre-school to tertiary and adult education, and paysattention to current global acceptable tenets such as capacity and partnership building, curriculumrelevance, and efficient management of resources. The policy’s cornerstone has four guidingprinciples: access, equity, democracy, and quality. The policy also identifies areas of specialconcern including gender issues in education, special needs education, and education for poor andvulnerable. Strong emphasis on gender and social equity is reflected through implementation ofprogrammes and measures such as Basic Education Sector Support Investment Programme(BESSIP) which has a gender component, Programme for Advancement of Girls Education(PAGE), bursary scheme which incorporates 25% allocation specifically to females enteringUniversity, etc. However, in spite of these initiatives, gender inequalities at all levels of educationhave persisted against females, with negative implications for women’s welfare.National Health Policy (1992), executed by the Ministry of Health, stresses access and quality ofservices ‘as close to the family as possible’. However, macro-economic policy and measures (i.e. cutsin social sector spending) have negatively affected implementation of the health reforms. Thepolicy stresses mainstreaming of gender with guidelines developed for the purpose. However,implementation of the policy has been negatively affected by, among other factors, SAP measureswhich have led to introduction of medical fees and de-institutionalization of health care provisiontowards home-based care for chronic illnesses such as TB and HIV/AIDS. This policy change hasnegatively affected the family, and, within the family, women and girls – the traditional caregivers. Illness in the family is a common reason for women’s absence from both formal andinformal employment and for girls not attending or dropping out of school to look after sickmembers or siblings in the event of death of both parents.National HIV/AIDS Policy and Strategic Intervention PlanNational HIV/AIDS Policy (2005) and Strategic Intervention Plan (2002-2005, executed by the NationalAIDS Council, define the country’s response to HIV/AIDS epidemic – a continuum of prevention,mitigation, care and treatment of people living with HIV). The policy stress the need for a legalframework; appropriate national coordination and advocacy framework; treating HIV/AIDS as apublic health, social and economic problem; Information, Education and Communication forbehavioural change, protection of human rights of the infected and affected. Both the Policy andthe Strategy stress, among other things, “gender mainstreaming as a central element in the fight againstthe epidemic”. However, it is worthy noting that the policy and the strategic frameworks areoperating in a difficult environment that undermines their effective implementation– e.g. lack oflegislation, cultural norms and practices, economic hardships, stigmatization and discriminationwhich contribute to people’s reluctance to go for voluntary counselling and testing (VCY). .SUMMARY OF KEY GENDER ISSUES121

9.0 SUMMARY OF KEY GENDER ISSUES IN ZAMBIA & THE AGRICULTURAL SECTORa) Government policy and measuresAvailable literature emphasizes the following factors as contributing to gender inequalities:• The gender equality principle is not adequately incorporated in the RepublicanConstitution, which is to the detriment of women in all economic and social spheres of life.• The Intestate Inheritance Act (1989) is still inadequate in terms of addressing women’sproperty rights arising from the polygamous nature of marriage. Because customary lawdoes not provide for joint ownership of property between husband and wife, women areoften victims of property grabbing by deceased husbands’ relatives.• Women’s small and declining share of formal sector employment and concentration insubsistence production (regulated by traditional norms), while men dominate the marketeconomy (highly monetized with segmented labour , productive resources systematicallyconcentrated in it, and regulated by statutory law).• Negative attitudes against women doing business or producing for the market, whichreduces their access to development services. For example, Government policy has noteffectively supported women farmers despite the fact that they grow a wider variety ofcrops than men – e.g. local maize, sorghum, millet, beans, groundnuts, cow peas, which donot depend on chemical fertilizer;• The dominant ideology (patriarchy) is very powerful in agricultural production (food andcash crops) that shapes the roles and work patterns of men and women.• Agricultural marketing policy has not effectively supported women farmers in terms ofmarketing their crops arising from emphasis on maize production and marketing.• When interventions focus on traditionally ‘female crops’ for purposes of commercializingthem, men appropriate such crops and get involved in growing them e.g. groundnuts, tothe disadvantage of women farmers – e.g. in Eastern Province and Copperbelt Province(Mpongwe Districts.• The persistence of the official and general perception that views men as ‘farmers’ andwomen as ‘wives of farmers’ reinforces the tendency to marginalize women and to restrictthem to care-giving related production, which has not received attention in terms oftechnological innovation.• Technological innovations have not been directed at activities that are traditionally definedas ‘women’s activities or tasks’, resulting in women’s reliance on traditional technologiesthat are time-consuming (no access to labour saving technologies).• Disproportionate burden of HIV infection and care for the sick in the context of HIV/AIDS,against women and girls (the traditional care-givers) with negative implications forwomen’s economic activity and girls’ school attendance.• Women’s lack of equal access to/control over productive resources (e.g. land, credit,information and knowledge, etc). Results of a gender analysis of arming households maybe used here to illustrate the extent of this gender issue (see Annex 1, for illustration).122

10.0 CONCLUSIONS: TRENDS OF CHANGE & IMPACT ON LIVELIHOODSThe foregoing analysis, with specific reference to the agricultural situation indicates that between1991 and 2002, Government planning shifted from long-term planning that was characteristic ofSocialist orientation of the First and Second Republics to short-term and medium planningcharacteristic of the Free Market system adopted after change of government in 1991. However,since 2002, Government reverted to the long-term planning strategy through the transitionalNational Development Plan (TNDP) 2002-2005 and the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (whichwill roll over every three years). Sectoral policies discussed above, including the NationalAgricultural Policy, National Policy on Environment and National Gender Policy, are derivedfrom the PRSP and the National Development Plans (TNDP and FNDP).The discussion above has also highlighted that, in line with the Socialist approach to development,the post-independence agricultural policy emphasized provision of subsidies to small-scalefarmers in terms of input supply and crop marketing. This was reinforced by a strong agriculturalCooperative Movement, agricultural training and extension services provision system targeted atvillage farmers through Farmers Training Centres that were established throughout the country.The policy before 1991 was, therefore, supply-driven which means that small-scale farmers wereresponsive to government interventions aimed at improving standards of living of the people.This promoted a dependency syndrome among small-scale farmers, which is one of the factorsthat have contributed to increasingly rising poverty levels in rural areas.Agricultural policy change since 1991 in favour of the liberalization of the agricultural sectormeant that Government was no longer to channel public resources to large-scale fertilizersubsidies, provision of transport for inputs for small-scale farmers, as well as the cost of organizinga market and distribution network. This has had a negative impact on agricultural productionparticularly by small-scale farmers who were now expected to meet costs of services. Withchange in policy, “agriculture has moved from a system of State supply and subsidy of inputs, subsidizedcredit and stat marketing to a liberalized system where inputs are expensive, credit largely unavailable andmarkets unreliable” (Whitehead and Munachonga, 2001). Liberalization has also resulted in lack ofgovernment funding and failure to control animal diseases such as corridor, which in many caseshas wiped out whole herds of cattle especially in Central and Southern Provinces.Despite evidence that nearly one third of households in the country are headed by women,Government policy has continued to be based on the assumption that the predominant type ofhousehold in Zambia is that which headed by a male, and the perception that men are ‘farmers’and women ‘wives of farmers’. This has contributed to marginalization of rural women and tohigher poverty levels among women than men, which are particularly pronounced in rural thanurban areas. In the agricultural sector, women provide over 80% of labour to food and cash cropproduction. The initiatives to incorporate gender issues (through affirmative action) into theagricultural policy and strategies have not been effective.The key gender issues emerging from the analysis of the whole country context and specifically ofthe agricultural sector, around which recommended interventions may be based are highlightedbelow.a) Gender is an economic issue in Zambia, given the different roles men and women playin both household and market economies, as well as in the managing the environmentand natural resources. Women tend to predominate in agriculture and micro-123

enterprises, as well as in household tasks, while men dominate the industrial sector andmedium-enterprises. However, there are inequalities in favour of men in terms ofaccess, ownership and control of productive resources, time and family labour.Gender based disparities have economic costs to households, communities, and thecountry as a whole.b) Women experience time poverty or constraint as a result of the combination ofreproductive and productive tasks for which they are responsible – e.g. rural womenwork longer hours(12-13 hours per day) than men (6-7 hours per day), they carry adisproportionate burden of care for the sick and orphans due to HIV/AIDS. Despitethis, tasks and activities undertaken by women within the household economy have notbeen targeted for technological innovations. Labour saving technologies can freewomen’s time for more productive work and their own recreation.c) Zambia’s legal framework is discriminatory against women - the National Constitutioncontains contradictions that undermine women’s rights because the issue of genderequality adequately addressed due to accommodation of customary law.d) Poverty reduction is essentially about addressing the issues of power (of men and therich) and powerlessness (of women and the poor), which are the focus of the Genderand Development Framework. Unequal social and gender relations of power are themain causes of development problems including low participation of women indecision-making structures, vulnerability to poverty and HIV/AIDS. While povertylevels continue to be high in the country, and higher among women than men, thegender dimensions of poverty are not adequately understood mainly because they arenot adequately captured in socio-economic analysis that have tended to be based ondisaggregation by sex of heads of households alone.e) Gender disparities in human development indicators persist especially in the aspect ofeducation which has strong connections to the other critical human developmentindicators (health, fertility rates, maternal mortality rates, participation in decisionmaking,HIV/AIDS).f) HIV/AIDS had gender differentiated risks and vulnerabilities, with more young womenthan men in their age-group get infected and more older men than women in their agegroupget infected. Gender differences also apply in terms of the burden of care for thesick, although both men and women suffer the social and economic effects ofHIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS is strongly connected to poverty because it tends to affect theable-bodied, productive and educated sections of the population.124

11.0 SUGGESTIONS FOR WHAT RIU CAN CONSIDERThis Specialist Sub-Report, therefore, makes suggestions that are perceived as fundamental tomaking mainstreaming of cross cutting issues (especially gender which unique because it a overridingcross cutting social variable) and effective tool for poverty reduction and development toolamong small-scale farmers. The suggested interventions would assist in improving understandingof gender relations of power in the context of the other cross cutting issues (i.e. poverty,HIV/AIDS, environment and natural resources management, livelihoods) and the linkagesbetween the cross cutting issues. This suggests the need for engendering of agricultural researchmethodologies and analytical tools for the benefit of vulnerable groups (the poor, women andchildren).The suggested interventions focus on:a).b).c).d).Building and strengthening skills in research, analysis and mainstreaming of cross cuttingissues, particularly gender because it is an over-riding cross cutting issue, intoprogrammes. This can facilitate the engendering of key agricultural and environmentalresearch instruments or tools and analysis of research data, to institutionalize generationof relevant data disaggregated by age, sex, gender, etc., to feed into project/programdesign and planning. To achieve this, there is need for capacity building for institutionsand organizations involve in implementing the RIU Programme in Zambia.Strengthening mainstreaming of cross cutting issues into in the implementation of thePRSP and the FNDP as well as the review processes.Promotion of investments in technologies targeted at household tasks and activitiesperformed by women, to reduce women’s workload.Integration of gender dynamics into livelihood, HIV/AIDS and environment programmes,building on on-going initiatives within the agricultural and related sectors125

ANNEX 1: MEN AND WOMEN’S ACCESS TO AND CONTROL OVER RESOURCES INRURAL HOUSEHOLDSRESOURCESACCESSWMCONTROLWLand L H L HLabour L H L HMachinery (tractors, etc) L H L HAnimal draft power (oxen) M H L HTools (e.g. hoes, shovels) M H M HTime L H L HInputs (hybrid seed, fertilizer) M H L HEducation & information L H L HTechnical skills M H L HManagement skills L H L HCredit/loans L H L HFinances L H N HTOTALS: HMLN0 110 18 00 0M0 121 010 01 0H = high (68-99%); M = medium (34-67%); L = low (1-33%); N = none ()%)NOTE:The agricultural extension staff involved in the assessment of male and female access to andcontrol of resources came up with three categories/values which were divided into 100% to arriveat the average percentage for each category. Also note that women’s access to/control over labouris low since men, especially husbands, control women’s time and labour.Source: World Bank, Zambia Strategic Country Gender Assessment, 2004:20.126

Annex G: Terms of ReferenceRESEARCH INTO USE PROGRAMMEDraft Terms of Reference forZambia Country Assessment and Strategy DevelopmentBackground to the RIU ProgrammeThe purpose of the Research into Use (RIU) Programme is to maximize the poverty reducingimpact of the DFID funded natural resources research produced under the Renewable NaturalResources Research Strategy (RNRRS) in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. In so doing theprogramme also aims to increase understanding of how widespread use of research can bepromoted. The Programme will also invest in getting into use knowledge from researchundertaken by others if this is demanded by users and is complementary/ synergistic to use ofoutputs from research knowledge previously supported by DFID.The hypothesis of the RIU is thatan innovation systems approach will prove more effective than linear approaches at gettingresearch outputs into use for the benefit of the poor.For ease of reference the key elements of the innovation systems approach are outlined in Text Box1.Text Box 1: Key Elements of the Innovation Systems Approach• Involving the suppliers and users of knowledge in some form of partnership on a common platform• Genuine and continuous involvement of suppliers of knowledge, intermediaries, policy makers,“enablers”, all "end-users" (producer, consumer or processor) to assist in the determination of theinnovation bottlenecks.• Putting as much emphasis on promoting technologies as promoting approaches and processes thathave been proven to be effective in getting research into use• Investing in strengthening capacities where they are needed in the "innovation system" (not justR&D organizations but also in intermediary functions that enable communications betweenknowledge suppliers and users)• Developing financially sustainable delivery systems/ viable business models (this often involvesmanufacturers, service providers, credit suppliers, and providers of technical assistance to users)• Investing in an iterative process that enables the organisations within the system to learn fromexperience and improve their performance• Introducing new technologies and/or new ways of doing things in a financially, socially andenvironmentally sustained basis• Evolving new institutional arrangements by which the various organisations in the system operate127

The RIU has identified eight values that will underpin its work and these are: strategic focus;openness; transparency; fairness; innovation; accessibility; inclusiveness; and empowerment. Aspart of its focus on ‘fairness’, it will aim to promote access to knowledge, participation, equalopportunities, and inclusive partnerships for all social groups with a particular focus on thedisadvantaged. It will also work to value cultural diversity and to reduce exclusion and thedisadvantages that stakeholders face.The RIU will adopt a positive and pragmatic approach to the ‘environment’. It will promoteenvironmentally sound management practices and the production of improved, stable livelihoodsfor a range of stakeholders including those of the vulnerable poor. This approach recognizes thatenvironmentally sound management and sustainable livelihoods have a close relationship, in thatone strengthens and reinforces the other.In order to achieve its purpose, RIU will deliver three major outputs:1. Output 1: Significant use of RNRRS and other natural resources research outputs for thebenefit (direct/indirect) of poor men and women in diverse contexts;2. Output 2: Research-into-use evidence generated with evaluation partners; and,3. Output 3: Policy processes enabled by research-into-use principles, lessons and discourse.Through these three inter-linked outputs RIU will attempt to apply innovation systems thinking inan experimental way to use research-based knowledge to achieve a poverty-reducing impact at thecountry level (this is output 1), It will learn the lessons from these and other experiments (this isoutput 2); and it will communicated these lessons to others (output 3).More specifically in relation to output 1, the RIU programme will apply the innovation systemsapproach and its values to attain significant use of RNRRS and other natural resources researchoutputs for the benefit 3 (direct/ indirect) of poor people in diverse contexts through mechanismsthat:• Improve access to RNRRS and other research outputs ( Component 1.1)• Enhance demand for RNRRS and other research outputs (Component 1.2)• Lead to development of enterprises using RNRRS and other research outputs (Component1.3)3 “Benefit” means poverty reduction as assessed using the sustainable livelihood framework128

The general indicators of performance against which the three components will be assessed are:• Substantially increased numbers of Renewable Natural Resource (RNR) dependent poorpeople 4 –directly using RIU research outputs in all categories of PSA countries by 2011• Substantially increased numbers of RNR dependent poor people indirectly benefiting fromRIU research outputs in all categories of PSA countries by 2011• More than 65% by value of ongoing RIU initiatives related to outputs 1 and 2 (Use of researchand learning outputs) assessed as “likely to be largely or completely achieved” by 2008• By 2008 more than 50% of likely beneficiaries of RIU supported initiatives independentlyassessed as likely to be poor womenThe general indicators have been further elaborated in the RIU Performance and LearningFramework (PLF) at the level of the three programme outputs.The overall implications of the above are that the strategies and programmes for all thecomponents of the RIU Outputs must not only show how they are contributing to the outputindicators but they must also be explicit on how they are applying the innovation systemsapproach to whatever interventions are being undertaken.Component 1.2: ENHANCING DEMAND FOR RNRRS AND OTHER RESEARCHOUTPUTSThe two generic approaches through which Output 1.2 will be achieved are (i) the NationalCoalition Approach and (ii) the Partnership approach.In the National Coalition approach the RIU shall facilitate the emergence/ consolidation of acoalition bringing together national actors that are already implementing RIU-like activities. Thenational coalition shall become the RIU partner through which national actors would pool theirresources with those of RIU to demand and ultimately get research outputs into use. In essence theRIU Programme shall be owned and operated by these coalitions.In the partnership approach the RIU shall work through national partners. A national partner shallbe an organization such as an international NGOs, a public institution, a donor-fundedprogramme etc that are already implementing innovation programmes to which the RIU couldadd value by introducing RNRRS or other research outputs including new ways of doing‘business’. Such a partner organisation would have been assessed as having the vision and missionthat embrace the principles and objectives of the RIU and as possessing strong links with locallevel innovation platforms capable of demanding and using research outputsThe implementation of research into use activities shall be undertaken by “innovation platforms”using RIU resources channelled through these coalitions or partners. The RIU defines aninnovation platform as “a network of partners working on a common theme and using research4 as disaggregated by gender and social group in RIU plans129

knowledge in ways it has not been used before to generate goods/ services for the benefit of thepoor”.General purpose of the assignmentThe purpose of the assignment is to assess the development context in Zambia and theopportunities that exist for RIU engagement and, having done this, propose a strategy which theRIU can use to develop a strategy which the RIU should implement to make the greatestcontribution to achieving RIU Purposes 1 & 2. The strategic plan will need to comply with theprinciples of the RIU outlined above. In particular, it should complement and strengthen existinginitiatives in the country and be implemented through country-based organisations.Terms of ReferenceThese ToR cover the work of the team that shall undertake the country assessment and developthe country strategy.1. Country Assessmenti. Identify the existing national policies and country strategy frameworks relevant to gettingresearch into use and pinpoint the key elements with which RIU will need to alignii.iii.iv.Provide an overview of the national agricultural and natural resources innovation system/context and identify the systemic blockages that hinder pro-poor innovationIdentify the areas of focus (geographical/categories of people/commodity value chains/drivers of change, etc) where innovation using RNRRS or other research outputs are likelyto make greatest impact on disaggregated groups of poor peopleIdentify and prioritise specific opportunities in the areas of focus. The opportunities shouldresult in impacts on the livelihoods of significant numbers of disaggregated categories inpoor people and/or on specific learning opportunities 5v. Make a detailed analysis of the innovation sub-systems relevant to particular opportunitiesincluding:• analysis of the principal multi-sectoral constraints (e.g. policies, institutions,infrastructure, communications, capacity, corruption, gender and social exclusion,HIV/AIDS, etc) to the identified opportunities in these resource-poor communities andassessment of their impact on natural resource innovation• the effectiveness of the demand environment for innovation, particularly with regardto the involvement and influence of the poorvi.Make a preliminary identification of existing and potential innovation platforms 6 thatprovide avenues for linking knowledge suppliers and innovation demanders in the5 There is a provisional split in ‘effort’ between Purpose 1 & 2 of 70:30 – however ideally choices will maximise both poverty impactand learning impact.130

innovation sub-systems and an outline analysis of how RIU participation can add value tothese platformsvii.viii.ix.Identify potential national and regional partners and propose ways of working with themwhich address needs of the poor and which fit the RIU purpose and principlesIdentify other country specific contextual issues that the RIU should take into considerationOffer recommendations that will enhance the learning environment in Zambia2. Country Strategyii.iii.iv.Outline the approach used in developing the strategyArticulate the strategic implications for RIU of the findings of the country assessmentState the strategic principles on which the strategy is basedv. Propose the key elements of innovation system (or sub-systems/context) within which theprogramme will operatevi.vii.viii.ix.Outline how the innovation systems approach shall be mainstreamed into the Zambia RIUProgrammeShow how the RIU shall be positioned within the context of the Zambia national policy &strategy processes and wider pan African CAADP process, identifying potential points andapproaches for engagementConsider ‘early win’ opportunities for RIU engagement in ZambiaPropose the strategic options and underlying rationale for enhancing demand for researchoutputs. The options should be aligned with the results spelt out for RIU component 1.2 inthe Performance and Learning Framework (PLF). The PLF results require Component 1.2 tospecifically focus on:• How national coalitions/partnerships shall be developed and effectively ‘plugged into’the national change dynamic• How innovation platforms shall emerge/be identified and be supported• How information markets (serving platform level indicators) shall be supported anddeveloped• How the RIU communication strategy shall be implemented• How capability change (individual and collective) will be enhanced in all platformactivities and more broadly• How lessons will be learnt and documented in all the above6 Definition of Innovation platform:‘ a network of partners, working on a common theme, and using research knowledge in ways ithas not used it before, to generate goods and services for the benefit of the poor’131

x. Clearly spell out the expected outputs from the strategic options, their potential impact onthe poor and the expected contribution to the more general lessons to be learned by RIUfrom the activities RIU finances in Zambia. This should be supported by a strategy logicalframeworkxi.xii.xiii.xiv.xv.xvi.xvii.xviii.xix.Show how cross-cutting issues - especially gender, social exclusion, and environment- willbe addressedOutline the principles by which RIU monitoring, impact and learning processes andobjectives (MIL) will be integrated into the country programmeOutline how MIL will contribute to the IRU Programme in ZambiaPropose how the interests of RIU Component 3 will be integrated within the Zambiacountry ProgrammePropose the governance and management of the RIU in ZambiaPropose the principles for establishing the sustainability of the research into useprogramme activities and the use of the innovation systems approach can be sustainedbeyond the life of the RIUState the risks and assumptionsPropose the process and timetable (including further investigations/visits required) todevelop a detailed implementation and to ensure national and local ownershipElaborate an exit strategyTeam CompositionThe team shall consist of the following:Managers1. David Cownie - Livelihoods and Poverty, Team Leader2. Ben Sekamatte, Zambia RIU Task ManagerSpecialists3. Ebbie Dengu – Innovations4. Sarah Carriger - Communications5. Steen Joffe – Information Markets6. Diana Banda, Zambian Resource Person on Natural Resources and Policy/InstitutionalAnalysis7. Monica Munachonga, Zambian Resource Person on Cross-Cutting ThemesTechnical Support8. Jurgen Hagmann, Facilitation9. Vera Mugittu, Monitoring, Impact and Learning (MIL)132

Time InputsAt this juncture, it is anticipated that the input of the Team Leader would be 48 person days, andthe input of the specialists would be 30 person days.TimeframeDetails to be agreed but to be in the period between mid-April and mid-July (Assessment), andmid-May - early October (strategy). It is anticipated that operationalisation activities that will leadto implementation planning (which does not form part of these TOR) can begin during strategydevelopment. Overall, the intention is to accelerate assessment and strategy development withoutcompromising design or implementation. The timeframe is therefore indicative, and it may be thatactivities take longer.Support for the TeamThe Team shall be supported by:1. The Zambia RIU Task Manager, Dr. Ben Sekamatte in the following areas:• Handling all organisational and logistical matters associated with team activities.• Making formal approaches to the relevant authority within the National Government andthe DFID Country Office regarding the RIU programme proceeding in the country.• Sensitization of stakeholders to the aims of RIU.• Formal introduction of RIU to the wider donor community in Zambia through a one pagebriefing document covering the overall objectives, and envisaged spread of RIUengagement in the country.• Obtaining relevant documentation from RIU for the team.• Organising RIU materials for distribution to stakeholders in Zambia.• Expediting the contracting process.• Securing operational funding.• Establishing necessary links with RIU components.• Overseeing the work of the Process Facilitator.• Co-ordinating all aspects of the RIU Programme design in Zambia.• Organising funds for RIU Programme design in Zambia in a timely manner.2. A member of the MIL team, Ms. Vera Mugittu, shall ensure that the team has a good grasp ofthe MIL requirements, and shall herself identify how MIL can benefit the Zambian RIUProgramme. Terms of Reference for the MIL person were considered by the team, anddiscussed as follows:a. Provide all team members with the information needs from MIL, to the extent thatthese are relevant for assessment, strategy development, and implementation planning.133

To the extent relevant, the MIL Consultant will be responsible for direct informationcollection, and co-ordinating information collection, with various team members.b. Assist with the identification of possible targets and mechanisms for pro-poorinnovations, and explore these as a member of the RIU assessment team. This will bethrough materials review, key informant interviews, and participation in stakeholderengagement processes.c. Assess the way in which learning takes place in the policy environment in Zambia, andconsider avenues to support learning of relevance to RIU. Consider innovative ways inwhich learning can be supported by RIU, and ways in which efficiency can beimproved.d. Provide insights, in the assessment annex on MIL, lessons learned from other MILactivities in the pilot countries, and draw lessons for Zambia. From there, through thestrategy process, elaborate recommendations on the way forward for MIL in Zambia.e. Ensure that the Zambian logframe is consistent with the requirements of the RIUlogframe, and Performance and Learning Framework provided by MIL (December2007).f. Engage in the assessment and country strategy processes in such a way that supportownership among those engaged in the RIU Programme in Zambia. In addition,through involvement in this process, the consultant will support the overall objectivesof MIL.g. Review of the requirements of the assessment and strategy development documentsnoted above, and support those aspects of the process relevant to MIL.h. Provide a brief specialist sub-report for the Assessment Report.i. Contribute comments into the Assessment Report itself from the perspective of MIL.j. Work with other team members, including the Zambian consultants, to ensure theintegration of MIL concepts into team activities.Overall, the intended result of this engagement with MIL is to support the effective designof MIL activities in Zambia, and help meet MIL information needs as possible duringassessment and country strategy development.3. The International Process Facilitator, Dr. Jurgen Hagmann, shall guide the participatoryinteractions between the team and national stakeholders in ways that initiate the developmentof stakeholder ownership. As relevant, he will prepare written inputs in support of theassessment and strategy development documents, and arrange documentation of participatoryinteractions. The TOR for the International Process Facilitator are, in part, dependent on howthe process itself emerges over the duration of design. It is nevertheless anticipated that thesewill include the following:a. Support the activities of the Zambian Project Facilitator.b. Oversee organisation of all conferences and workshops. This shall include bothlogistical as well as substantive matters, in the latter respect referring to attaining theobjectives of RIU around stakeholder engagement.134

c. The stakeholder consultative process must focus on meeting the objectives of RIU,ensuring that the process yields a sound basis for making decisions about coalitionsand platforms. Care must be taken not to accelerate the stakeholder engagementprocess such that it undermines the effectiveness of RIU in Zambia. The stakeholderconsultation process must therefore be driven by the needs of the programme, and betimed to meet the needs of the programme in this respect.d. Organise all note-taking and report submission associated with all conferences andworkshops.e. Assist the team with various strategic planning activities.Process during and after the country assessment and strategy developmentGeneral• Initial review of the proposed way forward by NR International (12 May).• Initial review of the key elements of the country assessment, aspects of the strategy, and theproposed way forward by the Innovations Resources Group (IRG) (13 May).• Discussion of lessons learned from other countries on the way forward with Zambia withthe IRG (13 May).Assessment Report• Review of the Assessment Report by key RIU Programme officers.• Review of the Assessment Report by the IRG.• Review of the Assessment Report by the SMT.• Refinement of the Assessment Report following receipt of comments from RIU Programmeofficers and the IRG.Country Strategy• Review of the Country Strategy by key RIU Programme officers.• Review of the Country Strategy by the IRG.• Refinement of the Country Strategy following receipt of comments from RIU Programmeofficers and the IRG.• Presentation of the Country Strategy to the SMT.• Submission of the Country Strategy to the SMT for review.• Review of the Country Strategy by the SMT.• Feedback on the Country Strategy from the SMT.• Finalisation of the Country Strategy to address SMT feedback.• Submission of the Final Country Strategy.ReportingThe team shall report to the Component 1.2 Task Manager.135

Initially, a series of drafts of the Assessment Report will be prepared and submitted forconsideration, with initial drafts considered by the Country Assessment and StrategyDevelopment Team, and thereafter by RIU management through the Component 1.2 TaskManager. The Assessment Report shall be reviewed by the Senior Management Team (SMT) andthe Innovation Resource Group (IRG). Following receipt of comments from the SMT and the IRG,the Assessment Report will be finalised. The Assessment Report does not need to be accepted infinal version prior to work beginning on the Country Strategy.A separate Country Strategy Report will be prepared and submitted for consideration, with initialdrafts considered by the Country Assessment and Strategy Development Team, and thereafter byRIU management through the Component 1.2 Task Manager. The Country Strategy Report shallbe reviewed by the Senior Management Team (SMT) and the Innovation Resource Group (IRG).Following receipt of comments from the SMT and the IRG, the Country Strategy Report will befinalised.Following acceptance of the two reports, the two will be merged into a single document. Thissingle document shall be no longer than 40 pages, comprising approximately 25 pages for theassessment component, and 15 pages for the strategy. It is possible that this will mean shorteningeach of the two separate reports for merger, at which time new annexes would be created toinclude this information.136

General Terms of Reference for the Team1. Each team member will make contributions towards relevant sections of the AssessmentReport. This will be provided, as possible, directly into electronic copies of the report. Draftinputs are due by mid-June, and final inputs by the end of June, following the key informantworkshop.2. Each team member will prepare a specialist sub-report as an annex to the Assessment Report.Draft inputs are due by late June, with final inputs by mid-July.3. Each team member will make contributions towards relevant sections of the Country Strategy.This will be provided, as possible, directly into electronic copies of the report. Draft inputs aredue by mid-July, with final inputs by the end of August. This will include assisting with someaspects of operationalisation of the strategy, associated with advice and inputs on:a. The establishment and operations of the Secretariat.b. Advice on the establishment of a National Innovations Coalition (NIC).c. The establishment and operations of the NIC (if one is established).d. The identification of activities for the Process Facilitator for implementation (withparticular inputs from MIL).e. The elaboration of platforms as possible prior to development of theimplementation plan.4. Each team member will prepare a bibliography of documents consulted, using the formatprovided by the Team Leader in May.5. Each team member will prepare a list of interviews conducted.6. Each team member will prepare brief notes from interviewed conducted.7. Each team member will support the work of the two Zambian consultants by advising oninformation needs, strategies to collect data, identification of gaps, and offering direct supportto the consultants as possible.Terms of Reference for the Zambia Assessment and Strategy Development Team Leader andPoverty and Livelihoods Specialist (David Cownie)1. In consultation with the C1.2 Task Manager and the RIU Zambia Task Manager (1) identifyconsultants for the design team and (ii) develop the Terms of Reference for the Team members2. Develop the approach for the assessment and strategy development process3. Lead the team in:i. Planning the assessment and strategy development processii. Undertaking the assessmentiii. Conceptualising the strategyiv. Developing the strategyv. Drafting the reports at the different stagesvi. Presenting the draft reports to the in-country stakeholders, the IRG and the SMT137

As the Social Scientist on the team, ensure that:vii. socio-economic aspects (especially gender and poverty) are mainstreamed in theassessmentviii. formulate the strategy on how socio-economic considerations should be addressedin the Zambia ProgrammeTerms of Reference for the Innovation Systems Specialist (Ebbie Dengu)The innovation systems approach is central to the RIU Programme. The primary roll of theInnovation advisory is to strengthen all aspects of “innovation thinking” within the Zambiaassessment and strategy. The advisor will:1. With the backstopping of the C1.2 Task Manager and the RIU Southern Africa Task Managerensure that the whole team translates innovation system thinking in all aspects of theassessment and strategy. This shall involve identifying and providing access to relevantliterature on innovation for the use of the team and the stakeholders2. Undertake a general mapping of the national innovation context for pro-poor naturalresources-based development in Zambia3. Assess at the general level the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for enhancingthe use of natural resources for pro-poor innovation4. Outline a possible future trajectory of the innovation systems in Zambia5. Participate in the process of identifying the opportunities for intervening in the innovationsystem in ways that can, within the RIU timeframe, generate the maximum benefits for thepoor and especially strengthen the demand side for research knowledge6. Participate in prioritisation of the opportunities identified and in particular provide theinnovation systems perspective in the process7. For the priority opportunities identified lead in deepening the innovation sub-systempertinent to them and identifying areas for development of innovation platforms8. Participate in the conceptualisation and developing an overarching strategy for theapproaches that should be used to bring about the emergence of institutional arrangementsthat can be effective in nurturing an innovation systems approach to enhancing demand forRNRRS and other research outputs in the Zambian context9. In the stakeholder interactions that the team may hold, ensure that participants develop anadequate and shared understanding of the innovation systems approach10. Work closely with the Zambian resource person on natural resources and policy/institutionalanalysis and produce a joint assessment report on the policy, institutional arrangements andinnovation systems for pro-poor natural resources-based development in Zambia138

Terms of Reference for the Communications and the Information and knowledge servicesmarkets Consultants (Sarah Carriger and Steen Joffe, respectively)The RIU has a specific definition for Information and Knowledge Service Markets (IM) which is:Information and Knowledge Service Markets are financially (and otherwise)sustainable arrangements to enable many-to-many exchanges of information andknowledge for innovation based on public/private market making collaborations anddynamic private sector business and ICT service models.The programme aims to show how information markets can be strengthened, by exploring thefollowing hypothesis:Information and knowledge services that will support programme-poor innovationcan be stimulated through market-making arrangements and improved financial (andother) incentives.The RIU also has a communication strategy that has been agreed with the Client (DFID). Thismajor cross-cutting strategy aims to demonstrate how supporting improved access to (research)information and use of appropriate communication channels by infomediaries, combined withaddressing the incentives for demanding information by users can stimulate wide-scale uptake ofresearch outputs. This approach includes elements of improved marketing of appropriatelypackaged research products for discreet audiences including practitioners, decision makers andthe general public and the use of innovative channels for reaching large numbers of resource-poorcommunities and associated networks.The scoping work on communication and IM should be seen as components of the wider Zambiaagricultural innovation systems. The assessment of the wider system maps relevant actors andinitiatives from the perspective of potential coalitions /partnerships and innovation platforms. Thecommunication and Information markets analyses have a similar starting point but focus explicitlyon all factors that influence the flows of information and knowledge between these actors. Theanalysis embraces both ‘enabling’ institutional factors (and lack of them) including the transactioncosts of information exchanges and structural aspects of the agricultural knowledge economy; andthe institutional arrangements by which information and knowledge flows within the AIS. Withinthis framework, the IM and Communications Consultants on the team shall have the followingTORs:Shared TORs1. Mapping the main actors, national potential and existing capacity for multi-actorcommunication and IM relating to agricultural innovation relevant to the poor. In additionto the traditional channels, he should make special effort to look for channels and139

partnerships that may not be obvious or currently operating in the market, but could havepotential to do so i.e. look for innovators.2. Through consultations with a range of stakeholders including but not limited to key publicand private agencies involved in or supporting research & technology generation,extension and other rural services, (rural) telecommunications and ICTs, as well aspotential intermediaries, and demand-side farmer/community based organizations:i. Identify the means by which different elements of the agricultural innovationsystem ‘talk to each other’ and exchange information and knowledge, and identifythe constraints and opportunities in doing this.ii. Identify the linkages that exist between the various actors and the ruralcommunities and public and private rural development initiativesiii. Identify and characterise the communications sector, the current trends and factorsinfluencing its development.iv. Identify the ‘Knowledge generators’: public and private research and highereducation bodies, and the regional/international frameworks/networks withinwhich they operate.v. Identify the public and private intermediary ‘information and knowledge serviceproviders’ (infomediaries) and the constraints and opportunities for them to engagein information marketsvi. Collect information on other relevant aspects to IM that should be taken intoconsideration in developing a communication and an IM strategy for Zambia3. Produce a background report on the communications and information market context inZambia based on the information collected in the activities under points 1 and 2 above.Specific TORs for the Information Markets Consultant1. Contribute the information markets perspective during stakeholder interactions that may beorganized as part of the assessment and strategy design process and in general lead theinteractions with stakeholders that are aimed at identifying the predominant blockages/gapsand opportunities for information markets.2. Analyse the issues identified within the background assessment (Shared ToR, above) and distilspecific (potential) opportunities for RIU and Zambian stakeholders to be further validated andworked up during the Strategy development phase. Based on this analysis, contribute towardsrelevant sections of the Country Assessment Report and also prepare a specialist sub-report asan Annex to the Assessment.3. Recommend a strategy that the RIU should adopt for IM in Zambia. The strategy should beconsistent with the RIU definition of IM and also contribute to validating/ nullifying the RIUhypothesis on IM. It should also be aligned with the policies of the Government of Zambia. Thestrategy should be integrated and consistent with the broader innovation systems approachand contributions of other specialists. It should aim to be no more than 2 pages in length, butmay be associated with detailed annexes.140

4. Provide technical inputs and supervision as may be needed in the area of information marketsrelating to contributions of Zambian resource persons.5. Take part in ongoing team and stakeholder interactions as may be needed (consistent withavailability) in order to see the Assessment and Strategy through in to a viable agreedProgramme ready to proceed to detailed implementation planning.Specific TOR for the Communications Consultant1. Contribute the communication perspective during stakeholder interactions that may beorganized as part of the assessment and strategy design process and in general lead theinteractions with stakeholders that are aimed at identifying the predominant blockages/ gapsand opportunities for communication2. Produce a communication assessment report that analyses the communications issuesidentified within the background report (Shared ToR, above) and identifies specific (potential)opportunities to:a. Add value to existing activities by increasing the capacity of infomediaries to sourceand package information, documenting and publicising successful demand-drivenmodels, and encouraging improved communication between innovation system actors.b. Identify partners for communicating RNRSS outputs to potential users – quick winswhich can fuel interest in the programme.c. Raise awareness of RIU activities and the innovation system and information marketsapproach.3. Recommend a strategy that the RIU should adopt for communication in Zambia. The strategyshould be integrated with the larger RIU Zambia Strategy, particularly the informationmarkets component, and should be consistent with the global RIU communication strategy andwith the policies of the Government of Zambia. The strategy should not be more than 2 pagesin the main text but may be associated with the detailed annex in 2 above.4. Take part in ongoing team and stakeholder interactions as needed (consistent with availability)in order to see the Assessment and Strategy through in to a viable agreed Programme ready toproceed to detailed implementation planning.5. Provide inputs into the main Assessment Report and the main Country Strategy.Terms of Reference Zambian Resource Person on Natural Resources and Policies/InstitutionsBe a resource for all the team on:1. The current status of national agricultural and natural resources system in Zambia includingrelevant policies, strategies, programmes and institutional landscape for agricultural andnatural resources research and development2. Identification of key actors in the agricultural and natural resources innovation system thatservices the poor141

3. Identifying, collecting and participating in the review of key documents relevant to agricultureand natural resources development4. Initial validation of the assessment and strategy from a natural resources perspective5. Interacting with key stakeholders in the agricultural natural resources sectors6. Political and socio-economic assessment of the Zambian innovation system7. Identification of key policies, trends and strategies for socio-economic development in thecontext of supporting pro-poor innovation8. Identifying, collecting and participating in the review of key documents relevant to Zambiannational development policies, strategies and programmes9. Linking with policy makers and the development community10. Initial validation of the assessment and strategy from a policy and socio-economic perspectiveInteractions with key stakeholders11. Help organise and conduct 10-15 key informant interviews12. Assist with one district-level field visit13. Any other duties as may be assigned by the Team LeaderIn addition, the Consultant will also prepare additional inputs associated with the following:14. Provide an overview of the development context in the country15. To the extent that data are available, indicate the extent to which rural producers are receivingservices, are linked to markets, and provide information on similar variables16. Outline any challenges that may face RIU in terms of issues such as dependency, the lack ofspace for local initiative, and challenges facing working directly with rural households17. Outline any opportunities that RIU may support in terms of local initiatives18. Give an overview of the socio-economic and environmental aspects of the assessment19. Review the Assessment Report and the Country Strategy with an eye to environmental issues20. Help organise and conduct 10-15 key informant interviews. The focus should be on NGOswith an eye towards how RIU can link with NGOs as possible partners to ensure that the poorand disenfranchised are engaged in platforms as partners with influenceNational Resource Person on Cross-Cutting Issues (Gender, Poverty and Livelihoods)1. Assemble relevant materials and provide electronic and hard copies to the Team Leader(checked against the documents already held by the team)2. Provide an overview of rural livelihoods, and the diversity of livelihoods across the country. Itis especially important to ensure that the report includes a discussion of changes over time,and what the current situation is3. Outline gender roles in terms of rural livelihoods, and indicate diversity in this respect acrossthe country142

4. Describe linkages between agriculture and other aspects of rural livelihoods (e.g., forestry,community-based natural resource management, eco-tourism, environment, small enterprises,trading, rural-urban linkages and the formal economy, etc.)5. Identify key trends, polices and strategies relating to gender, poverty and the environment6. Identify and collect key documents relevant to gender, poverty, environment and rurallivelihoods7. Prepare a specialist sub-report on cross-cutting issues8. Review the Assessment Report and the Country Strategy with an eye to gender, poverty, andrural livelihoods issues9. Any other duties as may be assigned by the Team Leader143