PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND ANNUAL AGRICULTURAL
POLICY CONFERENCE
Held at Serena Hotel – Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
FEBRUARY 23RD – 25TH, 2016
February 2016
This report was compiled by Andrew E. Temu, Magreth Henjewele and Godgift Swai
i
Contents
CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................................ I
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................ II
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ V
A. INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................... V
B. SESSION 1: INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY IN AGRICULTURE: MOBILE TECHNOLOGY ............................................... V
C. SESSION 2: AGRICULTURE SECTOR POLICY................................................................................................................. VI
D. SESSION 3: AGRICULTURE MARKETS AND TRADE POLICY ........................................................................................ VIII
E. SESSION 4: ENABLING POLICY FOR PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENT ............................................................................... IX
F. SESSION 5: LAND TENURE POLICY ............................................................................................................................... X
G. SESSION 6: ACCESS TO FINANCE AND TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ XI
H. SESSION 7: AGRICULTURE INPUT POLICY .................................................................................................................. XII
1. OTHER ISSUES OF CONCERN RAISED FROM THE CONFERENCE ................................................................................... XIII
J. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................. XIV
2. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................ 1
2.1 ABOUT AAPC ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
2.2 THE CONFERENCE .................................................................................................................................................... 1
3. CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS ................................................................................................................ 3
3.1 WELCOMING REMARKS ............................................................................................................................................ 3
3.2 LESSONS FROM YOUNG ENTREPRENEURS ................................................................................................................... 3
3.3 OFFICIAL OPENING REMARKS FROM GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES ........................................................................ 7
3.4 SESSION 1: INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY IN AGRICULTURE: MOBILE TECHNOLOGY ........................................... 10
3.5 OPENING REMARKS AND ACKNOWLEDGING ATTENDANCE BY THE PERMANENT SECRETARY – MALF ....................... 16
3.6. SESSION 2: AGRICULTURE SECTOR POLICY ............................................................................................................. 19
3.7. SESSION 3: AGRICULTURE MARKETS AND TRADE POLICY ........................................................................................ 26
3.8. SESSION 4: ENABLING POLICY FOR PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENT ............................................................................ 38
3.9. SESSION 5: LAND TENURE POLICY .......................................................................................................................... 52
3.10 SESSION 6: ACCESS TO FINANCE AND TECHNOLOGY............................................................................................. 60
3.11. SESSION 7: AGRICULTURE INPUT POLICY .............................................................................................................. 68
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 80
5. CLOSING REMARKS ................................................................................................................................. 82
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................................. 84
ii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AAPC Annual Agricultural Policy Conference
AGRA Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa
AMDT Agricultural Markets Development Trust
ANSAF Agricultural Non State Actors Forum
ASDP Agricultural Sector Development Programme
BRN Big Results Now
CCROs Certificates of Customary Rights of Occupancy
CEO Chief Executive Officer
EA Eastern Africa
EAGC Eastern Africa Grain Council
EBA Enabling the Business of Agriculture
ESA Eastern and Southern Africa
ESRF Economic and Social Research Foundation
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GoT Government of Tanzania
MALF Ministry of Agriculture Livestock and Fishing
MAFAP Monitoring and Analysing Food and Agricultural Policies
MIRA Micro-Reforms for African Agribusiness
MLHHSD Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development
MNO Mobile Network Provider
MoFP Ministry of Finance and Planning
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
MSF Medium Scale Farmer
MSU Michigan State University
MVIWATA National Network of Farmers Groups in Tanzania
NAIVS National Agricultural Input Voucher system
NEMC National Environment Management Council
NFRA National Food Reserve Agency
NGO Non Government Organization
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
PAG Policy Analysis Group
PCD Policy Coherence for Development
PDB President’s Delivery Bureau
PAPAC Platform for Agricultural Policy Analysis and Coordination
REA Rural Energy Agency
RUDI Rural Urban Development Initiative
SADC Southern African Development Community
SAGCOT Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania
SHF Smallholder Farmers
SMEs small and medium-sized enterprises
SUA Sokoine University of Agriculture
iii
TAHA Tanzania Horticultural Association
TACRI Tanzania Coffee Research Institute
TAMISEMI Tawala za Mikoa na Serikali za Mitaa
TCRA Tanzania Communication Regulatory Authority
TDB Trade and Development Banks
TIC Tanzania Investment Centre
TTCL Tanzania Telecommunications Company Limited
USA United States of America
USAID United States Agency for International Development
UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization
VAT Value Added Tax
VICOBA Village Community Banks
WBG World Bank Group
v
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Introduction, Background and Objectives
The 2nd Annual Agricultural Policy Conference was organized by the Policy Analysis Group
(PAG) under a theme titled “Agricultural Sector Transformation for Food Security, Jobs Creation
and Poverty Reduction”. The event was held from the 23rd to 25th February 2016 at the
Serena Hotel, Dar es Salaam.
The 2016 Agricultural Policy Conference
aimed at reaching to a common
understanding among the agriculture
stakeholders on the following overarching
issues:
i. The way forward in the agricultural
sector transformation to achieve the
objectives of the Vision 2025, on food
security, employment and poverty
reduction;
ii. To remind stakeholders about the
policy promises made by the
government to the private sector in
2011 and what is happening on the
ground concerning agriculture
transformation in Tanzania;
iii. To underscore the importance of the
main pillars set up by Kilimo Kwanza
in 2009, which laid the roadmap for
further initiatives in the
transformation process including the
SAGCOT, BRN and the stake they
have in the ASDP-2.
The conference enrolled 145, 130 and 111 participants in days 1, 2 and 3 respectively. They
came from public and private sectors, development partners, research institutions and
academia and from projects and programs. The summary of key themes, deliberations made
and issues raised are as follows:
B. Session 1: Innovation and Technology in Agriculture: Mobile technology
The thematic area had seven presentations namely (i) Use of mobile telephone in M&E (ii)
Digital payment of local tax (iii) Mobile Application to Secure Tenure/CCRO (iv) SRI –
Nutrition, checking your HB (v) Application of Mobile Technology in Disseminating Market
Information for Horticulture Produce, and (vi) Mobile Kilimo.
The Key note paper on the New Alliance/ CAADP
framework progress in Tanzania identified the
following key issues from the session, which also
suggest potential researches and policy interventions
to be undertaken by the PAG/PAC:
i. Emerging new issues under the New
Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition.
Mechanisms of how they can be adopted by
the New Alliance Matrix being established;
ii. Aligning the New Alliance for FS and N with
CAADP and ASDP II. It was resolved that as
part of the intervention PAG/PAC should
work to ensure that issues in the New
Alliance for FS & N are mainstreamed in the
ASDP II;
iii. The Department of Policy and Planning
(DPP) should join the PAC to enlighten the
new leadership at MALF on the progress
and the needed intervention;
iv. Institutional members of the PAG including
SAGCOT, ReSAKSS and Africa Lead should
assist PAC to attain timely delivery of
progress report;
vi
Several issues emerged during the
discussion, one of them being the
transformation that mobile phones can
bring in the agriculture sector. It was
reported that by September, 2015 over 36
million Tanzanians (75% of the total
population) were using mobile phones.
This is a significantly large number than in
any country in Africa.
The device creates a huge opportunity for
agriculture transformation due to large size
of people who can be reached within a
short period, compared to other
traditional methods of disseminating
information. It was emphasized that mobile
phones should not be viewed just as
normal communication devices.
Its application in agriculture can ensure
quick transactions, technology transfer, and
information about buyers and sellers,
agronomic practices, to simplify access to
land tenure management by the village
communities and to device new health
mechanisms for the local communities.
Mobile phones applications have also shown the way forward towards effective revenue
collections by the LGAs which for years could not find an appropriate solution. It was
observed from this session that there are a lot of efforts going on in this sector in terms of
developing new technologies for agriculture.
C. Session 2: Agriculture Sector Policy
The agriculture sector policy covered three sessions including: (i) Policy Options for Food
Security, Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction (ii) Impact of NFRA procurement
pricing on maize markets and (iii) An assessment of COWABAMAS and NFRA with policy
implications to sustainable marketing. It was emphasized that Tanzania has a unique
opportunity to improve food security by increasing agricultural growth and rural incomes
through exports of food crops to the East Africa region. Despite the abundant natural
resources for production, it faces a regional market that is food deficit partly because of
rapid population increase and income growth. Therefore, Tanzania’s exports will depend
mostly on its ability to increase production and access the regional markets.
Key Issues and Potential Research/
Intervention Recommendation
Due to the large number of mobile phone
applications being developed for agriculture, but
also charging different rates, the following key
issues emerged from the session:
i. The need to explore the possibility of
harmonizing and aggregating the
initiatives to ensure effective
coordination in terms of operation and
pricing;
ii. Looking for mechanisms on how the
potential of mobile phone applications
can be incorporated in the ASDP-2;
iii. Sustainability: There is a need to ensure
that mobile applications support
agriculture after the end of the donor
support;
vii
Enabling policies are essential for Tanzania to
achieve its export potential. Tanzania has to
provide incentives to farmers for them to
increase production and maintain access to
regional markets. The policies should focus
on private sector-led growth, encouraging
exports, and allowing market forces to guide
the economy.
Regarding the NFRA pricing it was pointed
out that without NFRA buying premiums;
wholesale prices are marginally higher in Dar
es Salaam, more volatile in Songea, and
insignificantly different from observed prices
elsewhere. Despite potentially significant
localized disruptions, NFRA does not seem to
have a substantial distortive impact on
markets in general. The ambition to expand
NFRA capacity, presumably with a view to
have a stronger price stabilization role, should
be pursued with caution. There were high
reactions from participants concerning the
presenter’s view that NFRA premiums will
distort the market. Likewise participants
questioned the emphasis placed on food
exports, particularly maize and paddy, unlike
other food crops as was portrayed by the
presentation.
Preliminary assessment of COWABAMAS
and NFRA policy implication to sustainable
marketing revealed a number of key issues
including: (i) Missed targets as a result of
delayed funding (ii) Lack of ownership by the
LGAs/villages (iii) Misuse of the facilities, (iv)
Weak institutional setup (v) Financial
management and (iv) Limited infrastructural
and financial capacity of NFRA.
Participants recommended that SERA and MAFAP should work very closely with ANSAF to
further explore how COWABAMAS can be set to operate effectively taking into account
the issues observed.
Key issues and Potential Intervention/
Research Recommendation
Key issues
i. The infamous export bans have been
removed but the current export permits
suffocate trade despite decentralization.
Export oriented policies are necessary to
promote farmers production and access to
regional markets;
ii. NFRA–stock size - trading off food shortage
risk versus opportunity cost of holding large
stock – pose a fiscal burden. There is a need
to encourage policies that promote market
forces;
iii. NFRA pricing policy – its stabilization policy
is not effective and causes market
distortions. NFRA’s mandate versus that of
the Disaster Management Unit needs to be
defined;
iv. What is needed is a sustainable solution
that would lead to production of surplus at
levels that would establish Tanzania as a
consistent regional exporter of maize;
Potential Interventions/Research
Recommendation
i. Institutionalization of free trade by
encouraging policies that promote market
forces e.g. through legislation;
ii. PAG should engage in a dialogue with MALF
regarding the NFRA stocking and
anticipated expansion;
iii. There is a need to undertake a complete
research regarding NFRA pricing policy;
iv. There is a need to undertake CGE modeling
on returns to public investments focusing
on NFRA, NAIVS, COWABAMAS etc
viii
D. Session 3: Agriculture Markets and Trade Policy
This session had three presentations on (i)
Food systems transformation in Tanzania
(ii) The Impact of EU Trade and
Investment policies on Tanzania’s
Agriculture, and (iii) Evidence based
decision-making in implementation of
agriculture strategies: Challenges and
Opportunities of agriculture M&E in
Tanzania. The study highlighted that
urbanization and income growth in Africa
are driving a transformation of dietary
preferences and patterns. This is revealed
by a vast increase in the demand for non
traditional food in not only urban but also
rural markets. The changes in the market
demand necessitates adjustments in the
food manufacturing industry including both
the emergence of modern retails
(assembled kiosks with variety of food
products – dairy, bakery, meats etc. at a
location) and improved traditional retails.
The fact is manifested by an increasing
demand for processed grains, packaged
rice, dairy products and juices in major
cities like Dar es Salaam, Mwanza and
Arusha. Likewise, Tanzania’s products are
seen to dominate the market in the major
cities as compared to imported ones. The
key message from the session is that the
transformation process is still at its infancy
to determine the fate/future capability of
young Tanzanian companies to compete
with the larger locals or the prominent
importing companies. Inefficient policy
enforcement allowing illegal imports was
among the issues raised from the floor.
Participants were concerned about the
weak position of African countries during
negotiations in Global Standards platforms.
Key issues and Potential Intervention/
Research Recommendation
Key issues
i. Threats from commodity importation through
parallel markets, partly due to lack of rule
based import policy and inefficient market
intelligence;
ii. Differences in tariffs between Zanzibar and
Mainland;
iii. The implication of the food system
transformation on SHFs, women and youth
employment, food safety, agro-processing and
agriculture sector transformation;
iv. The challenge faced by producers to meet
multiple standards imposed for agriculture
produce by various regulatory bodies.
Potential Intervention/ Research
Recommendation
i. Instituting the rule-based import policy;
ii. Establishment of the Market Intelligence Unit
to monitor imports through parallel markets;
iii. Make export data available – including mobile
and e- payment for local taxes;
iv. Implementing a comprehensive research on
food systems transformation;
v. Promoting transparency in the market through
commodity exchange;
ix
The need for strong M&E to be part of the agriculture transformation under the ASDP-2
was also emphasized. Issues pertaining to coordination and drawing the lessons learnt from
ASDP I, organizational matrix and the role of IT were similarly raised from the floor.
E. Session 4: Enabling Policy for Private Sector Investment
The findings from the WBG Study on Enabling the Business of Agriculture (EBA) 2016, was
based on examples from 40 countries. The project aimed at providing the governments
with defined good practices that can inform policy making and trigger reforms. The
indicators were developed to assess various aspects relating to production inputs and
market enablers. The findings indicated that there is a balanced number of good practice
and areas for improvement in most countries including Tanzania. The interesting aspect of
the study is that Tanzania scored above average in all areas except for markets. The study
recommended strengthening the legal regimes to promote quality control and trade.
The study on Business Environment for
Tanzanian Agriculture highlighted that
increasing the number of large commercial
farms could increase employment in the
sector and provide more opportunities for
out growers. But Tanzania has not been very
successful at attracting large foreign or
domestic investors. It was pointed out that
comparatively Zambia has far more large
commercial farms while Mozambique and
Tanzania have attracted a few large
commercial investors. Legal frameworks
with regard to land ownership and
accessibility in the two countries were
criticized by the study.
The study underscored that unlike Tanzania,
Zambia has an active land market and easy
access to land for investors. Participants
underscored the importance of this study as
investments are needed to accelerate
transformation, and questioned what the
government and partners have done with the
results.
The study on a coffee value chain revealed
that despite the growing demand globally,
Tanzania’s output has continued to decline
each year, reaching 50,000 MT in 2011.
Key issues and Potential
Intervention/ Research
Recommendation
Key Issues
i. High produce CESS;
ii. High VAT for agriculture
produce;
iii. High Corporate Tax – this
necessitates a tax review;
iv. Unfavorable land tenure policy;
v. WB/ EBA report validation –
e.g. input sector rated as
performing well
Potential Intervention/ Research
Recommendation
i. Review of Local Government
Finance Act, 1982 to improve
CESS;
ii. Need for VAT bill review;
iii. Need for corporate tax review;
iv. Land tenure issues pertaining to
SHFs should form incentive to
agriculture bill;
v. Need for research on fertilizer
marketing and transport cost;
x
It was reported that the crop is a ‘cash-intensive’ one a thing that discourages engagement
of SHFs as they are faced with mounting costs of inputs (CAN, UREA fertilizers) which are
largely imported at increasingly higher prices. The regulatory loopholes have also had
significant impact on the price of coffee.
It was similarly revealed that, Soya has the potential to significantly contribute to improving
livelihoods and food security in the country. This being the case, the study emphasized a
need to facilitate advancements of the soya value chain. In order to spur adoption and SHFs
involvement in the chain participants advocated the implementation of the SADC seed
harmonisation policy that to a large extent has taken a slow pace.
F. Session 5: Land Tenure Policy
This session covered papers from two
studies that addressed questions on (I)
Agricultural Land Dynamics and Land Policy
in Rural Tanzania and (ii) Land
Compensation Schemes and Valuation
Models. The first paper was concerned with
what is not happening in agriculture
transformation in Tanzania, despite the long
term efforts undertaken by the government.
The study pointed out that one of the
factors underlying land dynamics in Tanzania
is the increase in population which has had
negative implications on land leading to
declining land sizes per farming household.
It was pointed out that another factor is a
rapid change in farm structures coupled by
the growth of medium scale or “emergent”
farmers. The medium scale farmers are
found to be more productive than
traditional low input using smallholders.
One policy implication that has to be
addressed as a result of these observations
is whether the focus now and much support
should go to medium scale farmers or
maintain the focus on smallholder farmers.
It was agreed that issue in note either of
them but the need to strike the right
balance between small and medium scale
farms, and this will translate into the
government policy objectives.
Key issues and Potential
Intervention/ Research
Recommendation
Key Issues
i. Emerging medium size farms
threatening the fate of SHFs;
ii. The need for a definition of
medium size farms in the
Tanzanian context;
iii. Ongoing conflicts between
farmers and livestock
keepers;
iv. Scaling up land surveying, land
use management and titling;
v. The need to institutionalise
and enhance protection of the
country’s farm land;
Potential Intervention/ Research
Recommendation
i. Need to carryout complete
research on the access to land;
ii. Need to carryout research on
land/ resource conflicts.
iii. Need for preparation of
Protection of Farm Land Bill;
xi
If medium scale farms are more productive, then if the government is after food security
and exports – the medium scale farmers deserve support. The paper likewise raised many
questions from the floor as which criteria were used to define small, medium and large scale
farmers.
The second presentation addressed the fact that GoT is seeking to leverage significant
investors’ interest in its agricultural sector to spur agricultural-led growth. However in
carrying out the endeavor the government faces the challenge of how to fairly compensate
current holders of land rights, while meeting the legitimate interests of investors and the
government. The study discussed three compensation options for leases namely (1) fixed-
price leases, (2) land for equity arrangements, and (3) other risk-sharing arrangements.
Taking into account the advantages and disadvantages that each model has for the right
holder, the study underscored the importance of accurately valuing land to ensure that land
rights holders receive an equitable share of the benefits. There was concern from the
participants that although the majority of the SHFs are women, they did not feature well in
almost all presentations. It was similarly urged that the view towards SHFs should be
changed by looking at them more progressively as evidence suggests the possibility of
dropping from 70% of the population being smallholder farmers to 49% by 2025.
G. Session 6: Access to Finance and Technology
The session presented three issues on (i) Modern Secured Transaction Law (ii) Leveraging
Mobile Technology in Accessing Market Information and Financial Services (ii) Smart
Farming in Tanzania including Hydroponic, Acquaponic and Azora Technologies. The first
study highlighted that Tanzania’s laws control the use of personal property for collateral
purposes. Because of the current laws on loans securitization, Tanzania’s millions of SHFs
find it difficult or impossible to obtain credit. The existing legal restrictions on credit in
Tanzania hamper the national economy, hinder growth and reduce employment.
In the past two decades countries around
the world including in Africa, have begun
to transform their national credit laws.
This is through reform of national Personal
Property Security Act (“PPSA”) and similar
laws. Tanzanian has embarked on a process
of drafting a proposed new PPSA by
involving the local and international legal
experts. The proposed law is thought to
unify existing diverse laws into a single
system and establish a national electronic
registry for instant registration of security
against personal property. Among the
questions raised was why the law is not
happening in Tanzania, and how long was it
Key issues and Potential Intervention/
Research Recommendation
Key Issues
i. Leveraging movable assets as collateral;
ii. Lack of appropriate credit products for
small holder farmers
Potential Intervention/ Research
Recommendation
i. Need for secured transaction reforms;
ii. Research on agriculture finance –
emphasizing on value chain finance
particularly for food crops and the likely
potential risks facing financial institutions;
iii. Research on warehouse management
systems – the need to address negative
trends such as the substantial money loss
reported for sunflower;
xii
for it to pass in other countries. How the
law is related to the Leasing Finance Act
and the Warehouse Receipt System Act
was another issue of concern.
The second presentation revealed the fact that Tanzania is the country with the highest
mobile phone penetration in Africa, with an equivalence of 79.9% of the current population.
The main issue was how to tap the benefits associated with the technology to enhance
agriculture transformation. The study identified three areas of policy concern: (1) the need
for regulations to include financial inclusion; (2) emphasis on working with a regulated
service provider; and (3) the need to improve security.
The presentation on smart farming introduced three types of smart farming technologies
namely; (1) hydroponic system – fodder; (2) aquaponic system – Vegetables and (3) Azolla-
Animal feeds. The technologies together involve farming without soil. Having pilot studies
in six districts, the hydroponic fodder system is a temperature and humidity controlled
growing room – designed to sprout nutritious grains. The aquaponics system involves
growing food with fish poop. Azolla is an aquatic fern which is used both as a biofertilizer
and for green manuring in rice cultivation. Among the questions that drew attention of the
participants is the very little information on the cost of the hydroponic fodder and the
reasons behind those technologies in a country with an abundance of arable land.
H. Session 7: Agriculture Input Policy
This session had three presentations namely: (1) Influencing Micro (policy and regulatory)
changes in Tanzania (2) Evaluation of Agricultural Mechanization Interventions under
ASDP1; and (3) Smallholder maize-nitrogen response rates, soil fertility, and profitability of
inorganic fertilizer use on maize in Tanzania.
The first paper presented challenges in
influencing policy and regulatory changes at
micro level, based on experiences from the
soil health node (SHN) in Tanzania. The
implementation of SHN intended to improve
soil and crop productivity to alleviate poverty
and increase food security through the
application of favorable soil health policies.
The findings indicated that the NAIVS were
effective in terms of supporting SHFs to
access agricultural inputs; to improve
production and productivity. However, some
challenges were observed in the areas of
fertilizer procurement and administration,
Key issues and Potential Intervention/
Research Recommendation
Key Issues
i. Low fertilizer response and the need to
package NAIVS with other interventions;
ii. Challenges in targeting beneficiaries and
system abuse by agro dealers;
iii. Fiscal burden in implementing the NAIVS
Potential Intervention/ Research
Recommendation
i. Dialogue with MALF as NAIVS are being
reviewed;
ii. Carrying out a pilot e-voucher system;
iii. Applying CGE modeling to guide
rationalization of resource use patterns;
iv. Reducing subsidy rate by the government;
xiii
selection criteria, delivery effectiveness, and
beneficiary targeting.
The study emphasized continuous collaboration with the government and need for technical
assistance. The second study’s focus was on the evaluation of agro-mechanization
interventions in Tanzania. It mainly undertook a scoping exercise to systematically gather
and examine existing information on the agro-mechanization sub-sector. The strengths and
weaknesses unveiled by the impact of the interventions under ASDP 1 provided useful
insights to participants on the key questions to be addressed under the ASDP-2. The
framework for the study embraced experiences from SSA and Asia from 1960s to 2000s, –
in a view of long term perspective on the impact of the interventions.
The study points that the status of agricultural mechanization in Tanzania and in most of
SSA, has for the past fifty years, remained at the lowest phase of the mechanization process
in which the animal power is replaced with mechanical power. Gradual investments in
agricultural machines have been observed since independence. However there was a
remarkable importation of two-wheel tractors [2WT] and four-wheel tractors [4WT]
under the ASDP I. Despite such investment, anecdotal evidence exists that there is high
degree of mobility of 4WT between regions following rainfall isohyets and land preparation
seasons. The available data also shows an imbalance between numbers of 4WT and the
associated implements for land preparation in some regions.
The third presentation aimed specifically at addressing two issues: (i) how smallholder
maize-N response rates compare with those from zonal research centers and (ii) the extent
to which fertilizer use on maize is profitable under smallholder conditions. Smallholders’
maize N- response is determined by: agro–ecological factors, plot-level factors such as soil
type and nutrient levels, fertilizer type and the adopted application rate, and complementary
input use. The study indicates that fertilizer improves yields and in turn profitability in many
areas. Therefore, among other issues the paper advocates the need for an updated
knowledge and best practices to increase maize-N response.
1. Other Issues of Concern Raised from the Conference
During closing day other issues of concern emerged during discussions as shown in the call-
out box below:
i. The need for consistency and anchoring the current efforts into the pillars
of Kilimo Kwanza;
ii. More representation and feedback from Private Sector is needed - This
could be the best way to get ideas e.g. industrialization policy challenges;
iii. Fisheries and Livestock received relatively less attention in the meeting;
iv. Environment and Climate Change as a crosscutting issue in agriculture did
not feature in the meeting;
v. Better coordination and cross feeding of information across initiatives is
underscored even within the sector interrelationships: Land–Finance-
Mechanization-Inputs etc. SILOS of Initiatives might not work.
xiv
J. Conclusion and Recommendations
In summary, for more effective policies in agricultural sector, common approaches and way
forward require the following:
Continuous and proactive engagement with government decision making and use
“windows of opportunity” in the political process;
Provision of technical assistance to build case to inform government decision making
and influence approval of reforms;
Increased consultations and involvement of the private sector for better results;
1
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 ABOUT AAPC
The 2nd Annual Agriculture Policy Conference was held from 23rd to 25th February 2016 in
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The Multi-Stakeholder event aimed at assessing the changing
landscape of Tanzania’s agriculture and the role of evidence-based policy making process in
shaping that change.
It was organized and coordinated by the Policy Analysis Group (PAG) organizations
including the GoT through PAPAC, REPOA, USAID, ANSAF, AGRA, SAGCOT, ReSAKKS,
MAFAP, ESRF, Africa Lead and ADMT.
The policy conference reiterated the need for more evidence based policy making process
as one of the means to achieve greater food security and poverty reduction. It had drawn
presenters and participants from amongst policy makers in the local and central
government, commodity boards, regulatory bodies, NSAs, private sector including financial
institutions, and academia and research institutions among others.
The theme of the meeting was: Agricultural Sector Transformation for Food Security, Jobs
Creation and Poverty Reduction”.
2.2 The Conference
The 2016 Agricultural Policy Conference aimed at bringing the common understanding
among the agriculture stakeholders on the following overarching issues:
i. The way forward in the agricultural sector transformation to achieve the objectives
of the Vision 2025, on food security, employment and poverty reduction;
ii. To remind stakeholders about the policy promises made by the government to
private sector in 2011 and what is happening in the agriculture transformation
process in Tanzania
iii. To underscore the importance of the main pillars set up by Kilimo Kwanza in 2009,
which laid the roadmap for further initiatives in the transformation process
including SAGCOT, BRN and the roles they play in the ASDP-2;
Participants
The 2016 Agricultural Policy Conference brought together participants from diverse
sectors including the government, research institutions, academia, NGOs, farmers’
organizations, private sector, development industry and the media. The analysis of
conference participation for three days is highlighted below: A full list of participants and
their respective organisations is provided in Appendix 1.
2
Table 1: Number of Participants –by Gender, Organizational Type and Nationality
Descri
ption
GENDER NATURE OF ORGANIZATION NATIONALITY
M F Total 1 2 3 4 5 Total TZ N/T Total
DAY 1 119 26 145 43 18 3 31 25 120 126 15 141
DAY 2 96 34 130 44 13 5 31 30 123 111 19 130
DAY 3 81 30 111 40 10 4 20 24 98 101 10 111
Source: Compiled by Author
Key: M=Male, F=Female, 1=Govt/public, 2=Research/university, 3=Farmer organization,
4=Private, 5=NGO, 6=Unspecified, TZ=Tanzanian, N/T=Non Tanzanian
3
3. CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
3.1 Welcoming Remarks
The main facilitator, Prof. Andrew Temu welcomed the participants on behalf of the
organizers. Before he invited Prof. Samwel Wangwe, the Chairman for the PAG to give
welcoming remarks and introduction, three young entrepreneurs Philemon Kiyemi, Gadaffi
Awadhi and Anna Malongo were invited to share their success stories, before the
participants. Inspirational video clips showing their activities were also displayed, and
participants had an opportunity to hear the challenges they face, the kind of incentives they
get from the government and whether they are linked with the youth groups. This was
followed by the introductory remarks that were given by Prof. Samwel Wangwe who
among other things commended the promising work done by the young entrepreneurs.
3.2 Lessons from Young Entrepreneurs
Before the official opening session, three young entrepreneurs involved in beekeeping, fish
farming and leather processing were invited to share their experiences. They had an
opportunity to respond to various questions from the participants.
Moderator: Mr. Juma B. Ngomuo- EAGC
Presenters:
Philemon Kiyemi, Beekeeping – Singida
Gadaffi Awadhi, Fish Farming – Geita
Anna Malongo, Leather Processing and Leather Products – Chololo, Dodoma
Figure 1: The Main Facilitator, Prof. Andrew Temu
giving remarks in one of the AAPCC II sessions
Figure 2: The Chairman of the PAG, Prof. Samwel
Wangwe giving remarks in the AAPC II.
4
Discussion 1: Leather Processing and Lather Products, by Anna Malongo
Ms Anna Malongo is operating leather processing factory in Chololo in Dodoma. Apart
from leather processing, the factory manufactures various lather products such as shoes.
This young entrepreneur from VETA had a success story about how she came up with an
idea, the opportunities and challenges she face in the business life. The following main
points were taken;
She highlighted that currently she is working with other five young people from the
village, hence creating direct employment. The animal skins she buy from the local
cattle markets also generate indirect employment in the area.
Despite the promising success she encounters some major challenges in doing her business
which include the following;
i. Lack of modern processing machines to get high quality leather;
ii. Lack of modern machines for leather products manufacturing;
iii. Lack of reliable markets, mostly relying on the market for primary and
secondary school children;
iv. Competition from high quality manufacturers. However she has been reading
about the business dynamics to be informed of new catalogue and looking at
what is in the market, so that she may produce products that are suitable for
the market;
v. Products have not been able to fully satisfy the youths demands for modern
shoes;
Discussion 2: Fish Farming and Breeding
Mr. Gadaffi Awadhi is a young entrepreneur who currently engages in fish farming
particularly for fresh water Tilapia and Catfish. Following a short course he acquired from
SUA, Morogoro, he successfully engaged in the business. Apart from selling fish to various
clients in the country he is also doing breeding business.
He emphasized that initially he started with 3x5m2 ponds, but currently he is running 12
ponds with 10x20m2.
He highlighted that he has not experienced many challenges in his business except high
prices for fish feed. However to overcome the challenges he decided to prepare his own
food.
Discussion 3: Beekeeping and Bee Products, by Phlemon Kiyemi
Mr. Kihemi has gained success in the industry as he has been able to sell in the local market
and to some of the external markets. However he emphasized that there are still many
challenges that hinder their access to the international markets such as EU, USA, Canada,
China and Korea. The following were the main challenges identified:
5
i. Multiple bee hives. There is a need to specify bee hives to be adopted in specific
areas. More research to be done in this area;
ii. No specific areas for beekeeping. He emphasized that, 95% of the areas for
beekeeping have not been surveyed. This pose a challenge to meet international
standards most of which requires a radius of 3-4kms from a bee hive location to
human settlements;
iii. Few laboratories specifically developed for bee products;
iv. Regulations for some products such as bee venom and royal jelly are not well
specified in the policy;
v. Unspecified regulations and inspection procedures for bee products at the
country level. Foreign materials are obstacles to their exports for instance at the
Canadian Inspection Authority;
vi. Restriction of the Village land by the Land frameworks. The Village Land Acts
No. 5, of 1995 restricts the village government from issuing more than 50
Acres. LGA are also restricted to giving 100m;
vii. High interest rates proposed by financial institutions. The banks should set a
long grace period for the beekeeping and related industry;
viii. Long term experience required in order to secure funding. For instance NSSF
required his enterprise an experience of 5 years before it can qualify for the
loan;
Questions from the Session Moderator
i. What incentives do you get from the LGA/ Village and GoT?
The three presenters addressed the question in the following ways:
Philemon Kiyemi
i. He highlighted that he is getting good cooperation from the GoT at various levels in Village
and LGA. Employment benefits to other young people and visits inferred to his farm by the
Village Government are some of the incentives;
ii. Tanzania Forest Fund (TaFF) provided them with a grant to promote beekeeping activities;
Gadaffi Awadhi
i. Processors for fish feed are available. Initially the price was higher but the GoT intervened
on the issue of price that has been reduced from 3000/kg to 300/kg;
Anna Malongo
i. The government is working to support the lather processing industry. She was able to
secure a loan from SIDO to develop the business;
ii. She get support in terms of favorable environment for tax and market creation;
6
ii. How do you work with the youth groups to access loans for your
enterprise?
Anna Malongo
i. She is currently not a member of any youth groups in the village. However her business
involves other 5 young people whom they work together;
Philemon Kiyemi
i. He is involved with other youth groups, the business is also registered and he has inspired
formation of other 55 youth groups whom they work together;
iii. Which incentives are you getting from the NSAs/ NGOs to promote
your enterprise?
Philemon Kiyemi
i. He get invitation to attend platforms and forums organized by the NSAs;
ii. He get visits from various public and private entities with interest in the beekeeping
industry;
Plenary Discussion
Prof. Samwel Wangwe – PAG
i. What are the market intelligence challenges?
Anna Malongo
i. She does not face many challenges, since there is still a local market for her products;
Gadaffi Awadhi
i. He is currently not experiencing big challenges. There is a readily available market. Unlike
many of the fish producers including government institutions which centres on mixed
varieties, he has opted to keep the monosex species;
Philemon Kiyemi
i. Beekeeping is linked with many other sectors such as agriculture, forestry, water resources,
industries etc. The challenge is how to link with other sectors. There are difficulties on how
to get the colonies, material for hives, and selection of appropriate bee hives;
ii. High charges for importation of equipments related to the beekeeping industry discourage
the young entrepreneurs;
7
Concluding remarks from Moderator:
i. The policy has to put in place all issues raised concerning allocation of specific
areas for beekeeping, quality assurance and unspecified by products from honey;
ii. Young entrepreneurs are urged to register their enterprises to enable them secure
loans and other support from interested stakeholders;
3.3 Official Opening Remarks from Government Representatives
To begin the session Professor Samwel Wangwe acknowledged the presence of the top
government officials led by the Minister, the SAGCOT Chairman, non-state actors, farmer
organizations, agribusiness entrepreneurs, research and academia, and the international
institutions including AGRA, Africa Lead and EAGC. He highlighted the theme of the
meeting and urged participants to use the three days of the conference to address issues
necessary for ensuring the agricultural transformation is taken on board. He generally
commended good attendance and representation as well as the organizers for the
conference who form the PAG including GoT, REPOA, USAID, ANSAF, MSU, SERA
Project, AGRA, SAGCOT, ReSAKSS, MAFAP, ESRF, Africa Lead and AMDT. He then
invited Mr. Geofrey Kirenga, CEO for SAGCOT to give the objectives of the conference.
His Key note presentation emphasized the beginning of agricultural transformation journey
in 2009 after Kilimo Kwanza resolution and the launch of the SAGCOT. He led the
participants to look back on the promises the government and NSAs made in 2011 towards
attaining agriculture transformation, and what have been the achievements so far. He
emphasized that the GoT, private sector and development partners committed to set out
joint strategies to promote agriculture led transformation in Tanzania. This was mainly
through strategic investment under the PPP in the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor
of Tanzania (SAGCOT).
According to him over the past 5 years, Tanzania has become a pioneer in leveraging
public-private collaboration to transform its agricultural sector in the following ways:
2009: Launch of “Kilimo Kwanza” strategy, implemented through Agriculture Sector
Development Programme (ASDP), placing private sector at heart of agricultural
development;
2010: Launch of the Southern Agriculture Growth Corridor of Tanzania
(SAGCOT), a public private partnership to put Kilimo Kwanza in action using a
cross-value chain, corridor approach;
2012: GoT engaged in New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition at G8 in USA –
roadmap identifies next steps for creating an enabling environment for responsible,
inclusive investment in TZ agriculture;
2013: GoT launched its Big Results Now (BRN) initiative, aligned to Tanzania’s
Vision 2025, with agriculture as one of six National Key Results Areas;
8
2015: SAGCOT Catalytic Fund became operational;
2015: Tanzania Agriculture Development Bank commenced operations;
It was similarly emphasized that, through a coordinated multi-stakeholder effort, they are
able to:
Leverages public and private investments
Addresses enabling environment constraints
Promotes smallholder engagement Models
Improves Value chains
Currently there are many investments already taking place in the SAGCOT area involving
the private sector (both local and international companies). This follows the commitments
that were agreed upon by different partners in 2011 and an exercise undertaken in
conjunction with TIC and PMO last year to identify 20 lead investments. These 20 lead
investments total an investment envelop of one billion dollars and with the potential to
impact over half a million smallholder farmers in the SAGCOT region. SAGCOT and
its partners play a key role in helping facilitate these investments and engage the
government to address obstacles to the investments.
Mr. Kirenga concluded by saying that “in Tanzania we have fantastic environment for
production. No any place where if you impart water you cannot plant and harvest”. He
went further saying that Tanzania can become the greenery of Africa. He called upon
Tanzania and Africa to stop importation of rice, edible oils and sugar and that the private
sector is ready to produce, what is needed is partnership.
Emerging Issues from the Key Note Presentation
The Key note paper highlighted progress in policy reforms undertaken under the New
Alliance/ CAADP framework in Tanzania. From this alliance, the following key issues
including potential research/ policy intervention to be undertaken by the PAG were raised:
Emerging new issues under the New Alliance and how they can be adopted into
the New Alliance Matrix;
Aligning New Alliance with CAADP and ASDP II. It was resolved that one of the
potential intervention is to ensure that issues in the New Alliance are
mainstreaming into ASDP II;
Department of Policy and Planing (DPP) should join the PAC to enlighten new
leadership at MALF on the progress and the needed intervention;
This was followed by the Launch of ANSAF & AGRA Project on “Effective Delivery Policies
for Equitable Access to Quality Inputs by Small Holder Farmers in Tanzania”. The
presentation was done by Mr. Audax Rukonge, ANSAF Executive Secretary.
9
The Chairperson for the session also invited AGRA representatives to highlight their
activities in supporting implementation of the CAADP frameworks in Tanzania. He
highlighted on the MIRA- AGRA supported Project that works through government and
private sector partnership. Through the project the partners are working together to
address investment and policy constraints that are deterring transformation in agriculture
namely:
Quality control mechanism for seeds and inputs
Availability of Seeds and Agro-inputs
Agricultural Financing and Marketing
The introduction by AGRA was followed by the inauguration speech by Guest of Honour,
the Deputy Minister for Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries Development, Hon. Mr
Willium Ole Nasha Tate. The Hon. Minister thanked the PAG for effectively organizing the
conference and gave the highlights on the ongoing formulation process for the ASDS and
ASDP-2 in the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Development and Fisheries (MALF). He
urged the participants to use the conference as one step towards improvement of the
ASDS and ASDP-2. The Minister applauded the ongoing progress in SAGCOT and thanked
for having the privilege to launch the ANSAF & AGRA Project.
Vote of Thanks from Main Facilitator - Prof. Andrew E. Temu
He fore mostly acknowledged the organizers (PAG) and the participants they had
shown to attend and participate in the conference;
He emphasized the stakeholders to consider the important role ahead of them in
implementing the ASDP-2;
He also acknowledged the understanding, and the role played by the all participants
during the implementation of Kilimo Kwanza. The lessons learnt should prepare a
way forward for better implantation of the ASDP-2;
Figure 3: The Guest of Honor Hon. Willium Ole
Nasha Tate, the Deputy Minister for LAF giving the
opening speech in the AAPC II
Figure 4: The SAGCOT CEO, Mr. Geofrey Kirenga,
addressing the objectives of the AAPC II to
participants
10
He ended up by welcoming and thanking the participant for the enthusiasm they had
shown for the conference;
3.4 Session 1: Innovation and Technology in Agriculture: Mobile technology
Moderator: Dr. David Nyange
3.4.1 Presentations
Presentation 1: Use of mobile telephone in M&E, by Freddy Manetho – PushMobile
Presentation 2: Digital payment of local tax, by Benedict Sanga – MaxCom
Presentation 3: Mobile Application to Secure Tenure/ CCRO, by Mustapha Mpelembe-
CARE International
Presentation 4: SRI – Nutrition, checking your HB, by Brian Grant – Mwanzo Bora
Presentation 5: Application of Mobile Technology in Disseminating the Market Information
for Horticulture Produce, by Mdachi Bakari - TAHA
Presentation 6: Mobile Kilimo, by John Kajiba - ESRF
Presentation 1: Use of mobile telephone in M&E, by Freddy Manetho –
PushMobile
Abstract
Mobile technology can be used to simplify the farm survey. Under the USAID funding
Michigan State University (MSU) and Push Mobile, signed a partnership agreement to
develop a mobile system to conduct survey of irrigation scheme. Push Mobile is a privately
owned technology development company. The company has for the past 10 years, involved
in the development of the M&E system. However recently they were pushed to engage on
developing mobile application for agriculture. One of the main reasons behind the shift is
the large population of the mobile users in Tanzania, 2/3 of them being in the rural
population. According to TCRA statistics, up to September 2015 there was 36 millions
users in the country. It was emphasized that 14 billion subscriber messages are exchanged
monthly, which indicate significantly a huge portion of the country population that can
easily be reached through mobile technology.
Unlike other traditional methods where there is a distance between data collection and
results generation, Push Mobile develop a mobile system that allows an instant generation
of results. The system can work with both Smart phones and Feature phones since the
later are popularly used by majority in the villages, hence it makes a lot of sense to use this
model. Farmers’ information is recorded in the data mining, where they can easily be
accessed. Given the current situation where agricultural led transformation is needed; a
mobile phone is more than just a normal device. It can be used to save time, quickly gather
and disseminate the needed information, a process that previously could take long time to
give solutions using traditional methods.
11
Presentation 2: Digital payment of local tax, by Benedict Sanga – MaxCom
Abstract
MaxCom Africa is the a native private company owned by young Tanzanians, This is an ICT
company formerly incubated by Tanzania Commission for Sciences, Maxcom Africa offer
various ICT Solutions, in Tanzania , Burundi and Rwanda, and very soon will be in Ghana
Liberia and Kenya.
Various solutions offered by the company include: LGAS E- Payment Systems, Utilities,
Financial E Systems, Transports and Hospitals E management systems. Kilombero DC is the
first in the country to install the e- payment system for the LGA. The following procedures
have been undertaken the following procedures for the system to be in place:
System development
Field Survey
System test
Training of all stake holders
Ward by ward System Installation
Public Awareness i.e. Use of Radios, TVs and Fliers to inculcate the community
Field visit, Leakages assessment, Assessment of revenues Trends
Before introduction of mobile payment 2/3 of the LGA revenue were lost in various ways.
However, the new innovation has enabled the following:
Introduction of the mobile payments has come out with promising results from
Kilombero and Kinondoni where revenue collection has almost doubled;
The system has enabled registration of the crop sales from various sources in the
District Council;
It has simplified the payment since it is not necessarily for people to pay directly at
the DC;
There is also enhanced transparency in the payment of the local revenue;
Presentation 3: Mobile Application to Secure Tenure/ CCRO, by Mustapha
Mpelembe- CARE International
Abstract
Mobile Application to Secure Land Tenure (MAST) is another innovation to speed up
access to land tenure rights by smallholder farmers. The pilot project is working with the
local villagers in Ilalasimba village in Iringa Region to capture land right information that
enable the local people to acquire the CCROs. The project operates under the partnership
between USAID, the funder, a consultant, LGA and villages. The local people are oriented
12
on how to capture the information in the field and send them to a cloud server. Training to
District officials and eventually the villagers on land policies is also part of the project. It is
this information that comes out from the villagers upon verification process starting from
them that is sent to the land office for issuing the CCROs. The traditional method contrary
to this was typically centralized where the land officers collected basic information
concerning land ownership and allocation without necessarily involving the local
communities in the process.
The advantage of using mobile phones unlike to other methods such as using GPS, the
application in the mobile phones allows the villagers to simply view clearly the area
intended for issuing the CCROs. The pilot project was undertaken in Ilalasimba village in
Iringa Region, where 900 CCROs have been issued in the first place, of which 45% of them
were issued to women. Unlike the traditional approach, the application also allows the land
ownership jointly by both men and women. This, in addition to maximum participation at
the local scale generates a useful means in overcoming land ownership conflicts that are
prominent in most of the rural areas in Tanzania.
Presentation 4: Nutrition, checking your HB, by Brian Grant – Mwanzo Bora
Abstract
This session mainly addressed the question of health emphasizing new methods for testing
the haemoglobin (Hb) levels for anaemia. The project is undertaken by Mwanzo Bora
Nutrition Program, under the USAID funding. The available statistics, indicate that there is
high prevalence anemia for pregnant women in Tanzania. This has high implication on
maternal death rates which the government and development partners are struggling to
overcome. Traditionally three major techniques are used to diagnose the prevalence for
anemia, which include the invasive technique using a needle, looking at the eyes and eyelids
and the red blood cell count.
However, among the challenges of the invasive technique particularly the use of needle is
not favorable to majority. Hence the introduced technology provides an opportunity to use
non invasive means of identifying the anemia with the use of a non invasive technique
through the mobile phone device. It simply involves placing a finger at the back of the
camera and flash. The technology has gone through trials in Muhimbili National Hospital,
where 1050 patients were tested using the hemo control machine.
Unlike other techniques, it does not require a person to be a medical Doctor as anyone
having the mobile phone can use the application. Through the data recorded in the system,
it is easy to identify from one point source an area such as the village that is facing severity
of the problem hence making it easy to design the strategy, unlike in the past where some
cost had to be incurred going back to the field to gather the necessary information.
13
Presentation 5: Application of Mobile Technology in Disseminating the Market
Information for Horticulture Produce, by Mdachi Bakari -
TAHA
Abstract
TAHA information system (TIS) is mainly developed for the purpose of disseminating
information to its various stakeholders. The system is applicable for disseminating
information about the prices and buyers through the mobile application. It gives information
about transport, policy issues as well as gender and nutrition. Technical assistance is also
provided through the system.
TIS essentially link buyers and sellers at one point, in that way the mobile application help
to improve the bargaining power of producers. Hence in that way it enhances business
transparency, decision making, and increased producers’ access to agronomists, policy
issues as well as gender and nutritional information. The system operates through the
agents in 20 markets who feed the TIS database via the android phones. The information is
normally reviewed and upon verification it can be accessed by users via the mobile phones.
Presentation 6: –Mobile Kilimo, by John Kajiba - ESRF
Mobile Kilimo is an innovative mobile phone based platform, aiming at helping the farmers’
access to markets for agricultural products. It also promotes knowledge sharing among
extension officers themselves and with the farmers. Through the platform one officer can
reach several hundred farmers through the mobile phone device.
M-Kilimo is the result of the studies that ESRF conducted in Bunda and Bukoba rural
Districts in 2012. The platform enables farmers to receive various alerts and information
about disease outbreak, new seed technology, planting seasons etc. It brings together the
buyers and sellers to do business online, hence the type of crops and yield farmers yield
data can easily be accessed. The Mobile platform has two divisions namely:
i. Extension Services, and
ii. Market information
M- Kilimo has attained a number of achievements, including the following:
It has been piloted in Kiwanga, Bagamoyo District
It has been launched in Bunda, Ileje and Peapea in Kilosa Districts
More than 2000 villagers have been registered to receive extension services
More than 1000 business men have been registered in the platform
An average of 600 messages are subscribed
14
3.4.2 Plenary Discussion
Question:
i. What major challenges do you face in the application of MAST to obtain the
CCROs? (Prof. N.Y.S. Mdoe, SUA)
Response:
i. Unreliable internet services impose one of the challenges in the application of mobile
technologies in rural areas;
ii. Ongoing conflicts in some rural areas may hinder the progress and in turn sustainability if
not well addressed. For instance the pilot study could not be conducted in Idodi ward
because of the ongoing land conflicts;
Question:
i. The mobile information systems in agriculture are many from various sources. To
make life easier to smallholder farmers, can all agriculture related information
come from one source? (Dr. Mshindo Msola, MAFAP)
Response:
i. To ensure sustainability, efforts are being undertaken to work with other mobile
operators to harmonize the cost to TShs 25/sms, to enable the rural communities to
benefit from the service;
Question:
i. Regarding presentation on new technologies for Hb testing. Is there challenges on
data/ accuracy for people who perform harsh/ difficult tasks that deform their
fingers e.g. farmers who use hand hoes, miners and others doing related jobs?
(Stella Massawe, ReSAKSS)
Response:
i. The Hb testing using mobile phone technology experienced difficulties in testing 7% of
the clients based on the course texture of the skin in the fingers. This can be overcome
by rubbing the finger with the sand paper. There is also exploration of other technology
by using the eyebrows;
Question:
i. I commend good presentations from all presenters. How can all these initiatives
be incorporated in the ASDP-2? (Robert Paschal, TAB)
Response:
i. Harmonization of different mobile applications is important. There are consultations with
the Ministry of Industry and Trade to see if the same charge rates can be used;
15
Question:
i. What is the sustainability of Mobile Kilimo project under ESRF? (Kim Mhando,
EAGC)
Response:
i. There is ensured sustainability through M-kilimo, since its implementation involved the
LGA. The role of ESRF was mainly to empower the process and to provide necessary
facilities;
Question:
i. When the farmers move for CCROs are there ward leaders with them who can
verify the issue of boundaries? (Rose Tesha, VSO)
Response:
i. The WB and GoT planned to issue 10 million CCROs in three years. The boundary issues
are resolved through the Land adjudication committee;
3.4.3 Key issues emerged from the session
It was observed from this session that currently various new technologies are being
developed for agriculture. However, despite their large number they also result in different
charge rates. Hence the following key issues emerged from the session:
i. The possibility of harmonizing/ putting them together to ensure effective
coordination in terms of operation and pricing should be sought;
ii. Looking into the mechanisms on how potential mobile phone applications can be
incorporated in the ASDP-2.
iii. Issues concerned with the sustainability. There is a need to ensure that the
mobile applications support agriculture after the end of the donor support.
3.4.4 Concluding Remarks
The session was ended by the remarks from Dr. David Nyange who among other issues
reiterated the following;
i. He underscored the relevance of achieving coordination of various mobile
applications targeting the agriculture sector;
ii. He articulated briefly an impact that mobile phone application tools are bringing to
enhance access to land by SHFs as in the case of Iringa Region;
iii. He also pointed the relevance of LGA involvement to ensuring sustainability of the
initiatives;
16
Day 2
3.5 Opening Remarks and acknowledging attendance by the Permanent
Secretary – MALF
The morning session in the following day was preceded by the remarks from the Main
Facilitator Prof Andrew E. Temu. During his opening remarks he urged the participants to
use the forum to achieve the following:
i. To suggest key issues that the PAG should take for further implementation;
ii. To suggest how effectively the dialogue should be carried out to give the best
outcomes towards the intended agricultural transformation;
iii. To advice the government on the key policy issues that should be taken on
board to attain the agricultural led economic growth;
Before beginning of the session, he recognized the presence of the Permanent Secretary in
the MALF, Dr. Florence Turuka who actively participated fully in most of the day sessions.
He also acknowledged the kick start speech by the Deputy Minister for Agriculture,
Livestock and Fisheries that was given a day before in the opening day. Prof. Temu also
emphasized and called upon the participants to use the inputs from the conference as a
necessary step towards the launching of the ASDS 2 and ASDP 2 expected in the next few
months.
3.5.1: Speech from the Permanent Secretary, MALF – Dr. Florence Turuka
The Permanent Secretary on behalf of the GoT, started by thanking the PAG for organizing
the policy conference, which he highlighted, is quite timely. Highlighting the theme for the
AAPC 2 namely “Agricultural Sector Transformation for Food Security, Jobs Creation and
Poverty Reduction”., He emphasized that the MALF is in the process of revising the ASDS
Figure 5: Dr. David Nyange, member of PAG
Steering Committee giving remarks in one of
the AAPC II sessions
Figure 6: Don Mitchell a member of PAG presenting
the findings of the Agriculture Business Environment
Survey
17
and formulating the ASDS II. Therefore it is hopeful that the issues emanating from the
discussions will help to shape both ASDS II and ASDP II.
He highlighted that since 2006, the GoT has been implementing Agricultural Sector
Development Program (ASDP). Upon review of the ASDP in order to align it with the
Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) it was several gaps
had been realized. These include:
- Inadequate engagement of the private sector in agriculture
- Weak linkage between agriculture and nutrition
- Slow pace of implementing policy reforms
- Inadequate investment in the agricultural sector
In order to correct these deficiencies, the government in collaboration with key
stakeholders embarked on the following initiatives:
- Established Kilimo Kwanza and Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor (SAGCOT)
in 2010 for a greater engagement of the private sector;
- Formulated “Tanzania Agriculture and Food Security Investment Plan –TAFSIP) in
2011” in line with the CAADP framework;
- Committed under the “New Alliance on Food Security and Nutrition” to facilitate
policy reforms in 2012;
- Adopted in 2013 “Big Results Now” popularly known as BRN in agriculture to
accelerate implementation of development projects in agriculture by prioritizing rice,
maize and sugarcane value chains;
- Recently, the Government formulated second phases of the ASDS II and ASDP II.
According to him, the implementation of these initiatives is beginning to yield results as
follows:
- During the last 15 years Tanzania has overall been food self-sufficient despite some
challenges in intra-regional trade due to inadequate infrastructure;
- The agriculture growth GDP has accelerated slightly from 3 percent in 2006 to
about 4 percent in 2014;
- Revenue from export of has grown steadily in some crops. For example revenue
from tobacco export has increased from $40 million per year 2006 to $240 million
in 2013;
- Production of staples have also increased. For example rice production increased
from 400,000 tons in 2004 to 1.5 million tons in 2014. Similarly in recent years
Tanzania has experienced a bumper maize harvest which has posed a challenge in
finding a market for surplus production;
However he emphasized that, despite the notable success, the agricultural sector has not
maximized its potential and is faced with new challenges as it has also been part of the
discussion in the conference that:
18
- The 4 percent growth of agricultural sector GDP lags behind the overall economic
growth which stands at 7 percent. This means, agriculture is not yet the driver of the
the economic growth. For economic growth to be inclusive, agricultural sector
growth needs to accelerate at least to the CAADP recommended rate of 6 percent;
- Inadequate investment by the private sector has resulted in marketing challenges
encountered by farmers. Last year as a result of surplus production in maize and
rice, farmers had difficulties in marketing their produce;
- Population growth, youth unemployment, climate change, all combined have
increased the complexity of challenges in the agricultural sector;
In order to overcome these challenges, it is important to have the right policies in place.
The MALF, attaches a greater importance to policy research and reforms. The Ministry
acknowledges and welcome the effort by the PAG in supporting the government effort to
promote evidence-based policy making.
Furthermore, he articulated that the MALF is advocating the implementation of policy
reforms in response to concerns raised by farmers and private sector. Some of these issues
have been echoed by some of the PAG members through research works. He highlighted
some of the recent and underway reforms which include:
- Removal of export ban on staples such as maize and rice;
- Fiscal policy e.g. amendment of the Value Added Tax (VAT) which has exempted
most of agricultural inputs. Further reforms are being proposed in the new VAT bill;
- Reforms in the produce cess which are underway in collaboration with the PO-
RALG;
- Reduction of land rent for agriculture;
- Addressing over-regulation in agriculture through agricultural board reforms;
- Dialogue to promote a transparent and rule based procedure for importation of
commodities such as rice and sugar. Such effort is includes establishment of the
Marketing Intelligence Unit;
The government commitment to undertake policy reforms under the CAADP Framework
and the New Alliance on Food Security and Nutrition is evidence on how the government
attaches greater importance to policy reforms.
According to his concluding remarks, the 5th phase Government emphasizes the need to
ensure food security and poverty reduction in the country through:
- Farmers access to input;
- Farmers access to credit;
- Farmers access to markets;
- Efficient delivery of extension services;
19
Most importantly, the new Government emphasizes greater accountability in
implementation of development programs including agriculture, and rational utilization of
resources.
The Government through the MALF will soon outline its priorities under ASDP II during
the launching event and during consultative meetings before the launch event.
The Permanent Secretary ended his speech by wishing the participants a successful
deliberation during the conference as they shared their research results and make the
knowledge available for the government and policy makers.
The observation of an impromptu speech by the PS reveals how much he appreciated the
event and how important and meaningful it is to have strong evidence-based presentations
on issues of high priority to the GOT which he identified as:
i. How to attract investment and support industrialization of the Agricultural
sector (suggesting special incentives policies);
ii. How to improve input polices and access as an important driver for increased
production;
iii. Further investments in infrastructure that link farmers to market linkages;
iv. Examining policy options for developing and launching a commodity exchange;
v. How to expand (youth) employment opportunities in the Agricultural sector;
.
Hal Carey, one among the members of the PAG emphasized that the remarks made in the
speech are important for the following reasons:
i. First, it demonstrates that policy research, analysis and activities are beginning to
achieve a main goal--creating demand among policy-makers for evidence-based
policy reforms. It was pointed out that the statement by Hon. Taruka -"now that
we know what should be done, we want to better understand how it should be done",
opens the door for the stakeholders to further support a positive reform agenda
in line with joint NSA-GoT goals;
ii. Second, it provides the partners with an understanding of the GoT's key
interests and priorities--something that has been somewhat ambiguous over the
past few years and something that is essential for them to devote their resources
where there is political will for change; and
iii. Third, it demonstrates a willingness and desire for the GOT to engage with
external stakeholders on policy reform.
3.6. Session 2: Agriculture Sector Policy
Moderator: Stella Massawe, ReSSAKS
Panelists:
20
Kim Mhando, Policy Analyst, East Africa Green Council
Winnie Bashagi, CEO, Rice Council of Tanzania
3.6.1 Presentations
Presentation 1: Policy Options for Food Security, Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction,
by Don Mitchell
Presentation 2: Impact of NFRA procurement pricing on maize markets, by Karl Pauw
Presentation 3: An assessment of COWABAMAS and NFRA with policy implications to
sustainable marketing, by Audax Rukonge
Presentation1: Policy Options for Food Security, Economic Growth and Poverty
Reduction, by Don Mitchell
Abstract
Tanzania has a unique opportunity to improve food security by increasing agricultural
growth and rural incomes through exports of food crops to the East Africa region. It has an
abundance of natural resources that can be used to increase food crops production, and it
faces a regional market that is food deficit and expected to remain food deficit for the
foreseeable future because of rapid population and income growth and limited capacity for
many countries to increase production to meet their own needs. Therefore, Tanzania’s
exports will depend mostly on its ability to increase production and access regional
markets. Tanzania’s total agricultural export growth (in USD) has been very impressive in
the past decade, averaging 7.3% from 2000 to 2011. The growth has been led by food crops
which grew by 9% per year compared to traditional export crops (cashews, coffee, cotton,
tea, and tobacco) which grew by 3.2% per year.
Enabling policies are essential for Tanzania to achieve its export potential both in order to
provide incentives to farmers to increase production and in order to maintain access to
regional export markets. These policies should focus on private sector-led growth,
encouraging exports, and allowing market forces to guide the economy because policies
that distort market forces lead to inefficiencies, lower economic growth, and inequities.
The SERA Project has worked closely with the GoT to improve agricultural policies and
based on that research and the international experience has grouped these policy options
into five key areas: 1) Increasing Food Crops Production, 2) Encouraging Exports of Food
Crops to Stabilize Prices and Raise Incomes, 3) Improving Systems to Identify Food
Insecure and Vulnerable Groups and Deliver Assistance, 4) Holding Adequate Food Grain
Reserves for Emergencies, and 5) Establishing a Transparent Rules-Based System for
Emergency Food Imports. If Tanzania can make the right policy choices in these key areas,
then it can expect to achieve long-term food security, rapid growth in the agricultural
sector, and reduced rural poverty.
21
Presentation 2: Impact of NFRA Procurement Pricing on Maize Markets, by
Karl Pauw
Study aimed at analysing the effect of pricing and procurement strategy on the wholesale
maize markets. The model data included the wholesale prices for Songea, Dodoma,
Sumbawanga, Dar es Salaam (and Nairobi) from FAO and WFP databases for 2010-2015;
also national prices for 2006-2015.
Based on the NFRA buy premiums computed from NFRA data, it was found that: 1)
Premiums were positive and significant in Songea and Sumbawanga (surplus markets), 2)
Premiums were negative or close to zero in Dodoma and Dar es Salaam (deficit markets).
Preliminary conclusions that were drawn from the study indicated that:
i. Without NFRA buy premiums wholesale prices are marginally higher in Dar es
Salaam, more volatile in Songea, and insignificantly different from observed prices
elsewhere; slightly lower on average;
ii. Despite potentially significant localized disruptions, NFRA does not seem to have
a substantial distortive impact on markets in general. If the impact is insignificant,
why does the NFRA offer premiums in the first place?
Pursuing price stabilization is futile under current budget allocation
Offering market prices is more cost-effective and in line with objectives
iii. Ambition to expand NFRA capacity—presumably with a view to have a stronger
price stabilization role—should be viewed with extreme caution;
Large stock-holding and minimum price support strategies can be a huge
financial burden; efficient markets and progressive trade policy can
achieve similar objectives at lower cost;
Increased NFRA presence can displace private storage or trading
activities; could lead to increased market uncertainty that may ultimately
discourage commercial production;
Presentation 3: An assessment of COWABAMAS and NFRA with policy
implications to sustainable marketing, by Audax Rukonge
The study culminates on BRN setup for agriculture. BRN focused on setting up 275
collective warehouses based marketing (COWABAMA) scheme for maize. Other areas
included setting up 78 pilot sites for rice and 25 commercial farming sites.
The main focus of ANSAF towards assessment of the Collective Warehouse Based
Marketing Scheme (COWABAMAS) was mainly to see what is working and what needs to
be improved as the way forward in the warehouse scheme. One of the major reasons is
the need for increased investment in agriculture by 10% based on CAADP target as well as
to attain 6% agricultural growth annually. Nevertheless this is based on the understanding
22
of the huge sum of public funds (USD12.2 million) invested for the activity which raise high
expectation to stakeholders. It was therefore necessary for ANSAF to see the feasibility of
what is actually happening on the ground.
It was highlighted that, among the theories of change within COWABAMAS, is that there is
always surplus in terms of production and SHFs cannot bring to the market all what they
produce. This is due to a number of constraints such as warehouses, roads and post
harvest infrastructures etc. Hence they are forced to sell to traders at lower prices as they
cannot wait for better prices.
Therefore the idea behind introduction of the Scheme was to stabilize the market structure
for SHFs by creating a greater collective action on the part of SHFs to obtain the benefit of
economy of scale and to improve post harvest management. Therefore the study wanted: (i)
To see whether the implementation is meeting the target (ii) To find out whether
COWABAMA is an effective market approach (iii) To spot successes and implementation
challenges (iv) To assess the effectiveness of NFRA as a buyer of maize. Focusing on 7 out
of 12 districts, this is an ongoing study therefore the given results are preliminary.
In summary the following main success were identified:
275 warehouses successfully identified;
Clear criteria for rehabilitation and cost estimates;
125 maize collection centres were rehabilitated and some were equipped;
Some rehabilitated and equipped (20) warehouses traded in 2014/2015;
Awareness raising meetings with SHFs have were conducted in two districts;
New farmer groups were emerging, signs of resurrection of defunct AMCOS;
Learning by doing allowed modifications;
Initial rehabilitation of 30 warehouses in two districts;
The rehabilitated warehouses amounted to 95, some partially equipped;
Identified challenges:
Missed target of 275 warehouses by Dec 2015. This was the result of delayed
funding by the government and donors, delayed payment to contractors, and
inefficient capacity building for SHFs;
The scheme lacked the ownership of the community. It is perceived as imposed to
LGA with no direct link to DADPs, neither was it part of the village agenda. It is also
not clear who owns/benefits from the warehouses and in some cases NFRA use the
premises for free;
The question of who owns the warehouses between Agricultural Market
Cooperative Societies (AMCOS) and village governments is unresolved challenge;
Weak institutional setup. This entail the need for formalization of local
entrepreneurs, and addressing the challenges observed on crop CESS and
withholding taxes;
Direct handling of finances by donors, hence bypassing the LGAs;
23
Limited capacity of NFRA with a maximum ceiling of 246,000MT, while Songea alone
produced 277,674 MT in 2014/15. Limited financial capacity to buy, thus buying on
credit which result to delayed payment;
Preliminary conclusions:
It is too early to assess the performance of COWABAMAS in the country;
There is a need to conduct regular audits regarding the warehouse scheme;
Strengthening the capacity of the local actors (MSMES and SHFs) involved in the
process is necessary;
Promoting competitive markets that benefit SHFs is necessary for ensuring
sustainability;
Clarification on ownership and local institutional set up is essential;
There is a need to rethink on the roles and responsibilities of players both at local
and international level;
There is a need to promote inclusiveness, by redesigning and implementing new
mechanisms for benefit sharing;
3.6.2 Reaction from Panelists
Kim Mhando, Policy Analyst, East Africa Green Council
There is a discrepancy between the budget allocated and how much is disbursed to
NFRA;
Therefore if NFRA gets enough allocation, there will be stable prices;
To avoid overburdening the government involvement of the private sector is
necessary;
There is hope that COWABAMAS and NFRA will stabilize the market structure.
However the feasibility of operation of ware houses is not certain and ANSAF can
think of it as an area of focus in the future;
Winnie Bashagi, CEO, Rice Council of Tanzania
There is a lot of improvement in implementation of the warehouse schemes in the
resulting into increased production for rice;
The country has moved from net importers of rice to surplus producers in the
region and outside;
Challenges
The CESS for rice importation is not harmonized within the region;
Taxation to farmers by multiple institutions is a burden that needs to be overcome;
Low budgetary allocation by the country against the Malabo and Maputo
Declarations where African Nations including Tanzania committed themselves to set
aside 10% of their national budgets for agriculture;
Issues related to climate change as far as agriculture is concerned;
24
Lack of harmonization for crop CESS in various production zones. The amount is
lowest at Ths 50/bag while in some places it goes up to TShs 2000/bag;
Some crop varieties have not been exempted for VAT that has resulted in closure
of some of the small factories. Maintaining the harmonized EAC common external
tariff (CET), to overcome rice smuggling through illegal routes;
The government should facilitate easy accessibility to credits by farmers;
The media should promote the value chain through awareness creation.
Stakeholders should all together say no to smuggling and blended rice;
3.6.3 Plenary Discussion
Recommendation and Questions from Participants
Prof. N.S.Y Mdoe - SUA
i. To Karl Pauw & Ntemi Nkonya: Apart from budgetary implications, what are the
long term implications of the maize price premium?
Steve Ball - Farm Africa
i. To Karl Pauw: Did you consider whether NFRA is making purchases every month?
You may be modeling a price premium impact that does not exist.
Richard Y. Kasuga - MALF
i. To Karl Pauw: Much has been said about NFRA inferring with the market by offering
a TZS 500/= per kg of maize. What needs to be done is to provide more light on
what is the cost of producing a kilo of maize? This could lead to have a conclusive
judgment on what should be done to perfect business in this regard.
ii. To Karl Pauw: The government is like putting hands to ensure food security by
moderating the buying and selling of maize and may be paddy. I think this is the only
one area and may be one or two food crops. We need to see the private sector
participating in doing the value chain of other agricultural crops including high value
crops e.g. horticultural crops. Why private sector is not interested on other crops?
iii. To Karl Pauw: There is a tendency of trying to put emphasis on food exports which
may compel all food to be exported. In return this will promote imports that are the
country going around the world looking for food to feed the population. Tell us
about comparative advantage of trying to promote exports so long as you can create
demand for the same imports? This policy recommendation needs to be relooked
again carefully.
25
Mr. Raveliana S. Ngaiza - MALF
i. Acknowledged the recommendations given by Audax Rukonge. He urged SERA
Project and MAFAP to work very close with ANSAF to explore more on how
COWABAMAS is set to operate. Since the scheme is mainly at the primer stage it is
hopefully the approach will contribute to solving the problems.
ii. NFRA is strategically established and its mandate cannot be replaced. Is cereal
trading the only line of business for someone to think it can disrupt private sector
involvement?
Mr.Hussein Mansoor - MALF
i. To Don Mitchell: In your recommendations you indicated that 100 tons is sufficient
to save as a reserve for the country. Food is security by considering fluctuation and
uncertainties. I know that countries can have reserves that can last for more than 3
years.
Prof. David Tschirley – MSU
I. To Don Mitchell, Food Exports: Which ones are most important and does that
change from year to year?
II. To Don Mitchell, Destination: Which are not important and does this vary over
time?
Responses from Presenters
Karl Pauw - FAO
i. Premiums only raise prices marginally, on average, and probably exclude the bulk of
producers as only some farmers/ traders benefit from NFRA procurement. The only long-
term implication is that an important food security function is performed at a much higher
cost than is necessary;
ii. NFRA making purchases every month? We did not account timing and volume of
procurement. This is an important issue that we are trying to address;
iii. Emphasis on Food Exports: Exporters will only export if market conditions warrant it. This
happens when there is a local surplus. Having the opportunity/ option to export gives
producers the courage to produce knowing that a market will be available;
26
Emerging issues and Recommended Interventions/ Research on Agriculture
Sector Policy
Key issues:
i. Export ban removed but export permit suffocate trade despite decentralization.
Export oriented policies are necessary to promote farmers production and access to
regional markets;
ii. NFRA –stock size - trading off food shortage risk versus opportunity cost of holding
large stock – pose a fiscal burden. Need to encourage policies that promote market
forces;
iii. NFRA pricing policy – its stabilization policy is not effective causing market distortion.
Its mandate versus Disaster Management Unit needs to be defined;
iv. Sustainable solution needed to produce surplus for Tanzania to establish itself as
consistent regional exporter for maize;
Potential Intervention/ Research Recommendation:
i. Institutionalization of free trade by encouraging policies that promote market forces
e.g. through legislation;
ii. PAG should engage in a dialogue with MALF regarding NFRA stocking and anticipated
expansion;
iii. There is a need to undertake a complete research regarding NFRA pricing policy;
iv. There is a need to undertake CGE modeling on returns to public investments focusing
on NFRA, NAIVS, COWABAMAS etc
3.7. Session 3: Agriculture Markets and Trade Policy
Moderator: Prof. Peniel Lyimo, Retired Civil Servant - MALF
3.7.1 Presentations
Presentation 1: Food systems transformation in Tanzania, by David Tschirley
Presentation 2: Impact of EU Trade and Investment policies in Tanzania’s Agriculture:
Implications on policy coherence for development, by Solomon Baregu
Presentation 3: Evidence based decision-making in implementation of agriculture strategies -
Challenges and Opportunities of agriculture M&E in Tanzania, by Sophia
Mlote
Presentation 1: Food systems transformation in Tanzania, by David Tschirley
Abstract
The study has a background on work done in East and Southern Africa. It gives an
impression of what is seeing in Tanzania and poses urgent questions for stakeholders and
27
policy makers. The main approach covered extensive literature review, analysis of 9
household data sets from 6 countries of East and Southern Africa and Scenario-based
projection exercise for East and Southern Africa to 2040.
According to the study urbanization and income growth in Africa are driving diet
transformation, as revealed by vast increase in demand through markets in urban and rural
areas. This diet transformation will (need to) drive other transformations, hence to bring
necessity for science application to improve small and large scale production.
Unlike in the past the changes in urban and income trends will entail reaching consumers
through modern retail and improved traditional retail. This rapid shift will be heavily
influenced by public policy and investment, which has an Implication for: Nutrition, Energy
and water use, Market opportunities, Employment and skill needs , and Public policy.
The findings forecast the following consumer and income trends in ESA:
i. Evolution of Real Food Market Size in East & Southern Africa, between 2010-
2040, revealing an exponential increase in own prod;
ii. Evolution of Real Food Market Size in East & Southern Africa, between 2010-
2040, with an increase in the size of total processed commodities up 7 times;
iii. Evolution of Real per capita Food Expenditures in Rural & Urban ESA, between
2010-2040, indicating increased demand for processed goods up to 3 times in
urban and up to 2 times in rural;
iv. Evolution of Real per capita Food Expenditures among Poorest & Richest One-
Third of Population of ESA, between 2010-2040;
The findings emphasized that growth will be strong in rural and urban areas, and among the
poor and non-poor. There is further indication that although “traditional” retail sector will
not disappear, its share will fall from 90% to 65% by 2040, but the size will increase more
than 6 times. This is mainly due to growth in incomes, population, and the urban share.
However the traditional retail sector will need to assume a different transition as a result of
the significant increase in consumer incomes almost 3 times. This will drive demand for
more quality, packaging, variety, safety, and need for training, entrepreneurial assistance.
Transformation in food systems in Tanzania is mainly revealed by small format
supermarkets; new format retail clusters, and specialty supermarkets, with a major change
at retail. As pointed out, this pace of change is likely to remain fast.
Transformation in processing are also remarkable in the anticipated period, with dominance
of processed grains, packaged rice, dairy products, and juices in major cities in Dar es
Salaam, Mwanza, Arusha. Tanzania products also dominate the market in the major cities as
compared to imported ones. It is found that 3 - 11% of consumer value goes to imports.
There is however lots of competition for dairy products but still the local products
dominates with exception of fruits products where the local production could not surpass
importation. The study ended by posing the following questions and answers:
28
QUESTIONS
1. Can Tanzanian companies continue to compete?
2. Can micro, small, & medium Tanzanian companies continue to compete?
3. How to ensure that Tanzania (and its neighbors) continues to meet most of this
rapidly growing demand?
The answers matter for employment, and thus for equitable development
Smaller companies employ more people per unit of output
The transformation process is very young, these companies could quickly lose out
to larger locals or imports
Requires productivity throughout the food system, from farm to consumer
Reactions from Participants
Jacqueline Mkindi, CEO, TAHA
i. She had been impressed by the point that there is much increase in demand for the
locally products both in the local and international markets. She underscored that
the markets are coming with demands, procedures and standards. Many standards
both local and international are increasing e.g. Global Standards, EU, USA, Canada.
For instance we don’t have the share in the USA good agricultural practices (GAP)
standards. How do you see African business participation in the Global Standards
Tables?
ii. What should be done to ensure that there is market for agriculture products from
Africa, given the fact that in the global GAP, there is only one representation out of
all countries in Africa?
Prof. Samwel Wangwe, Chairman, PAG
i. Threats from commodity importation and overprotection: What should be done
to ensure that imports do not kill producers and that producers do not become
complacent from the import ban?
ii. There is a lot of importation in Tanzania that in not necessarily been recorded..
Does the import value of 3% take into account the sugar that is imported through
smuggling?
Response from Presenter
i. The Global GAP: The market growth in ESA does not mean Tanzania should not look at
other markets for exports as well.
Regarding evolving standards, myself I am familiar of the global GAP but our study did not
focus on standards at the global perspective.
ii. Tanzania is in EAC. To overcome threats from imports and overprotection, member
countries should use the common tariff consistently across the countries. Steps should also
29
be taken to create enabling environment so that there is no constraints for production and
investment.
iii. There is a concern for unrecorded imports from neighboring countries. Tanzania as a
country needs to maintain her own standards. The 3% value of imports did not actually
consider what comes from smuggling.
Presentation 2: Impact of EU Trade and Investment policies in Tanzania’s
Agriculture: Implications on policy coherence for development,
by Solomon Baregu
The study presented the findings of the pilot Assessment of Policy Coherence for
Development (PCD) at the country level, focusing on food security. Non-development
cooperation policies of OECD countries (sectorial, trade, investment policies, etc.) can
have negative/positive spill-over effects in developing countries (e.g., food security)
There is an indication of many assessments of spill-over effects of OECD countries’ policies
looking at agricultural development and food security, of which they address: Specific
agricultural sub-sectors (e.g., cereals), Specific policy areas (e.g., trade/market access), at
the level of international or domestic markets, and for groupings of developing countries.
Hence a need for more sound and systematic evidence about the coherence/incoherence
of OECD countries policies. There is also a need for mechanisms to feed evidence and
outcomes of multi-stakeholder dialogues back into policy processes.
The approach of the study was done in five modules including M1: Setting up the project,
M2: Country food security profile, M3: Causal linkages between OECD countries’ policies
and food security conditions in the developing country, M4: Empirical analysis, “testing of
hypotheses” and M5: Communication and outreach. In summary, the findings indicate that:
i. Farm policies in OECD countries are less distortive now than in the past, in
particular in the EU. But they may still cause trade distortions in some sectors—
and Tanzania may be affected;
ii. In particular where “decoupled” producer support benefits exported
commodities, notably cereals (wheat, barley), dairy products, meat products and
sugar (while there may also be lagged effects of past distortions);
iii. Emerging economies’ farm policies have been increasingly distortive.
iv. OECD countries’ sugar sector policies have depressed international prices and
Tanzania’s sugar sector has had difficulty competing with low-price imports. This
follows removal of production quotas in the EU in 2017;
v. Tanzania’s dairy sector has been very exposed to competition from low-price milk
powder imports. This being the consequence of the removal of production quotas
in the EU in 2015;
vi. OECD countries’ farm policies may have had negative effects on Tanzania’s grain
sector (maize, wheat, barley);
30
vii. Tanzania’s rice sector may have been negatively affected by Asian exporters’ farm
policies;
viii. OECD countries’ biofuel policies have had mixed effects on developing countries
like Tanzania. Rise in energy crop prices (good for producers, bad for consumers
in the short run), increased price volatility, investments in biofuel production in
Tanzania (realised and planned);
ix. The EU’s preferential trade arrangements/agreements with developing countries
have led to increased agro-food trade flows, particularly with ACP countries—
Tanzania most likely has benefitted from EU-ACP/LDC preferential trade regimes
x. In the horticultural sector, non-tariff measures (product market regulations and
private standards) have created challenges for developing countries and Tanzanian
exporters to access OECD markets, and for smallholder farmers to participate in
those value chains. Development assistance has been provided to address those
market access issues (e.g., ACP-EU programmes);
xi. Increased interest from OECD-based investors;
Promotion of PSD by DPs
Many plans, little implementation
xii. Increased development assistance from OECD DPs, for rural infrastructure,
capacity building, R&D, innovation, value chain development, trade
facilitation/market access;
xiii. Need to better support the policy environment, to address gaps that CAADP
failed to address;
Better land use governance and land tenure system (zoning, delivery of
certificates of occupancy)
Agricultural credit
Lower taxation of farm inputs and products
Better regulation of seeds and agro-chemicals
Extension services
Trade policy (export bans)
Nutrition
xiv. Involvement of private sector actors and CSOs in policy processes (mutual
accountability)
xv. Increasingly competitive global markets for agricultural commodities (traditional
OECD exporters, newer EE exporters);
xvi. Increasing price and quality competition in OECD markets for tropical export
products;
xvii. Rising competitiveness and quality requirements in regional markets;
xviii. Poor domestic policy environment;
The Linkages between Tanzania economy with OECD and non-OECD
countries exist inform of:
• Development cooperation: Tanzania largely received up to US$3,430 million of
ODA in 2013. The top donors are multilateral agencies (WB, IMF, EU, UN) and
31
bilateral partners (US, UK, Japan, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland,
Netherlands);
• Export: Tanzania has recorded a strong increase in exports over the past two
decades. Most of Tanzania’s exports go to OECD member states (Switzerland, UK,
JPN, NL, Germany) but also increasingly to South Africa, Kenya (and other in the
region), China, India and Arab countries;
• Import: Tanzania is a net importer, mostly capital goods, technology, energy, and
processed foods (sugar, milk, edible oil, etc.). The main suppliers are still OECD
countries but also China, India, and South Africa;
• Investment : There is substantial flow of FDI with an increase in agriculture sector
from both OECD and non-OECD countries, and increasing mobilization of
domestic private investors;
Impacts of OECD countries policies on sugar sector in Tanzania:
• Sugar is a major agro-food for the local population yet Tanzania is a net importer of
sugar, despite four large sugar factories operating in the country, and some new
projects underway;
• Low sugar cane yields relatively to SSA producers and other EAC producers (lack of
irrigation, low-performance varieties, low fertilizer use and other production and
marketing factors) hindered growth in the sector;
• Privatization and efforts to rehabilitate the sector in the 1990s led to increased
productivity. However, for a long period until now sugar factories have experienced
difficulty in competing with cheaply imported sugar imports, notably from Latin
America, Southern Africa, and Asia;
• Most of the imports are illegal reflecting weak legal and institutional capacity of the
GoT to protect the sector. EU reforms have raised the price but international price
is still lower than domestic price in Tanzania;
• Whether the reforms favorable to Tanzania? With the removal of quota there will
be a risk of import surge to Tanzania because Southern African producers are more
cost-competitive than Tanzania and traditionally exported to the EU under the
Sugar Protocol;
The Impact of OECD Policies on Maize:
The OECD countries policies have relatively acted on cereals sector in Tanzania.
Historically there has been high agricultural support for cereals (maize, wheat barley, rice,
etc.) in OECD countries. Support to Maize in OECD countries (mainly the US) depressed
world price. However, reduction in support has led to price increase.
Maize and rice are the basic staple food in Tanzania and the most important food
security crops
In overall OECD domestic support policies have little-to-no effect on the maize
sector in Tanzania because :
supports have phased out
32
The country sector has become more or less self-sufficient.
The maize market in Tanzania is not well integrated to world market
Domestic factors and policies have played far more important role in the
‘slow’ development of Tanzanian maize sector
But historically high support in the US resulted to surplus being exported to the
EAC/SADC region or distributed as food aid. This may have competed with
Tanzanian maize in regional markets, thus restraining its market opportunities in the
region;
The recent food crisis and the rush for land, the increasing use of maize for
feedstuffs, biofuel mandate etc. are factors that could be opportunities for the maize
sector but also threats;
The support to wheat producers in OECD countries (mainly the EU countries and
US) relatively depressed the world price. Other major players are China, India,
Russia, Australia and Canada;
However in Tanzania, wheat is a small sector mainly of the agro-processing industry.
So the EU policies may have actually benefited consumers because of cheaply
imported wheat even though the wheat growers loose at some point;
Regarding the Effect of OECD Policies on Rice:
Rice is an important among the food security crops but is less internationally traded
than maize and wheat;
Japan plays far more important role in trade and domestic support among OECD
countries, but the international market is dominated by Thailand, Vietnam, India and
Pakistan;
The OECD policy outcome likely seems to have an impact on the horticulture sector in
Tanzania. The non tariff measures (NTM) and standards play an increasing important role in
horticulture. The key drivers of such trends are:
Consumer preferences and market demand for quality products, high food safety,
social and environmental standards
Policy objectives for food safety, environmental concerns that can create market
failure
The profit-maximizing decisions of firms to reduce transaction costs along the
supply chains by imposing private standards
As global tariff have declined and Tanzania is granted preferential access to OECD markets,
the rise of NTMs and standards can be incoherent with development if they act as barriers
to access competitively those markets;
Tanzanian horticultural sector is booming in term of production and is also
transforming rapidly toward an export-oriented sector. Currently, the country
33
exports a wide range of flowers, vegetable (green bean, baby corn, etc.), spices and
fruits to EU markets and increasingly to Asia and the US;
There is alsoa huge domestic and regional market as well as the increasing demand
in developed countries and Asia, hence lot of opportunities for the development of
the sector;
Despite the high potential for expansion, the sector face numerous challenges
including: poor infrastructure, low productivity, under-developed marketing system,
high transportation and also importantly compliance to standards (public and
private) which are mandatory to access EU markets;
Standards facilitate access to OECD market, facilitate trade and bring about a price
premium and net benefits. But compliance with the requirements of standards is too
costly, especially for smallhoder farmers increasingly growing horticultural products
for export markets
Requirements and good agricultural practices are complex and capacity building is
necessary for farmers before they are able to implement. To obtain certification for
private standards, requires a high up-front investment that most farmers often lack.
Certification can cost up to 130 euro for GlobalGap;
The findings indicate that flowers are less affected by standards, since the exporting
companies are foreign owned and have the capacity to comply with the standard
requirements;
However, vegetables are mostly affected by standards based on its higher demand.
Horticultural firms, such as TAHA Fresh and Home-Veg in Arusha, are working
with outgrowers in supporting them to meet required standards and obtain
required certification;
Reaction from Participants
i. The Non tariff barriers may hinder farmers’ access to the market. We may have a
situation where farmers may be excluded from the market in view of increasing
consumer demand. What can we do to make sure that farmers are not excluded in
future markets?
Benedict Cosmas - HESLB
i. Needed clarification from the ESRF presentation on sugar support. Why prices
increase as support decreases? Is it due to supply shortage or distortive support?
Geofrey Kirenga - SAGCOT
i. According to presentation, farmers in the horticulture sector have been trained and
are starting to comply with the standards. However previous presentation from
TAHA indicated that the industry is challenged by multiple standards, and that more
new entities are being established to control the standards. It was also articulated
that stake of the country for negotiation in such occasions is a problem. What are
the issues and where are we in these negotiations?. It is important for stakeholders
34
to align when advocating to government and negotiating on these issues. There are
a number of entities in place that can help create alignment; the SAGCOT centre as
the ‘honest broker’ is well positioned to play a role in this coordination, particularly
through its members like TAHA. SAGCOT can help leverage mechanisms like the
PAC and the PAG to share information; help create a common understanding and
perspective on these issues, and to advocate government and private sector
partners.
Response from Presenter
i. The theory behind the support as implied by the study is that, as a result of increased
support to producers and farmers, the crop prices becomes low, as the extra marging is
paid by the government;
ii. However, as the support increases the prices similarly goes higher. The sellers at this
point will sell at higher margins;
iii. Farmers can access the external markets but they are hampered by the standards.
iv. In response to the first question, investing is necessary. Our farmers will need to improve
the quality because standards will not be removed. With the case of horticulture sector,
farmers have been trained, they know the standards, what they need is just need the
market. To ensure that farmers are not excluded from future markets emphasis should
be on training;
v. In response to the issue of standards compliance as articulated, standards are not
predictable. Despite low negotiation and multiple standards, but at least among the crops
produced in the country, there are products that are accepted in one of those standards.
There is a need to influence negotiation in the WTO. But at the country level is this seen
as the problem, and does the country present these suggestions in those platforms?.
Besides developing countries as members of the WTO are considered under the principle
of most favored nations (MFN) treatment. It is also through bilateral treatments where
we need to influence the governments.
Presentation 3: Evidence based decision-making in implementation of
agriculture strategies - Challenges and Opportunities of
agriculture M&E in Tanzania, by Dr. Sophia Mlote
Abstract
Transformation in the agriculture sector has led to increasing demand for evidence based
decision-making in implementation of agriculture strategies. The result based M&E is needed
in order to attain good governance, enhanced accountability, increased transparency and
greater efficiency and effectiveness in programming and operations. The importance of
evidence and accountability within the agriculture sector has been articulated by CAADP
and further reiterated by the Malabo Declaration. Hence the needs for a stronger focus on
evidence-based decision making in all sectors.
35
Result based monitoring and evaluation (RBME) is a management tool to help track progress
and demonstrate the Impact of development projects, programmes and policies. Unlike
traditional M&E that focuses on the inputs, activities and outputs during the project/
program implementation, RBME: combines traditional approach of monitoring
implementation with the assessment of outcomes and impacts, or generally results. The
GoT is about to implement ASDP-II in the coming financial year of 2016/17, following the
phase out of Agriculture Sector Development Program 1 (ASDP-1) from July 2006 to July
2014. The ASDP is a tool to meet the TDV 2025 and the Agricultural Sector Development
Strategy (ASDS) implementation.
Therefore evidence based decision is a critical element for successful decision-making under
the ASDP-2 that is anticipated for implemented in the coming 10 years starting from July
2016 to 2024/25. Evidence based decision will emphasise gathering of facts, figures, and data,
essentially involving establishing the issues, weighing of considered possibilities, interpreting
and sifting the options and making a final judgment or deciding as key steps. In order to have
the evidence, a strong M&E should be part of the implementation process. Based on the
lessons learnt from the previous strategy several challenges have to be addressed for
successful implementation of the ASDP-2 as follows:
i. Limited technical capacity for information gathering, data analysis, and review
especially at local level. Hence capacity building to enhance skills for efficient
analysis and evidence-based review must be the component of ASDP-2;
ii. Lack of comprehensive, up-to-date information on various issues in agriculture by
planners and decision- makers. This entails increased dissemination of
information among stakeholders, including the local farmers;
iii. Limited financial resources to effectively implement M&E activities. The
government and other stakeholders in agriculture must allocate more resources
to M&E;
iv. Lack of comprehensive, up-to-date data in some agriculture indicators. This entail
strengthen & sustaining agriculture census and ARDS data collection;
v. Limited use of M&E information (evidence) in decision making. Implementation of
ASDP-2 should focus on systematic communication and approach dissemination
strategies;
vi. Institutional limitations. Institutionalizing M&E, and strengthening institutional
capacity to implement M&E should be taken into account under the ASDP-2;
Opportunities
Implementation of the RBME under the ASDP-2 will essentially provide the room for the
following main opportunities:
i. Improvement of Agriculture Routine Data System (ARDS);
ii. The specific baseline survey to be conducted will provide improved information
for the program;
36
iii. Involvement of private sector in data collection and analysis ( Statistic Act No. 9
of 2015);
iv. Partnerships in M&E capacity building –PAPAC and PAG members;
v. Strengthened agricultural statistics built upon collaborative initiatives;
3.7.3 Plenary Discussion
Prof. Isaac Minde – MSU/IAGRI
i. RBME – It was mentioned that ASDP-2 ended in 2014. What strategy is guiding the
sector for these 20 months?
ii. It was mentioned that evidence based M&E is important for successful
implementation of ASDP-2. Did the ASDP 1 lack coordination? Can you tell us
how you are positioned to coordinate the partners?
Nsanya Ndanshau – Irish Aid
i. Evidence based decision is a key in making sure that the government get the
required information. One of the challenges of the ASDP 1 was lack of
coordination. How is the GoT positioned to the parties in ASDP-2 in order to get
the right information for decision making?
Jackline Mkindi – TAHA
i. Is there a place where we can find the ASDP-2 deliverable matrix including
indicators, results and gaps?
ii. Is there a structured committee for M&E under the ASDP-2 and where does the
members come from?
Comment from Monica -
i. There is a lot of coordination that is going on between the government and the
private sector. For instance Iringa Regional office used coordinate 1 day meeting
every quarter for all stakeholders. Effective coordination is helpful to understand
what others are doing and to avoid duplicity.
Comment from Christina Misana - ANSAF
i. Important to consider joint review approach among actors under the ASDP-2
implementation. The M&E unit and private sector have to meet periodically to
timely share the issues, enhance learning and taking proper/ corrective measures
during the process.
Benedict Cosmas - HESLB
i. The use of IT is a way to effectively implement M&E. To what extent has it been
considered as an opportunity in the ASDP-2 implementation given the availability
of the fiber optic cable?
37
Responses from Presenter
i. ASDP-2 is in progress towards implementation, but currently we are implementing
the ASDP I until June 2016, since some of those activities could not be
accomplished within the allocated time;
ii. During its launch ASDP-2 will present how coordination will be enhanced during
implementation period. The matter was discussed thoroughly among the partners,
on how it will be achieved through involvement of various partners including the
GoT officials, private sector etc, if need be;
i. There is a set of indicators and matrix/result framework in ASDP-2 document
showing allocation of activities, targets and how achievement will be measured;
ii. The ASDP-2 formulation process is built upon four key components, M&E is under
the fourth component namely Strengthening Sector Enablers and Coordination
being one of the key issues under the ASDP-2 Monitoring and Evatualtion
Thematic Working Group. The members of the group are drawn from the ASMLs
and composed of the M&E specialist, Management Information Specialists and
Statisticians.
iii. Relevance of IT- Statisticians and IT personnel as well as members from the
National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) are part of the group. The group is working for
the country and the region, The optic fibre is very important to stabilitize the
Agriculture Routine Development System (ARDS) which is aweb based
Concluding Remarks from Moderator – Prof. Peniel Lyimo
It was generally realized that the initiative has been very useful in helping the participants to
realize who they are and the position of the country as far as agriculture transformation is
concerned. He strongly commended the work done by the PAG and all involved
stakeholders in putting up things together. The following conclusive summary was given:
i. He underscored participants to live according to what has been verified/ scientific
evidence;
ii. The analysis covering the period of ASDP I reflect on what should be done to
implement the ASDP-2;
iii. The government should take the importance of these kinds of forums that bring
together all partners on board;
iv. The government five years’ development plan emphasize industrialization. Where
we can start is where we can get the raw materials. Thus agriculture stands a
better chance to steer the industrial development particularly agro-processing.
Why?
- Large segment of the population is involved in agriculture. This chance
should provide us with an opportunity to see how industrialization can be
achieved;
- Farmers access to markets can be facilitated once processing facilities are
put in place;
38
v. The PAG can also try to see how efficient production and delivery systems can be
achieved;
vi. Agriculture markets and trade is also associated with other issues such as roads
networks, and other infrastructures as incase of COWABAMAS. If the farmers can
access the market, there may be a pulling effect to the market demand;
vii. There is a need to work more to attract investments in agriculture. There are
challenges on the government side concerning investments. Promising incentive
mechanisms should be imposed to accelerate investment in the sector;
viii. The question of how agriculture should be structured to attract youth engagement
and make it an attractive employment is an area where PAG should contribute to
help the government achievement in the coming strategy;
Emerging issues and Recommended Interventions/ Research on Agriculture
Markets and Trade Policy
Key issues:
i. Need to meet multiple standards imposed for agriculture produce;
ii. Threats from commodity importation through parallel markets, partly due to lack
of rule based import policy and inefficient market intelligence;
iii. Differences in tariffs between Zanzibar and Mainland;
iv. The implication of food system transformation to SHFs, women and youth
employment, food safety, agro-processing and agriculture sector transformation.
Potential Intervention/ Research Recommendation
i. Instituting the rule- based import policy;
ii. Establishment of the Market Intelligence Unit to monitor imports through parallel
markets;
iii. Make export data available – including mobile and e- payment for local taxes;
iv. Implementing a complete research on food systems transformation;
v. Promoting transparency in the market through commodity exchange.
3.8. Session 4: Enabling Policy for Private Sector Investment
This session had four (4) presentations. The moderator and panelists for the session were
as follows:
Moderator: Michael Kairumba, AMDT
Panelists:
1. Valerian Ngaiza, MALF
2. Jacqueline Mkindi, TAHA
39
Presentation 1: Enabling the Business of Agriculture, by Hans- World Bank
Group
Abstract
The paper provides a synthesis of findings from the WBG Study on Enabling the Business of
Agriculture (EBA) 2016, based on examples from 40 countries1. One of the main objectives
of the EBA project is to provide governments with defined good practices that can inform
policymaking and trigger reforms. The study is based on the premise that a well-designed
legal and regulatory framework, supported by strong institutions and efficient administrative
procedures, is a precondition for a prosperous agricultural sector.
EBA covers all the main markets of the agribusiness value chain –including agricultural
inputs, financial services as well as transporting and selling of agricultural goods. A total of
18 indicators have been developed to assess various aspects relating to production inputs
and market enablers that facilitate farmers, firms and producers to sell their goods and
services. The indicators measured in 2016 report include (1) legal indicators –reflecting on
good regulatory practices and (2) procedures, time and cost indicators -reflecting the
efficiency of country regulatory system. The scored topics are seed, fertilizer machinery,
finance, transport, and markets.
Findings from EBA 2016 show that there is a balanced number of good practice and areas
for improvement in most countries, Tanzania included. Globally, countries score higher in
seed, fertilizer, markets and transport (64-70 points) and lower in machinery and finance
(close to 45 points). The OECD high-income group stands out in all topics, followed by
Latin America and the Caribbean, and then Europe and Central Asia. Regional- wise, Sub
Saharan Africa scored below global average, especially in inputs and markets. Tanzania
scores above average in all areas except for markets. One of the areas that Tanzania does
better than most countries is seed certification where seed companies and other private
institutions are accredited to carry out part or whole of the maize varieties certification
process. Also, the country does better in fertilizer than most countries but there were
concerns over high cost of registering fertilizer products. In regards to agricultural
machinery and finance, Tanzania and Kenya are reported to have scored above average
mainly due to their good practices in agribusiness regulation. But the cost of importing a
tractor in Tanzania is reported to be almost twice the EBA average.
Tanzania’s primary areas of improvement include markets, access to seeds, where the
country is ranked as one among the lowest performers. One of the major areas of
weakness is inefficiency (cost and time) in processing export documents –which takes up to
1 The Enabling the Business of Agriculture program was developed in partnership with several donors including: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Department for International Development (DFID), the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Government of the Netherlands.
40
12 days, far beyond time spent to do the same thing in other low income counties such as
Burundi, Mali, Niger, and Burkina Fasso. 2
Plenary Discussion
Questions and Comments from Participants
Participants had an opportunity to discuss the outcomes of presentations through
questions and comments:
Questions:
i. Can you elaborate more on financial score i.e. Why the score and what made
Tanzania achieve better score? (Prof. David Tschirley)
ii. Is there any relationship between country scores and economic growth? (Prof.
Prof. David Tschirley, MSU)
Responses:
i. I was also surprised by the score, but we need to do more analysis.
ii. The analysis is not reflected in the presentation but in principal the relationship between
country scores and economic growth exist.
Question:
i. Sound like Tanzania is dancing better than I thought. Is there provision for ground
truthing on the findings to see –if what we are seeing actually reflects what is
going on in Tanzania? (Prof. Isaack Minde, MSU)
Response:
i. The study looked at the situation on the ground and there is a possibility that the results
reflect what is happening in Tanzania. However, it is very difficult to say that the reports
are absolutely correct all the time. Importantly, is to see the relevance of doing business
report.
Question:
i. Results from EBA contradict with scores of ease of doing business in terms of
how Tanzania is performing. This is confusing, why is this? (Peniel Lyimo)
Response:
i. I was also surprised with the results. But we need to do more analysis.
Conclusion
2 All findings and detailed data can be found on the Enabling the Business of Agriculture website
41
i. Creating an enabling business environment to spur agricultural sector
performance is important prerequisite for unleashing growth, employment and
income generation in rural areas.
ii. Results from EBA 2016 indicate that Tanzania scored above average in the areas
of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance and transport.
iii. However, major improvement is needed in the area of markets. Recommended
options for improvement is -to strengthen legal regimes to promote quality
control and trade.
Presentation 2: The Business Environment for Tanzanian Agriculture, by Don
Mitchell
Abstract
Agriculture accounts for about three-quarters of employment in Tanzania and increasing
the number of large commercial farms could increase employment in the sector and
provide more opportunities for outgrowers. Large commercial farms can also contribute to
the tax base, produce for the domestic market, contribute to export earnings, and support
services to local communities such as schools and clinics. Attracting foreign investors to
develop large commercial farms has been the cornerstone of Kilimo Kwanza, SAGCOT,
and Big Results Now, but Tanzania has not been very successful at attracting large foreign
or domestic investors. The SERA Policy Project in collaboration with the Tanzania
Investment Centre (TIC), Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (MALF), the
Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor (SAGCOT) Centre, and the President’s Delivery
Bureau (PDB) for Big Results Now (BRN) undertook a study of the agriculture business
environment in Tanzania to better understand why. Study tours to Mozambique and
Zambia were undertaken to compare the business environment and incentive to the
agriculture sector of those countries with those in Tanzania. The study found a wide range
of outcomes, with Zambia having more than 1,000 large commercial farms while
Mozambique and Tanzania have struggled to attract even a few large commercial farms.
Investment incentives were compared and they showed some similarities between
Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zambia but also important difference. The three countries
combine for more than 100 million hectares of arable land that is well suited to agriculture
but is currently uncultivated—half of such land in Sub-Saharan Africa and one-quarter of
such land in the world. Rising land prices in other countries and limited alternatives for
farmland have made the region the focus of many investors. However, acquiring access to
land by investors has been a constraint in Mozambique and Tanzania while Zambia has an
active land market and easy access to land for investors willing to pay market prices. Other
incentives, such as corporate and local tax rates are compared in the study and show that
both Mozambique and Zambia provide more special incentives to agricultural than does
Tanzania and that partly explains why Tanzania has not been able to attract a large number
of large commercial farms.
42
Conclusions and Recommendations
In order to attract big investment in Agriculture, the government of Tanzania needs:
i. To improve procedures for investors to access land; reduce corporate tax rates
for agriculture; eliminate or reduce the crop produce CESS; consolidate and cap
local taxes; invest in infrastructure to increase competitiveness;
ii. To change mind set i.e. work to ensure that the investments serve the interest of
the country and thus there is a need to protect these investments;
iii. To consider adopting innovative policies from other countries such as Delivery of
Input Subsidies to Smallholders through Visa Card -to reduce fraud, and
introduction of cash reserves instead of strategic grain stocks. Both policies are
implemented in Mozambique;
Plenary Discussion
Question:
i. The report provides all that is needed to improve foreign investment in the
sector. With that good information about where we are in terms of business
environment what have we done with the report after the study? (Jacqueline
Mkindi, TAHA)
Response:
i. The information can be used in many different ways by different stakeholders. For
example, it has already been used by TIC and TDB to advocate for policy change.
Question:
i. The report says it takes several years for an investor to acquire land, is this true?
How many years? (N.Y.S Mdoe, SUA)
Response:
i. The process of acquiring title deeds takes around 6-7 years to be completed. A typical
example is Njombe District where people wanted an investor in Tea processing but it
took years for them to acquire 8 hectors of land needed for the investment.
A foreign investor can buy land and have access to titled land but the law says they
cannot own land. Due to this, commercial agriculture in Tanzania is very challenging
and the land that can be put into production is not used for that purpose.
Concern for cost - although TIC is authorized to issue derivative titles to foreign
investors, there is a cost attached to it and the foreign investor may not be able to
afford it.
43
Question:
i. According to the findings, Zambia seems to be a place to go. What is the
relationship between having welcoming policies and land grabbing because abuse
is a critical issue? How is it controlled? (Fabio, )
Response:
i. In Zambia land is owned by in individuals and thus it takes only a few days for
interested investors to acquire land. Regarding land grabbing, the government of
Zambia has to take responsibility to address this controversy.
Comments and Recommendations:
i. This study has been key in identifying the key issues facing the sector; the
SAGCOT Centre, through the Partnership and Accountability Committee and
through direct engagement, has started to inform the government and other
stakeholders. We had a discussion with investors in Dodoma, we used the
report. The PAC as a partnership between government, private sector,
development partners and non-state actor provides an important mechanism to
advocate to both the government and private sector. It is important when
advocating to government that we used evidence-based analysis to get the
message home. (Geofrey Kirenga, SAGCOT)
ii. There is also land grabbing in Tanzania. Sometimes misleading information is
circulated but the real stories are not being told. Example the case of Eco Energy
-a company which was claimed to grab thousands of hectors of land in the Coast
region and the story turned out to be untrue. The issue of land grabbing in Africa
has untold stories, although it does not mean that it is not happening. (Geofrey
Kirenga, SAGCOT)
Comment:
i. It is possible to have a title deed, but the Law in Tanzania restricts full ownership
of the land by any individual. Therefore incase of private investment, the process
entail surrendering the real title to TIC and the TIC will offer derivative title
deed. However the process cost a lot of money which discourage investment.
(Dr. Ben Moshi, Silverlands)
Presentation 3: Coffee Sector in Tanzania: What is happening in 4 Production
Zones vis-à-vis International Markets? - By Gilead Terri, ANSAF
Abstract
44
Global demand and supply for coffee is on the rise. In 2015/16 alone is expected to
increase by 600,000 bags3 with record output in Indonesia, Honduras and Vietnam, while
production slows in Brazil which is another large player in the global trade. Domestically,
Tanzania’s output has continued to decline each year, reaching 50,000 MT in 2011. Coffee
now contributed to less than 5% of country export with an average of $100mil per year,
slightly above 20% of total traditional crops exports.
At farm level, productivity remains the same, stagnant at 0.5 tons/ha compared to Brazil’s
Arabica 2.5 tons/ha average yield. Major pockets of production have been cross-analyzed in
the study to bring out an average production costs and determinants of prices. While
Mbinga, Kagera and Mbeya have recorded higher productivity ratios, the levels or
production have been attributed to increased cultivation areas rather than improved breed
of seedlings or output per unit area. Kigoma and Tarime have remained the tiny
contributors to the total country output but critical still. Variance in cost structure
between production zones have a considerable bearing on amount that farmers receive at
farm gate hence incentive or disincentive to produce.
Total costs per farmland include cost of farming, planting seedlings, fertilizers, labor,
pesticides, fumigation, and transportation, mulching and weeding. Apart from the crop
being ‘cash-intensive’, farmers are faced with mounting costs of inputs (CAN, UREA
fertilizers) which are largely imported from India, China, Vietnam and Spain at increasingly
higher prices (considering the falling shilling against the US $). Analysis of composite coffee
farming estimates that a farmer makes by trading to composite farming could yield similar
output per acre of land as a farmer applying fertilizer.
Regulations have also had significant impact to the price of coffee. The regulatory loopholes
that allow from middle level players including brokers, cooperative and unlicensed traders
have considerable effect in skimming value off farmers. Such proliferation of actors is said
to delay the value chain movement from farm-gate to point of sale (port) for up to three
months. Such a less functional logistical chain drives up transaction costs and minimizes
farm-gate price that farmer receive. Other regulatory effects include a series of licenses,
levy, cess and countless deductions. The study undertakes comparative analysis with
Ethiopia and Uganda in several instances.
The study provides a set of policy recommendations aimed to increase the competitiveness
of the coffee value chain in Tanzania including:
Reducing a series of regulations
Vvertical integration between farmers and international markets,
Capacitating cooperatives,
Funding research on coffee and
Widening extension services to rural farming households.
3 An average weight of 60kgs per bag
45
Plenary Discussion
Prof. Samwel Wangwe - commended the presentation for putting Tanzania in the global
context. However, he wanted to know the following:
Question:
i. Why Tanzania’s coffee for instance from Kagera finds its way to Uganda and
Uganda access the world market? (Prof. Samwel Wangwe, PAG)
Response:
i. The price margin in Uganda is a little bit higher than what is offered in Tanzania thus
coffee producers are attracted to sale their coffee in Uganda. The buyers in Uganda
also pay cash while in Tanzania farmers sell on credit. The loose regulations at the
border also paved the way.
Question:
i. The production level of coffee is low on average, why is this?
Response:
i. There are many issues –the number of extension service providers is inadequate, there
is a lot of regulations within the coffee sector and also a challenge of seed availability
from TACRI.
Question:
i. Example from Techno serve shows that the little coffee we are processing is
prospering but why is this not spreading in Tanzania? (Prof. Samwel Wangwe,
PAG)
Response:
i. The main reason behind the Techno Serve success in Mbinga is to address the challenge
of middle level players in marketing by helping coffee farmers to directly sale their
produce in the market.
Presentation 4: Policy Advocacy to Unlock the Potential of Soya Value Chain in
Tanzania, by Kim Mhando, EAGC
Abstract
Soya is high in flavones (anti-cancer compounds), calcium, and fibre. Moreover, it is low in
saturated fats; free of cholesterol and an excellent source of high-quality protein (40—50%)
and oil (c. 23%). Despite the vast benefits, Tanzania has the lowest soya production
compared with other ESA countries- only 5,830 metric tons compared to Uganda
(190,000), South Africa (785,000) , Rwanda (24,838) , Malawi (111, 977) and Zambia
261,063), to mention just a few4. Most of the country is suitable for soya production but
4 Findings from FAOSTAT (2013)
46
production is mainly concentrated in the Southern Highlands. A critical question is “what is
stopping Tanzania from being a major soya player given its significant resource
endowments?”
The government has recognized the potential of soya and has taken a number of initiatives
to promote production of the crop in the country, particularly through the Tanzania Soya
Development Strategy (TSDS). Despite the presence of the TSDS, the soya value chain
faces a number of policy related constraints, chief among which – as identified through
stakeholder consultations – are those policy related challenges surrounding access to good
quality soya seeds and taxation regime in the agricultural sector. As such, a quick scoping
study was done by EAGC with support from the recently launched Soya Policy Action
Group, with the intention of gaining a greater understanding of these major policy
challenges and how they affect the soya sector in Tanzania, and also to uncover knowledge
gaps that could be addressed through more comprehensive research studies.
The review elaborated in this background paper found that regulatory challenges restrict
private sector investment in seed production and marketing, and further limit access to
seeds produced outside Tanzania, despite Tanzania being a signatory to the Memorandum
of Understanding for the implementation of the SADC Harmonised Seed Regulatory
System. It was also found that the soya value chain, like the broader agricultural sector, is
impeded by taxation at various levels of the value chain, including but not limited to crop
cess (which is also imposed on seeds), VAT on packaging materials for seeds and final
products produced from soya.
Consequently, soya production in Tanzania is amongst the lowest in the Eastern and
Southern Africa Region (annual production less than 10,000MT compared to 112,000MT in
Malawi). Also, underdevelopment of the soya value chain has contributed to a high import
bill for edible oils (currently the 2nd largest import bill after fuel oil), and low incomes for
farmers.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Soya has the potential to significantly contribute to improving livelihoods and food security
in the country. This being the case, there is a need to facilitate growth of the soya value
chain. Recommendations for improving potential of Soya value chain in Tanzania includes:
i. The needs to Fast-track implementation of SADC Harmonised Seed Regulation
System;
ii. Speeding up International Seed Testing Association (ISTA) accreditation; the
government should eliminate import duties on soya seed imports;
iii. A need to reduce CESS rates and apply CESS consistently;
iv. Removing VAT on locally-produced soya products and by-products, and on
equipment and facilities (moisture meters, etc).
47
The main assumption is that if the proposed policy measures are adopted there will be
significant increase in farmers’ income from soya, reduction in dependence on imports of
edible oils, greater private sector investment, job creation and foreign earnings etc.
Plenary Discussion
Question:
i. Fast tracking seed policy harmonisation SADC has been advocated for over 8
years now. Why is it not happening? (Prof. Isaac Minde, MSU)
Response:
i. The implementation of SADC seed harmonisation policy has taken a slow pace. The
process started since 2013 with signing of MoU. In December 2013, the standards
were gazetted but are not fully implemented to date. Therefore, the role of the private
sector is to keep on reminding and engaging with the government to speed up the
process.
Question:
i. Why the government is not speeding up the industrialization process which has
been said for years? Are there few industries that are hampering the process?
(Prof. Mdoe, SUA)
Response:
i. What is important is to keep on advocating and engaging the government in a dialogue
with NSAs to take the right actions and to speed up the process.
Comments and Recommendations on Soya Value Chain
Leocrista Wambura
i. She articulated that the issue of soya is frustrating. Tanzania has a huge potential
but production is not promising. Thus she recommended all actors –both
government and non state actors to work together to develop the soya sector;
Mary Mgonja, AGRA
i. She – noted that the real issue in soya is technology - not seeds. The challenge is
to have appropriate varieties for the different agro-ecological zones;
ii. There were a lot of studies conducted on soya in the 1980s and 90s. For instance
Ari Uyole released two varieties but they are not performing well;
iii. We need to get somebody to dig out and see what is in it and find more
information about the genetic potential of existing soya varieties;
Comments and Recommendations from Panellists:
48
Valerian Ngaiza, MALF
i. Provision of incentive to motivate farmers is important and a lot has been done
in this area to make enabling environment for investors;
ii. The findings of the second presentation by Don Mitechell will be taken into
consideration. The Policy Resource Centre has already addressed some of the
issues raised such as the land issue, taxation and produce CESS -and change is
underway;
iii. On coffee value chain, the crop is exaggerated and question of overregulation will
trigger a lot of discussion in the PWG, we need to continue the discussions and
engage the government;
iv. Moreover, some issues to do with quality assurance and taxation as mentioned in
EAGC presentation on soya have already been addressed but a reminder to the
government. The media needs to take it from there and advocate for public
private partnership;
v. He recommended a paper on taxation which would have helped to address most
of the questions raised on taxation. Finally, called upon the participants to be
organised, think about the issues raised and consider themselves as part of the
solution to the problems;
Jacqueline Mkindi, TAHA
i. The survey by Don Mitchell gave practical evidence on the agriculture business
environment in Tanzania. Her point of emphasis was as a country how are we
going to take what comes out of it into actions? Reference was made to
Ethiopian government and how they transformed the floriculture industry. The
government came up together with investors and NSAs where priority issues
were discussed. Land and markets were defined as key priority issues and the
government decided to formulate favourable land regulations for investors, and
established the strongest airline cargo which significantly is transforming the
sector. Ghana is another case example where through partnership with private
investors the government improved the road network and transport
infrastructure -and the country is now a leader in exporting pineapples. She
emphasized that it is high time for stakeholders to take the results of the survey
into actual investment plans;
ii. She commended a tremendous work that has been done by the private sector in
the country, including the establishment of the PAG in the MALF by the support
from MSU/USAID. The initiatives have strongly improved the GoT – private
sector relationships compared to the past two years. It was pointed out that in
the past few years the relationship was mainly rival but things have changed.
Public private partnership is positive track but still gaps exist, thus what is needed
is strong commitment on the process.
iii. The challenges that exist today are emulated by policy formulation process.
There is inadequate involvement of key partners mainly the line ministries
49
which results into antagonistic policies. In addition, there is no ownership of
formulated policies since the process is not proactively inclusive which in return
causes poor compliance. The final result is the irreparable loss of resources
incurred by investors;
iv. The policy review process takes longer time to produce results which
jeopardises the good will of the government. Cited case examples are the VAT
bill of 2015 that have to be discussed in Dodoma, slightly a long process. likewise
she questioned if the VAT bill is harmonised with the TIC Act which demotivate
investors rather than motivating them;
v. Consultation with and capacity building for the key stakeholders was highly
recommended in order to have the right institutions on board, the right capacity
to engage and finally come up with policies that are pro investment;
vi. There is also a need for partners to develop an action plan to discuss how they
are going to address issues that have been raised long time ago;
Comments and Recommendations from Participants
Geoffrey Kirenga, SAGCOT
i. He notified the participants about the status of Tanzania -as a current member of
EAC and SADC seed harmonisation scheme. The EAC scheme is working and the
country has already registered potato seed, and is now in the process of joining
OECD. The country is also a member of UPOV, having signed the memorandum.
ii. Many organisations have contributed to these recent successes. These partners
are also raising awareness among private seed producers about their right to
produce foundation seed, and benchmarking seed legislation with international
practices. For example, the SAGCOT Centre has directly engaged its Letter of
Intent partners to inform them about these rights and to gather perspectives
relevant to seed registration challenges.
iii. However, there is challenge of getting data especially from SADC scheme since
the office is not well established. The EA and SADC schemes have different
approach when it comes to seed testing. He recommended the need to change
the Seed Law in order to accommodate the two regulations.
Audax Rukonge, ANSAF
i. He clarified why Tanzania’s coffee finds its way to Uganda. He pointed out that
the Uganda promotes private sector involvement of in the coffee value chain. The
government of Uganda has reduced taxation and the number of institutions
involved and other deductions far below the 26 taxes that Tanzania charges;
50
ii. Besides, there is an incentive to pay the farmers in cash upon sales unlike the
Tanzania’s practice where farmers receive their payments after auction sales
which often take longer time – up to six months and even beyond;
Conclusion from Moderator
i. Re-emphasized the need to get organised, address the challenge of policy process
efficacy and acting together on agreed issues in order to transform agriculture and
improve the business environment.
Wrap Up of Day 2 Sessions -by Prof. Andrew Temu
Morning Session:
Three presentations:
1. Policy Options for food security , economic growth and poverty reduction - Don
Mitchell
2. Impact of NFRA pricing and procurement on wholesale maize markets in Tanzania-
3. Collective Warehouse –based marketing for maize and NFRA –Audax Rukonge
Take Away Issues:
Issues of taxation, crop CCESS and land need to be worked;
The need to create balance in the NFRA to avoid food price distortion?
Emphasis on high level secondary data and ground truthing on issues such as
fertilization;
Mid Morning Session:
Three presentations:
1. Agriculture food system transformation -Lessons for Tanzania – Prof. David
Tschirley
2. Pilot Assessment of PCD at the Country level –Mr. Solomon Baregu
3. Evidence Based Decision-Making in Implementation of Agriculture Strategies- Dr.
Sophia Mlote
Take Away Issues:
The issue of rural –urban-rural outlets needs to be brought into picture;
Need for evidence based analysis-once evidence is there some quick decisions need to be to contain change that is happening.
On evidence based analysis- M&E and coordination need to be taken seriously in
the ASDP-2;
Afternoon Session:
Four presentations:
1. Enabling the Business of Agriculture – Hans
51
2. The Agriculture Business Environment for Tanzania – Don Mitchell
3. Coffee Sector – Gilead Terri
4. Soya Value Chain – Kim Mhando
Take Away Issues:
The involvement of the private sector will give better results;
More work is required in terms of dialogue and analysis;
On coffee and soya, there is a need to fast track seed harmonization and also look
into the issue of overregulation of coffee. But a suggestion to also put an eye on
the issue of under regulation;
Unfavorable land regulations to private investment should be discouraged. There is a need to address misconceptions about land grabbing in Tanzania;
The repot findings of the survey by Mitchell to be taken into serious by the
government and other partners;
Emerging issues and Recommended Interventions/ Research on Enabling Policy
for Private Sector Investment
Key Issues:
i. High produce CESS;
ii. High VAT for agriculture produce;
iii. High Corporate Tax;
iv. Unfavorable land tenure policy;
v. WB/ EBA report validation – e.g. input sector rated as performing well contrary
to what seems the actual situation in the field.
Potential Intervention/ Research Recommendation:
i. Review of Local Government Finance Act, 1982 to improve CESS;
ii. Need for VAT bill review;
iii. Need for corporate tax review;
iv. Land tenure issues pertaining to SHFs should form incentive to agriculture bill;
v. Need for research on fertilizer marketing and transport cost.
DAY 3
Youth Engagement in Beekeeping Business: Presentation by Philemon Kiyemi
Before starting day three deliberations, the convention had the opportunity to listen to
motivational discussion on youth engagement in beekeeping activities. Mr. Philemon Kiyemi,
a youth entrepreneur from Singida region shared his own entrepreneurial history; the
52
reason why he chose to engage in the industry; the amount of investments made; some
success stories as well the challenges faced in engaging in beekeeping entrepreneurship. The
discussion, however centered on two major issues – (i) the challenges facing beekeeping
entrepreneurs in their involvement in the industry and (ii) the implication of these
challenges in improving the policy environment for beekeeping business to flourish and get
even more youth to engage in the business.
The main conclusions and recommendations were:
i. Beekeeping has a greatest potential to improve youth employment and income generation because there is high demand for bee-products such as honey in the
international and local markets.
ii. Accessibility to production area (land) is a big challenge -95% of land is not surveyed
and the cost attached to land makes it difficult for youth to acquire enough land to
meet specified market standards in USA, UK, Canada and the European Union.
Thus a call for massive investment on land survey and capacity building.
iii. Other challenges include access to financing, quality inputs and business support
services -to complete all stages of bee value chain such as beehives, product testing
equipment and others. Therefore, the need for government support in these areas.
The participants were also given an opportunity to ask a few questions as follows:
Question:
i. Are your hives of the European honey bee or of the native species? Is there any
research on diseases affecting your bees? (Prof. David Tschirley, MSU)
Response
i. The bees are purely wild native (African) bees, Apis scutulata and not imported from
Europe- just the species present in Tanzania. Currently no research because of lack of
funds, but we have evidence that the bees are not infected by disease.
Question:
i. Do you have business plans for what you are doing? What are investment barriers?
(Hal Carey, USAID)
Response
ii. The business plan is in place and covers all stages of bee value chain. The first five years
were spent on planning, doing a lot of research on the business and developing beehives.
We were also able to do product testing in labs in Canada and Israel. However, the main
problem is lack of financing to make sure we complete the bee value chain.
3.9. Session 5: Land Tenure Policy
The session had two presentations: (1) Agricultural Land Dynamics and Land Policy in Rural
Tanzania by Milu Muyanga; and (2) Land Compensation Schemes and Valuation Models
made by Don Mitchell.
53
The Moderator: Dr. Sophia Mlote, MALF
Panelists:
1. Mr. Steven Michael, MALF
2. Mr. Steven Luvuga, MVIWATA and
3. Prof. Ntengua Mdoe, SUA
Presentation 1: Agricultural Land Dynamics and Land Policy in Rural Tanzania,
by Milu Muyanga, MSU5
Abstract:
Tanzania, like many other African countries has for a long time been working to transform
agriculture. But the main question is why agriculture transformation is not happening. This
paper provides a highlight of the dynamics of agricultural transformation model in some
countries of Africa. One of the factors is population growth which has negative implication
on land –leading to declining land sizes. There is a possibility to intensify but for how long.
The results will be degraded soils and diminishing returns -leading to soil-induced poverty
traps in the long run.
Another factor is rapid changes in farm structure associated with the expansion in recent
years of medium or “emergent” farmers. These farmers are very different from smallholder
and large scale farmers –they control about 42% of land and produce up a hundred acres of
land. The emergent farmers are observed in Zambia, Kenya, Ghana and some other
countries, but question is who are they? It was noted that most middle farmers are
educated and have the financial means to acquire land. However, the emergent farmers
cultivate less than 50% of their land and the reason why they don’t use all of their land is
not clear.
The main conclusion in this presentation is that medium farmers are proven to be more
productive than the smallholders – showing that small may not be beautiful. The medium
farmers can access funds to address the problems that smallholders cannot due limited
resources. The question is what is the implication of these observations in policy? Should
we support the medium farmers or smallholders? If the medium scale farmers are more
productive then they should be supported. The paper is still work in progress and whether
these dynamics are happening in Tanzania or not, we still need to compare and analyze the
implications of rural to rural migration and urban back to rural migration on land access.
We also need to analyze trends in population growth to see if Tanzania is still land
abundant given that the big portion of its population is youths under age of 25. All of them
require land for cultivation.
5 The study team comprises of: Milu Muyanga (MSU), Isaac Minde (MSU/iAGRI), David Nyange (MSU/MALF), Ntengua Mdoe (SUA), Charles Mgeni (SUA), Christopher G. Magomba (SUA), Judith V. Rejea (SUA), Ayala Wineman (MSU) and T.S. Jayne (MSU)
54
Plenary Discussion
Question 1:
i. Most people attach land with livelihood. Is there a link between value attached to
land and emotions with availability of social protection mechanisms?
ii. How can we ensure that we have the right combination where medium and large
scale investments symbiotically live with small holder farmers? (Audax Rukonge)
Response
i. Land is a factor of production as well as an asset that household can fall back to in case
of any eventuality
ii. The right balance between small and medium farms depends on the government policy
objectives. If in fact medium scale farms are more productive, then if the government is
after food security and exports – support medium.
Question 2:
i. How much labour is guaranteed by medium scale farmers? What kind of wages
are they paying? Are they mechanized? (Tschirley)
Response
i. We have not considered employment generated by medium scale farmers in other
countries we have worked in. We will consider looking into that here in Tanzania. The
main reason why this presentation is done is to get comments from various
stakeholders. Thus all comments and recommendations are welcomed.
Question 3:
i. How does the study factor in block farming units or collectives such as VICOBA,
do they qualify as MSF? (D.B. Furnish)
Response:
i. We may not consider one block as one unit. Our definition is based on the ownership or
area operated by each household.
Question 4:
i. Is land ownership (i.e. size of land) a good indicator to classify farmers into small
and medium or large scale? What if we think of looking more into technology use,
degree of vertical/ horizontal integration in the value chain, labour etc? I think
there is a need to have indicators from some variable for classifying this apart
from land size. (Owen Nelson, IITA)
Response
i. We are yet to agree on the definition of medium scale. For now we are using the land
holding sizes for our definition; 0-10ha (small), 10-100ha (medium) and over 100 ha
55
(large). Of course a broader definition should be welcome that considers –Enterprises,
Management and Technology.
Other Comments and Recommendations from Plenary
Audax Rukonge, ANSAF
i. He commented on the issue of smallholders vis-à-vis medium scale farmers
where he explained that the question is not either or -but rather how can we
support and mutually benefit from both sides;
Peniel Lyimo
i. He emphasized that what has been presented is a situation and not a researched
work. The presentation only gives statistics from other countries which may not
reflect the situation in Tanzania. He highlighted that the best start point for this
study could be on the legal frameworks. 70% of land in Tanzania is under villages-
mostly populated by smallholder farmers. Only 2% of land is general land while
28% is reserve land. Unless we have research findings it will be difficult to
comment on the presentation;
ii. He also questioned the assertion that smallholders are not productive. It was
pointed out that SHF are the biggest investors and existing evidence suggest that
they can be very productive when given the support they need to improve
productivity. He mentioned the success story of KPL where the partnership with
the SHFs enabled them to surpass production;
Response:
i. In response to this comment, the presenter notified that the study was only at the
initial stage where what is done is just to show what is happening in other parts of
Africa. It is also true that the Tanzania’s situation can be different;
Geofrey Kirenga, SAGCOT
i. The study is very interesting because if you have all farmers producing the same
things and consuming the same products there will be no agric business-they will
trade nearly nothing. Thus it will be useful if the current study captures the
production and marketing aspects as well.
ii. Also equally important, is to find out the root out of the situation where you have
smallholders cultivating on small farms again and again. We need to find out what
should be done to unlock or break them out of this trap and to allow
transformation to happen i.e. what opportunities exist for such people.
David Nyange, MSU
i. There is a need to clarify the issue of farm size- small, medium and large in terms
of hectares;
56
ii. Moreover, there is difference between land ownership and land use. Thus this
research needs to differentiate the two because a farmer might lease land from
two different owners;
Lameck Kikoka, RUDI
i. The research agenda could look into BRN model of land transformation using
block farming approach. The CCROs can be used as shareholding equity in a block
farm. Also look into how to improve the management of block farms (small farms
aggregated) as transformation;
Presentation 2: Land Compensation Schemes and Valuation Models, By Don
Mitchell, SERA Project
Abstract:
The Government of Tanzania seeks to leverage significant investor interest in its
agricultural sector to increase incomes, economic growth, local community development,
food security, and production. In promoting and managing these investments, the
government faces the challenge of structuring them in a way that fairly compensates
current holders of land rights, while also meeting the legitimate interests of investors,
communities, and the government itself. This Policy Brief addresses two topics that arise in
this context: alternative compensation schemes that can be used for these investments; and
the importance of accurately valuing the land sought for investment. Companies may
provide compensation for leases through (1) fixed-price leases, (2) land for equity
arrangements, and (3) other risk-sharing arrangements. Each model has advantages and
disadvantages and the best one for any given scenario will depend on the unique
circumstances of that situation. Choosing the right scheme, or combination thereof, is
critically important to achieving equitable outcomes for all involved.
Accurately valuing land to be used in large-scale agricultural investments plays an important
role in ensuring that the land rights holder receives an equitable share of the benefits. This
is true no matter which compensation structure is used. Leases and land sales in developed
economies tend to utilize a limited set of market-based valuation methodologies, all
intended to extract the maximum future economic value of the land discounted to the
transaction date. In Tanzania, much of the documented experience on valuing land arises
where the government has expropriated private land for public use. While different laws
apply in different circumstances, in all cases the valuer is supposed to determine the market
value of the property. This is one of the factors the valuer must consider in determining
“full, fair and prompt compensation” under the Land Act.
But determining the fair market value of agricultural land has been challenging in Tanzania
for a number of reasons. One is the lack of an active, transparent land market. Another
problem arises from difficulties faced by the Chief Valuer’s Office within MLHHSD, whose
57
valuations are often used but tend to be based on information that is out of date. In short,
there appears to be widespread agreement among researchers and others that
compensation for land taken by the Tanzanian government is usually inadequate and the
amount that is paid is often made after considerable delay. Accordingly, there is room for
significant improvement in land valuation practices in Tanzania.
Reflection and Comments from Panelists
Stephen Michael, MALF
i. He underscored that agriculture transformation is inevitable and is expected to
reduce the share of employment in agriculture from 75%-49% by 2025. There will
be an automatic redundancy of smallholders as Tanzania moves towards becoming
a middle income country by 2025;
ii. Urbanization is also backed with many changes. Despite the changes, small holder
farmers should not be abandoned but rather helped to graduate. The bottom-line
is that both the smallholders and medium scale farmers are needed to transform
agriculture and the agric market;
iii. Regarding compensation scheme and valuation, it was noted that the most
common approach in Tanzania is the fixed price leases but the other ones are
complicated given that most farmers have little knowledge and understanding on
contractual issues;
iv. The concept of sharing benefits and losses is not clear to most farmers and has its
own challenges. With regards to valuation, the laws and guidelines are already in
place and functioning but there is a challenge of law enforcement. Thus the need
to review some land policies to address the emerging issues;
Mr. Stephen Luvuga, MVIWATA
He commended the presenters for their good presentations and pointed out the main
issues that require the attention of policy makers as far as land issues are concerned:
i. First is the belief that Tanzania has abundant land while conflicts involving land are
on the rise -as evidenced by cases of KPL, ILOVO, Mtibwa and Kapuga. And
second, is the fact that land is becoming scarce at the same time it is left idle. Thus
the study on Agricultural Land Dynamics and Land Policy needs to address the
two questions and come out with answers.
ii. According to a Global Study on Sesame (2013), Tanzania is the 5th producer of
sesame but there is no large scale producer of sesame. This implies that if given
the right resources, smallholder farmers are able to produce more. Thus,
recommended the study to provide mixed recommendations;
iii. He emphasized the need for further analysis to address other issues –like reduced
share of agriculture in employment from 70-49% in 2025, wondering as to where
will these farmers go. Also the study needs clarify the issue of modernization of
agriculture;
58
iv. Regarding land compensation schemes and valuation, he proposed the need to
establish which of the proposed compensation models is right. He emphasized
complaints on land compensation in many places where investors have acquired
land. He cited the case of Kigamboni where most villages face land problems due
to absence of village land use plans and CCROs;
Prof. Ntengua Mdoe, SUA
i. Notified that the study is still in the design stage –it has not started yet and as
such the issue of where the MSF are coming from has not been addressed yet. In
other words, it is still unclear if these are SHF who have graduated or the people
who are buying land for future use –either for farming or speculation;
ii. Small may not be beautiful: It could be right but not necessarily. The statement
does not mean that smallholder farmers are not needed. Both the smallholders
and medium scale are important and the KPL model shows that we need to
support both of them. The large scale farmers can provide the market that is
needed by smallholders;
iii. Access to title deeds and CCROs is important and can enable farmers to benefit
from the technology which they can’t afford at individual level. However, the issue
must not rely more on development partners, it is linked to land surveying
capacity where there is a need to invest;
iv. Land compensation scheme: The study needs to clarify the third land
compensation scheme referred to in the presentation as “other risk-sharing
arrangements”. He gave an example of another land compensation arrangement
where land owners – do not cultivate but rent it out to other farmers in exchange
for a share of farm produce;
v. Finally, he recommended the need to come up with proper procedures for asset
evaluation;
Plenary Discussion
Melyabeen, UN Women
i. Women are the centre of the discussion when it comes to issues related to
agriculture. Most women are SHFs who provide the bigger share of labour and
there is a possibility that reduction in share of agriculture in employment from 70-
49% will eventually push women out of land and employment;
ii. It was similarly articulated that women have not been discussed in all
presentations. She therefore recommended the need to take women perspectives
in all discussions fairly.
59
Tertula Swai, UN Women
i. The reason why people are gathered at the conference is to improve policies.
There is a need for gender responsive policies and that can be achieved by
incorporating women’s perspective in policy processes;
Maureen Kwilasa, One Acre Fund
i. It is important to review the definition of smallholder farmers –and to do so by
looking at what happed in 10-15 years ago, and compare this with what is
happening now. Smallholders were defined as those owning 1-2 acres of land but
things are different now. We should change how we view small holder farming
and view it more progressively;
ii. Evidence is showing that at least 35% of the farmer profit is reinvested back into
larger pieces of land. It is possible to get from 70% subsistence farmers to 49% by
2025.
Prof. Peniel Lyimo
i. In the context of Tanzania, land belongs to the government. If the government
allocates land and it is not developed or meets the terms and conditions of
developing land, then it is revoked. In this way, the land legal framework is very
important in protecting smallholder farmers and village land. Thus, recommended
the need to know the legal framework before engaging in discussions around land
issues;
ii. Land conflicts result from inadequate investment on land since only 10% of the
land is surveyed. He called upon the government and other stakeholder to invest
in land surveying and development of land use plans in order to improve land
management practices. The ministry of lands is currently embarking on this but
the main question remains –how can we invest more on land?
iii. Regarding agricultural transformation, he was adamant that change is inevitable
and as such we don’t expect to see farmers doing the same things-obviously there
will be changes. What is needed is large scale investment on land.
Response from Presenters:
Dr. Milu Muyanga, MSU
i. Urbanization is led by both push and pull factors, what is important is to
understand the implication of rapid urbanization in agriculture transformation;
ii. Limited farmers’ knowledge on contractual issues, he pointed out that there are
other ways to improve farmer’s engagement with foreign investors on land issues.
He cited a scenario where contractual issues were addressed through meetings
between two parties where all conversations between foreign investors and
60
villagers were video recorded and kept on record for all parties to see and refer
at any time. The results were good and there was a lot of commitment from both
parties.
Mr. Stephen Michael, MALF
i. The ASDP-2 framework takes into consideration women issues and there is
women representation in steering committee. Our research has taken into
account the issue of demographic including issues of gender and youths;
Mr. Stephen Luvuga, MVIWATA
i. What is the right path for this transformation to go –there are different models. It
is important to look at the underlying factors for SHF to be transformed in
sustainable way.
Conclusion:
i. Land is a very sensitive issue –important is to discuss how the best ways in which
investments can be done to ensure fair negotiations and rational compensation to
the right holders. Skills are needed to ensure that the legal transformation will
spearhead positive transformation of the agricultural sector, and the economic
growth of the Nation and SHFs.
Emerging issues and Recommended Interventions/ Research on Land Tenure
Policy
Key Issues:
i. Emerging medium size farms threatening the fate of SHFs;
ii. The need for a definition of medium size farms in Tanzanian context;
iii. Ongoing conflict between farmers and livestock keepers;
iv. Scaling up land surveying and titling;
v. No protection for farm land.
Potential Intervention/ Research Recommendation:
i. Need to carryout complete research on the access to land;
ii. Need to carryout research on land/ resource conflict;
iii. Need for preparation of Protection of Farm Land Bill;
3.10 Session 6: Access to Finance and Technology
Three presentations were made during this session: (1) Modern Secured Transaction Law,
By Dare Furnish; (2) Leveraging Mobile Technology in Accessing Market Information and
Financial Services, By Freddie Manento; and (3) Smart Farming in Tanzania: Hydroponic,
Acquaponic and Azora Technologies, Abdalla.
61
Moderator: Charles Mkindi, SERA Project
Panelists:
Rehema Shange, CRDB Bank
Rafael Wayne, MSU-Mozambique
Presetation1: Modern Secured Transaction Law, By Dare Furnish, Arizona
State University/Sera Project
Abstract
Tanzania’s laws that control using personal property—for example, growing or warehoused
crops, equipment, inventory, accounts—for collateral to lenders are old. Because of the
current laws on credit guaranties, Tanzania’s millions of smallholder farmers find it difficult
or impossible to obtain credit. Lack of good seed, fertilizers and other essential inputs
stunts their yields. Because of the same laws, Tanzania’s small and medium-sized business
owners (“SMEs”) cannot finance increased inventory, nor purchase equipment and fixtures
that would allow them to expand their operations and hire additional employees. Even
large enterprise’s lack of credit curtails the size and profit of their operations. The existing
legal restrictions on credit in Tanzania hamper the national economy, stopping growth and
reducing employment. This negative situation need not exist. Within the last two decades,
the World Bank and other international organizations have begun to offer models to carry
out reform of national Personal Property Security Act (“PPSA”) and similar laws. Countries
around the world—in Africa, Latin America, Asia, and Eastern Europe—have begun to
transform their national credit laws.6
A team of Tanzanian and international legal experts has drafted a proposed new PPSA to
change the national credit structure. The proposed law would unify existing diverse laws
into a single system and establish a national electronic registry for instant registration of
guaranties against personal property. Lenders would have lower risk and smallholder
farmers, SMEs and even large enterprises could get loans at lower interest rates. Much of
the world’s wealth has become concentrated in moveable property (growing and stored
crops, livestock, automobiles, equipment, accounts receivable, inventory, bank accounts,
and intellectual property). While real estate maintains its place as a high source of value and
continues to serve as an important credit guaranty, moveable property has long surpassed
it in aggregate value.
It is time for Tanzania to recognize that and adopt the proposed PPSA or a similar one.
Such a law could have a powerful effect on the majority of the Tanzanian people, comprised
of predominately rural smallholders. Urban populations, however, also include a majority of
smallholders engaged in business and commerce. Access to credit at reasonable interest
rates could support more economic activity, increase employment and reduce poverty
6Liberia (2010), Ghana (2011) and Malawi (2013) have new laws, while Mozambique and Zimbabwe are developing.
62
among Tanzania’s millions of small farmers and for the small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) that make up most of its business activity.
Plenary Discussion
Question:
i. If the Modern Secured Transaction Law is a brain opener, why is the law not
passed? (Hal Carey, USAID)
Response:
i. There are various reasons; example in USA, the delay was caused by Notary Registry
who felt that implementation of the law was costly.
ii. In the case of Tanzania, the project team has made several attempts to meet the
relevant authorities at the Bank of Tanzania, but they were preoccupied with national
elections. Now that the elections are over, there is hope that the Bank will take the
proposal into consideration. The law is still a priority and so far no body objects to it.
Question:
i. There are other laws such as the Leasing Finance Act and the Warehouse
Receipt System Act, how is the secure transaction law related to these? (David
Nyange, MSU)
Response:
i. The proposed law is related to these and will be coordinated with other laws as well.
He recommended the proposed Law to be gender sensitive especially because most
women cannot access loans due to lack of collateral.
Question:
i. It is like we have no traction in our country. What were the reasons for delay in
other countries that passed our stage? What lessons can we take from those
countries that adopted the law? (Geofrey Kirenga, SAGCOT)
Response:
i. Malawi has a similar system, but a smaller country so political system is more
accessible. However, bigger and more sophisticated countries with more vested interest
groups are harder. Example in Latin America, in Mexico it took 17 years and Honduras
4+ years.
Question:
i. What do consumer groups and small business groups say about the credit Law?
(Prof. David Tschirley)
Response:
63
i. This law is gender sensitive as it addresses disparity among men and women in access
to credit.
Question:
i. The modern secured transaction is a good idea, but if registered properties
cannot fetch their worth if there is a need to recover the loan, then there is a
need to think of ways and means of being able to sell and get the actual worth of
the registered properties. Is it possible to think of insurance for those properties
to increase the security? (Mark Lyimo, MALF)
Response:
i. Insurance of collateral is and should be a part of the security agreement. It is a typical
clause, virtually always used.
Presentation 2: Leveraging Mobile Technology in Accessing Market Information
and Financial Services, By Freddie Manento, Push Mobile
Abstract:
Tanzania is among countries with higher mobile phone penetration in Africa. According to
official records from TCRA, the country has a total of 35.9 million subscribers (as of
September 2015) which is equivalent to 79.9% of the current population (44.9 million).
There are seven active Mobile Network Providers (MNO’s), offering services ranging from
voice, sms, data, mobile money and others. These MNOs include; Vodacom, Airtel, Tigo,
Zantel, TTCL, Smart and Halotel. Vodacom has the biggest market share (35%) followed by
Tigo and Airtel (each 30%), TTCL (4%) and others (1%). In addition, over 85 Licensed
Value Added Services (VAS) providers exist to provide a variety of services to MNOs and
end users.
Mobile phone usage in Tanzania is also high. Example, by September 2015, there were 13.3
billion SMS traffic; 12 billion voice minutes; 11.3 million internet subscribers (31%) and 16.4
million mobile money subscribers. Mobile phones have proven to be effective in improving
access to market information as well as the ease of accessing financial services- where
Tanzania is noted to be a leading Country in Mobile finance Services in Africa. There are
multiple advantages of using mobile phone technology which include, among other things,
ease access to the technology; high audience reaches; cheap, ease to forward
communication; and accessibility to first hand information. The main issue is how to tap on
the benefits to enhance agriculture transformation.
The presentation identified three areas of policy concern: (1) the need for regulations to
include financial inclusion; (2) emphasis on working with a regulated service provider; and
(3) the need to improve security.
64
Plenary Discussion
Emmanuel Mustapha, Tanzania Meat Board
i. Many projects fail due to double payment, there is need for MNOs to have a
common charge for transactions?
Response:
i. For mobile money (Mobile financial services) – BOT and TCRA need to ensure that the
service providers, operators and banks work in harmony by ensuring conducive
interoperability environment;
ii. Cost operators and VAS Co. A work together in establishing the best cost effective
structure;
iii. All vas providers must be certified/ registered by TCRA otherwise do not use them
iv. Also TCRA has been contacted as a regulator to address the key industrial
harmonization issues e.g. charges and revenue shares between VAS Co. and operators;
Presentation 3: Smart Farming in Tanzania: Hydroponic, Acquaponic and
Azora Technologies, By Abdallah Hassan, ESRF
Abstract:
ESRF in collaboration with GoT and UNDP/UNEP are implementing the Smart Farming
Initiative in Tanzania. The Initiative, among other things, has introduced three types of
smart farming technologies namely; (1) hydroponic system – fodder; (2) aquaponic system –
Vegetables and (3) Azolla- Animal feeds. All these technologies involve farming without soil.
Pilot testing of the initiative is done in six districts of Ikungi, Sengerema, Nyasa, Ileje,
Bukoba Rural and Bunda.
The hydroponic fodder system is a temperature and humidity controlled growing room –
designed to sprout grains that are very nutritious. In regards to this, a selection of grains
such as barley, wheat, millet are put into trays without soil and sprayed with water solution
at predetermined intervals to produce tender grass. This nutritious tender grass can be
used to replace expensive grains like dairy meal, pig’s feeds and poultry feed concentrates.
The imported hydroponic fodder systems require electricity but farmers can opt for locally
made systems which do not require electricity.
On the other hand, Aquaponics system involves growing food with fish poop. This farming
technique makes use of limited space availability, less water and allows farmers to grow any
time of the year. Azolla is an aquatic fern which is used both as biofertilizer and green
manuring for rice cultivation. It can also be used as organic feed supplement for fish and
other small animals such as chicken.
65
The three smart farming technologies are considered a solution to the many problems
facing smallholder farmers including, land conflicts, rising cost of agric inputs, diminishing
soil fertility and water scarcity due unpredictable weather patterns, to mention a few.
However, there were concerns regarding the high cost of purchasing equipments such as –
water tanks, pipes and others especially at the initial stages of building structures or
systems. Another challenge is delays in issuance of guidelines from NEMC. The systems also
requires technical know - how and constant monitoring
Plenary Discussion
Question:
i. There is very little information on the cost of hydroponic fodder. Can you
provide more information on this? (Ben Moshi, Silverlands)
Response:
i. For a unit with capacity of producing 120 kilograms of fodder every day, automated
(Imported hydroponics) cost ca. 10,000 USD. Locally made systems using available
materials cost 5,000,000 TZS. Basically, the initial cost is very high because users need
to purchase shed nets, trays, timber and other equipment but case culture are less
expensive.
Question:
i. Why is a country with abundant land cultivating crops without using land?
Response:
i. It is true that Tanzania has enough land to support agriculture but we also need to
consider the advantages of the technology.
Question:
i. Cage based aquaculture is common in neighboring countries of Malawi and
Uganda. Why is it not common in Tanzania? (Prof. Ntengua Mdoe, SUA)
Response:
i. The main challenge is that the investment requires NEMC clearance before it can start.-
of which they are currently developing such guidelines. However, the project was
launched in Bunda UNDER the Ministry of Defense– The MALF encourages the people
to use the technology as they wait for guideline from NEMC.
Reflection and Comments from Panelists
Rehema Shange, CRDB Bank
66
i. She notified the convention that CRDB Bank is willing and ready to support
ongoing initiatives in agriculture but collateral is a major issue. The current
lending rate for agriculture is only 2% which is low given the large amount of
investment needed to transform the sector;
ii. There is lack of proper coordination of the sectors. Despite the challenges, the
Bank has invested Tshs. 30 billion in cashew nut sector. Agriculture is very
profitable –what is needed is a well established value chain;
iii. The value chain for food crops such as rice and maize is not well established
which pose greater risk for banks, this area needs to be improved;
iv. The ware house management systems needs to be improved to avoid financial
losses- the bank has lost 7 billion in the sunflower;
There are many interventions from the government but results are not coming out
strongly. There is a need to improve sector coordination at all levels. The Bank is willing to
learn from the sector despite the challenges encountered in collateral and markets.
Rafael Wayne, MSU
He commended the idea of having people coming together to discuss policy issues as it
happens for PAG which isn’t the case in Mozambique. He promised to introduce the same
thing in Mozambique and recommended the following:
i. A study on Modern Secured Transaction Law needs to find out more about
disadvantages of the law as well as the cost of implementing the law;
ii. It is true that credits improve access to inputs but is this issue to all farmers? We
need to know if the policy will also benefits the smallholders with access to
credits;
iii. There is a need to be careful with data on mobile phone subscriptions because
the number of phones does not necessarily translate to people who own
telephones;
iv. Find out how many subscribers are women from the rural areas, and if the
technology development is suitable for youths and non smart phone users;
Reaction from Presenters
Mr. Freddie Manento, PushMobile
i. The – data on mobile subscriptions mainly looked at the activities of SIM Cards
over a certain period of time, and those which were inactive for three months
were left out. TCRA measurement of subscribers’ activity is based on the
number of time at which the mobile phone is active. The number of
communication done is also taken into account, with the assumption that in
each household there is one mobile phone user. The main challenge is that
TCRA does not provide rural-urban data;
ii. On the issue of double payment, the use of USSD transaction services helps to
create a mobile equal system based on service deliverables. The regular third
67
part services are offered with VAT but key stakeholders are still working to
harmonize the costs;
iii. Regarding sustainability of the technology, it was pointed out that technology is
expensive, but the company (Push Mobile) can help by reviewing the strategies
and come out with better and affordable options;
The provision of credit facilities as well as other collateral is very important. The idea of
using mobile technology to register credit facilities is also relevant and will increase the
supply of credit. The company is looking forward for legalization of the law.
Dale Furnish, USAD/ SERA
The proposed Law on Modern Secured Transaction is not concerned with land. What is
required is to identify possible challenges and think of possible ways to address security
issues.
Plenary Discussion
Hal Carey, USAID
i. Land tenure is big issue especially now that Tanzania is speaking about
transforming the agriculture sector. The question is how the other actors
interact with the government? How gender/ interest groups including academic
and research are involved? And whether the MALF engage or rather coordinate
with other line ministries on these issues. Example, MoFP on issues related to
collateral and Ministry of Lands in addressing challenges related to land issues;
ii. These are multi-sectoral issues, and ministerial discussions are vital. There is a
need to have a kind of platform where the private sector and other stakeholders
are invited.
Dr. Sophia Mlote, MALF
i. ASDP-2 is more inclusive, the ASLM’s under ASDP -1 is in full engagement with
other ministries. She mentioned that the PS for the Ministry of Lands for example
is a member of Steering committee of ASDP-2. Other ministries involved
include; water, natural resources, energy and infrastructure;
ii. The coordination structure will be clearly observed during the launching of
ASDP-2;
iii. The government is ready to engage with whoever is relevant to ASDP-2 but
willing to work within the government framework.
68
Emerging issues and Recommended Interventions/ Research on Access to
Finance and Technology
Key Issues
i. The need for leveraging movable assets as collateral;
ii. Lack of appropriate credit products for small holder farmers
Potential Interventions/ Research Recommendation
i. The need for secured transaction reforms;
ii. Research on agriculture finance – focusing on value chain particularly for food
crops and the likely potential risks facing financial institutions;
iii. Research on warehouse management system – substantial loss of money reported
for sunflower;
3.11. Session 7: Agriculture Input Policy
This session was supposed to have a total of four presentations. However, only three of
them were made available for presentation: (1) Influencing Micro (policy and regulatory)
changes in Tanzania: The Case of Soil Health Node; (2) Evaluation of Agricultural
Mechanization Interventions under ASDP1; and (3) Smallholder maize-nitrogen response
rates, soil fertility, and profitability of inorganic fertilizer use on maize in Tanzania. The
following are the names of the moderator and panelists for the session:
Moderator: Tausi Madavida, ESRF
Panelists:
1. Prof. Isaack Minde, MSU 2. Dr. Mshindo Msolla,
3. Mr. Wilson Njoroge, AGRA
Presentation 1: Influencing Micro (policy and regulatory) changes in Tanzania:
The Case of Soil Health Node, By Gungu Mibavu, MIRA Project/MALF7
Abstract:
This paper presented challenges in influencing policy and regulatory changes at micro level,
based on experiences from soil health node in Tanzania. It shows that macro policy making
is easier and more frequent than micro/meso policy making process. Policy and regulatory
changes at sector or industry level are complex and more difficult because: (1) Several
stages need to be followed which takes time for policies and Acts to be changed; (2) Many
disciplines involved and consensual decision making among many stakeholders with
conflicting interests; (3) There are losers and winners in the process - so require “win win”
7 The presentation was prepared by Gungu M. Mibavu , Dr. Joseph Rusike and Liston Njoroge
69
solutions; and (4) Technical skills needed in – Cost Benefit Analysis of options, Estimation
the costs to government to implement reforms, Legal analysis of compliance of reform
options etc.
The implementation of Soil Health Node is intended to improve soil and crop productivity
to contribute to poverty alleviation and food security through the implementation of
conducive soil health policies. The specific objectives were to (1) improve the
implementation of the fertilizer subsidy program; (2) improve investments in extension and
advisory services on fertilizer; and (3) examine and document evidence for cost reduction
in the fertilizer business. Several studies were conducted and results indicated that the
NAIVS were effective in terms of supporting smallholder farmers to access agricultural
inputs; improving production and productivity (e.g. paddy from 1.5 tons per ha 2005/2006
to 2.9 tons per ha 2007/2008); increasing agricultural technology adoption and participation
of the private sector in the delivery of inputs to mention a few. However, some challenges
were also observed in the areas of fertilizer procurement and administration, selection
criteria, delivery effectiveness, and beneficiary targeting etc.
Several propositions were made for to further improve the efficiency of fertilizer industry
and welfare of farmers, fertilizers firms, consumers and tax payers, including: (1)
Distribution of vouchers a year before farmers keep and redeem when needs fertilizer - to
deal with varying moths of starting of cropping season around the country; (2) supporting
bulk procurement of fertilizers when international prices are lowest in order to contain
prices in the domestic market; and (3) Strengthen farmers groups s that can obtain fertilizer
at the beginning of the season without making cash payment and pay at end of season after
harvest.
The main challenge is that results of NAIVS study were not immediately applied – because
GoT dropped NAIVS in 2014/15 and replaced it with a loan given to farmers in credit
group. A cabinet paper was developed to build the case for the re-introduction of the
NAIVS which drew some lesson from the SHN study and incorporated recommendations
flowing from the study. NAIVS was re-introduced by the government in 2015/2016 where
Input Suppliers appoint the agro-dealers instead of the LGAs.
The paper recommends the need to continuously engage with government decision making
and use “windows of opportunity” in the political process by integrating into the impact
pathway. It also emphasizes the need for technical assistance to build case to inform
government decision making and influence approval of reforms
Plenary Discussion:
Question1:
i. In terms of reform agenda, how can we influence policy? Where can local
systems intervene in the process? (Tom)
70
Comment:
The idea of e voucher was first initiated here in Tanzania under the paper- voucher
program. The Nigerians took the idea from here and implemented it. Now do we want to
go to Nigeria to learn from them? Furthermore since Tz is the leading country in mobile
money transactions, the use of e voucher will not be a new idea to the stakeholders. Please
implement it. (Ben Moshi, Silverlands (T) Ltd)
Presentation 2: Evaluation of Agriculture Mechanization Interventions under
ASDP I, by Geoffrey Mrema, SUA
Abstract:
A scoping study was undertaken with the overall goal of systematically gathering and
examining existing information on agro-mechanisation in Tanzania to establish its strengths
and weaknesses and guide the design of a study on the impact of interventions under
ASDP1. Specifically, this scoping study should enable PAPAC and MAFC to subsequently
commission a rigorous impact study by identifying the right issues and approach (es) for
such a study. The conceptual framework for studies on impact of agricultural mechanization
interventions is presented taking cognizance of experiences from SSA and Asia of the 1960s
to 2000 – in particular the need to take a long term perspective on the impact of the
interventions rather than focusing on the short term consequences of mechanization. The
status of agricultural mechanization in Tanzania and indeed in most of SSA has, for the past
fifty years, remained at stage 1 of the mechanization process – the Power Substitution
Stage: which is the earliest stage involving the substitution of animate power [be it from
human muscles or from draft animals] with mechanical power from internal combustion
engines in performing the power intensive and often arduous and back-breaking tasks such
primary land tillage. Technologically, the process at this stage, is straight forward but the
key issues are more on the ‘software’ required for effective and efficient utilization of the
power source through sustainable and profitable business models. Emphasis and priority in
the interventions has shifted from mechanical power as evidenced by the Great Groundnut
Scheme of 1945-51 to the early settlement schemes after independence in 1961and
subsequent Ujamaa Villages to draft animal technology [DAT] and/or appropriate
technologies from the 1980s to the turn of the century. The number of four wheel tractors
[4WT] in use increased from about 2,000 in 1950 to 2,580 by 1960 and 6,500 by 1970.
Thereafter it increased to 15,500 units by 1980 peaking at 18,500 in 1985 before nose-
diving to 7200 units by 2005 with about 73% of them being over 15 years old.
In 2005/06, the Tanzania Agricultural Mechanization Strategy [TAMS], developed with
technical assistance from FAO and UNIDO, was approved by the Government. TAMS, has
been the framework guiding the investment priorities and interventions under ASDP1 and
should therefore provide the baseline data for impact evaluation of the interventions since
2005. The biggest investment under ASDP1 has been in the form of tractors with the
numbers of two-wheel tractors [2WT] and four-wheel tractors [4WT] in use increasing by
71
about 3400% and 80% respectively during the first nine years of ASDP1 [2005 to 2014].
About 56% of the 4WT were and are still located in 5 regions [e.g. for 2015 Arusha [14.1%],
Manyara [13.9%], Dodoma [11.1%], Morogoro [10.5%] and Kilimanjaro [6.2%] with the
remaining 44% spread in the other 20 regions. However, there is anecdotal evidence that
there is high degree of mobility of 4WT between regions following rainfall isohyets and land
preparation seasons. Available data also shows an imbalance between numbers of 4WT and
the associated implements for land preparation in some regions. The 2WT are a new
introduction with only 281 in the whole country in 2005[with 32% of them being in Mbeya
region] and which increased to 4571 by 2010 and 7177 by 2015 [with still 23 and 28% of
them respectively being in Mbeya region]. Also, data from the MAFC shows that the
contribution of tractors to primary land preparation has remained at 14% of total cultivated
land between 2005 and 2015 cf. 24% by DAT and 62% by hand-tool technology [HTT] with
entire reliance on human muscle power.
The detailed impact assessment study [IAS] needs to, among other things, (a) verify these
figures and determine whether these tractors [both 2 & 4 WT] and implements are being effectively and efficiently utilized both on- and off-farm; (b) evaluate the technical and
business models being used to offer tractor hire services to farmers as regards to their
affordability, profitability and sustainability as well as degree of mobility of machinery and
implements across districts and regions. The IAS also needs to assess the impact of
motorized equipment in the post-harvest processing and handling subsector where SMEs
appear to have made significant progress in offering grain milling services. On irrigation the
IAS needs to assess the extent as well as the technical and economic aspects of using
motorized equipment in the short, medium and long term. Further, DAT has been
promoted in Tanzania for over 100 years and plays an important role in land preparation
and transportation in the seven regions where it has been widely adopted and which have
80% of the draft animals in use [Shinyanga, Manyara, Mara, Mwanza, Singida, Rukwa and
Tabora]. The remaining 20% of draft animals in use are spread in the remaining 18 regions
with five regions having less than 1000 draft animals in use [Coast; DSM; Kigoma; Lindi; and
Mtwara]. The IAS needs to, among other things, (a) verify the adoption and use of DAT and
its impact in those regions it has been widely adopted and (b) review and analyze its long
term sustainability given socio-economic, technical and environmental constraints as well as
the alternative sources of power for farming and transportation in the short and long term
both in the regions where it has been widely adopted and where adoption rates are low.
The IAS will have also to assess the availability and impact of credit for mechanization inputs
especially subsidized credit from the Agricultural Inputs Trust Fund [AITF] and the TADB as
compared to credit from the commercial banks. Other areas which require attention of the
IAS include evaluation of impact of: (i) the private and public sector franchises which handle
the supply chains for agricultural machinery and implements more so as many of them are
relatively new; (ii) Research & Development on agricultural mechanization especially in
developing and manufacturing of new implements and equipment as well as environmentally
sustainable technologies; (iii) institutions which support the agricultural mechanization
process in Tanzania in research; training; standards and testing of machinery and
implements; and (iv) assess the policy and strategy environment for agricultural
mechanization development in terms of provision of overall guidance, coordination and in program implementation. The IAS needs to evaluate the impact of the interventions of the
last decade taking cognizance of the experience before TAMS with a long term perspective
of how agricultural mechanization should evolve over the next 20 to 30 years.
72
Plenary Discussion:
Question 1:
i. To Prof. Mrema: Results show that only 14% of land is cultivated by using the
tractor. Can we do another analysis to see what will happen if all tractors are put
into optimal use? (Audax Rukonge)
ii. Who are the owners of these tractors –is it the owners of land or? (Audax
Rukonge)
Question 2:
i. Can you comment on the status of mechanization beyond cultivation i.e. into
planting, weeding, harvesting and post harvesting activities? (Prof. Samwel
Wangwe)
ii. The use of tractors beyond the farm activities. Can you comment on the link
between mechanization, industrialization and rural transportation in nonfarm
activities? (Prof. Samwel Wangwe)
iii. Can we also have findings about farming stages –from land tilling, planting through
marketing and consumption? This should enable us to see the link between
mechanization and industrial transformation. (Prof. Samwel Wangwe)
Question3:
i. There are 2WT and 4WT; the latter are almost diminishing why that is?
Question 4:
i. Is it all about price or fertilizer response?
Presentation 3: Smallholder Maize Nitrogen Response Rate, By David Mather
This paper presented findings from collaborative research on Smallholder Maize Nitrogen
Response Rate conducted by MSU/SUA under GASAIA/ Tanzania Project. The study was
intended to: (1) inform the design and implementation of agric input subsidy programs; (2)
informing policies/investments to strengthen private sector fertilizer/seed supply chains; and
(3) assess profitability of smallholder use of inorganic fertilizer use & improved seed in maize
production. Specifically, the study addressed two issues:
1. How smallholder maize-N response rates compare with those from zonal research
centers and
2. The extent to which fertilizer use on maize profitable under smallholder conditions
- using actual market prices for fertilizer & maize
Smallholders’ maize N- response is determined by a number factors including: agro –
ecological factors (weather conditions, shocks and elevation); plot-level factors such as soil
type and nutrient levels; fertilizer type and application rate; and complementary input use.
The current results indicate that an average smallholder maize-N response rate in Southern
highlands and Northern zones is 9.1(kg maize/kg N). The N-response rate is 6.9 in the rest
73
of the zones (Eastern, Western, Sothern and Lake Zone).Fertilizer improves yields and
should be profitable in many areas thus there is a need to improve maize N-response rate.
The main conclusions and recommendations are as follow:
There is a need to rethink -what appropriate role is for GOT to help improve
profitability of fertilizer use on maize –e.g. in improving maize- N response, maize
sales price and reducing the unit cost of fertilizer
More holistic approach is needed by GOT to improve smallholder maize yields - results show that access to fertilizer not sufficient by itself thus a need for increased
focus on generation and dissemination of updated knowledge & best practices to
increase maize-N response
There is urgent need to update knowledge of current soil characteristics in order to
update fertilizer recommendations in “maize” districts
Need for widespread agric research trials
There is urgent need to disseminate appropriate (updated) fertilizer
recommendations
Need for inherent link between trade policy and sustained technology adoption -
Develop inherent link between maize market policy and sustained technology adoption
Invest in improved port infrastructure, reform the central
Enable Tanzania Fertilizer Regulatory Authority (TFRA) to be an efficient & effective ‘one-stop-shop’ for fertilizer importers
Reform of central and TAZARA railways management maize and fertilizer are bulk
products
Invest in rural feeder roads
Reflection and Recommendations from Panelists
Prof. Isaack Minde, MSU/iAGRI
i. On Mibavu presentation - Very interesting things came out of NAIVS - it is very
important for the MALF to see how the outputs from that node are integrated
in the policy development process. We need to pick some of very good output
and see how we can internalize them in what we do;
ii. On agro-mechanization – The profiling and characterization of different stages of
agriculture mechanization is very important, as a country we need to know
where we are and what to do as a way forward;
iii. It is interesting to see existing linkages between land issues, fertilization,
mechanization, seeds, access to finance and others. We need to develop inter-
sectoral linkages – to see how these things are integrated;
iv. Results have shown that the increase in numbers of tractors may not necessarily
translate into size of tilled land and productivity. There are many issues coming
into play and we need to take them into account - such as land issues,
topography, policies (e.g. restrictive policies on movement of tractors from one
district to another), and accessibility to improved seeds, complementary inputs
and rainfall patterns which are also liked to mechanization;
74
v. Regarding the concentration of 4WT, 2WT and DAT in some regions –there is
need for further study because the presence of small tractors in some places
may be caused by topography;
vi. On NAIVS – it is a very well thought program which takes into account many
issues - example, the engagement of the private sector, capacity building
improved seeds and fertilization.
Dr. Mshindo Msolla, MAFAP
i. On Prof Mrema Presentation –We have done very little to support agriculture
mechanization in Tanzania. As we move to ASDP-2 there is need to invest and
put more emphasis on technology issue.;
ii. Mechanization should go hand in hand with supporting irrigation;
iii. Mechanization can help improve value addition –to support farmers improve the
quality of their produce;
iv. On Mibavu Presentation - In 14 African countries that implemented NAIVS,
Tanzania is the best despite the challenges. In his opinion the subsidy program
was well designed. Therefore, if the government continues with the subsidy
program, the best option would be the use of e-vouchers - to help minimize
cheating by 99%;
v. Most farmers do not use agric inputs due to poor quality, and affordability – the
cost of inputs is very high due to poor infrastructure at the port and unreliable
transport system. To minimize costs-need government intervention at the port
and investing on railway transport;
vi. On David Presentation - There is also a need to establish ‘one stop centre’ to
ease access to services offered by TBS, TFMA, OSHA, TFDA etc. It was noted
that a meeting is arranged in September 2016 where these issues may be taken
on board;
vii. The difference between Southern Highland (lower fertilizer response) and
Northern Zone (high fertilizer response) in smallholder maize-N response rate
may be caused by the price of maize. There is an issue of profitability – i.e.
output prices vis-à-vis cost of production.
Mr. Elson Njoroge, AGRA
i. On Mibavu presentation – there are two issues that need to be looked at when
we talk about input subsidy: (1) program management and administration, and
(2) financing of the program. There is a need to balance the two issues;
ii. On Prof Mrema Presentation –results show that Africa is far behind in use of
agriculture mechanization but why? Is it because of the economies, policies or
any other reasons? The incentives for mechanization are there but the land sizes
are smaller. The study need to address this question;
75
iii. On David Mather presentation- findings from smallholder maize –N response
study indicate that the ratios are not big. We need to examine what incentive
are there for farmers to use the fertilizers, given the prices in the market;
iv. The government is spending a lot on vouchers/ provision of fertilizer subsidies
but return is not tangible. We need to further study – and address the
challenges;
Comments from Plenary
Prof. Samwel Wangwe
i. Now the MALF is planning the way forward for NAIVS -one of the proposals
could be financing the methodology that many partners can support. We need
to understand the lessons learned and see how the government can increase
financing;
ii. Introduce improved seeds and fertilizers to sustain the program- a good number
of people who used inputs continue to apply them after the phase-out of the
support;
iii. Information on soil mapping and fertilizer recommendation is also important –
but there is an initiative in the MALF through collaboration with Bill& Melinda
foundation to support countrywide soil mapping. The Selian Agriculture
Research Institute is also involved in the program;
Prof. Peniel Lyimo
i. He commended the excellent presentations but pointed out the missing linkages
– to see if it goes all the way down to the value chain. There is a need to pull all
findings together so we can look at these as a package not as one fertilizer,
mechanization or financing aspect;
ii. Regarding fertilizers, the biggest weakness we have in Tanzania is that we know
very little about soils. There is a need to understand soils before we make any
interventions on the soil. There is a lot of variations in the soil, that may be
observed even within the same farm unit;
Mr. Omary Mwaimu
i. Emphasized the need to promote sesame value chain in order to support the
vision of the government - to promote commercial farming;
ii. The government should promote the concept of farming as a business to
enhance agriculture-led economic transformation;
Mr. Geoffrey Kirenga
i. Urged participants to put into actions what Mr. Lyimo emphasized. He reminded
the conversion that a lot work was done to put together all issues – which is all
reflected in Kilimo Kwanza. However, nobody is talking about the 10 pillars and
76
the progress attained so far. The ten pillars are still making a lot of sense in this
transformation process;
ii. He advised the different actors to read the document and talk about it, and
notified that other countries such as Mexico have copies the initiative and are
making a lot of progress already.
Responses from Presenters
Prof. Godfrey Mrema
i. Why the adoption of power tillers in Southern Highlands high – it’s because
there is profit in agriculture that can buy that. In most cases, farmers use it –
both as transport tool and tillage a equipment. Whether power tillers will be
sustainable or not that is another question;
ii. The 4WT are no longer confined to a particular region –they are moving across
the country following the difference in rain seasons, as it was in the past.
Restrictions were introduced in 1977 after the collapse of East African
Community where all borders were closed. Recommended tractor owners to
move their tractors around because the more they use it the more they gain
economically;
iii. Why Asia has been successful in agriculture mechanization – it’s due to subsidies
provided by the government;
iv. Under ASDP I, resources for agriculture mechanization were allocated to
regions with high level human development indicators except Dar es Salaam;
v. On why the study focused more on tillage – that’s according to the design –
most of the mechanization we have in Tanzania involve tilling and very minimal
in planting, weeding, harvesting etc. The study has just begun and all that will be
taken into consideration;
Mr. Gungu Mibavu
On how can we integrate NAIVS and translate it into action – he notified that the
AGRA/MIRA project under MSU has three Nodes namely; the seed, soil and fertilizer.
Findings from all studies will be submitted the ministry for further action;
i. ASDP-2 has a component of mechanization which should be able to address
challenges related to agric mechanization;
ii. Regarding the cost of fertilizers – the government has established a committee
on BRN to look into this and deal with the issue of institutional alignment. It is
also true that there are challenges in administration of fertilizers and agric
mechanization –example, unpredictability in fertilizer delivery, sustainability of
the program and financing which is largely dependent on government budget
unlike REA;
77
iii. On policy implementation at LGA level – the councilors are the ones drafting
by-laws that define the value of cell hence the need to engage the Ministry
responsible for LGAs;
iv. E-voucher is probably the way forward -there is a known success story from
Nigeria but we need a local evidence to fit up the example into own own
situation;
Mr. David Mather
i. The government needs to address the issue of fertilizer imports - even if
production is done locally you still have to import raw materials from other
countries. Once this is addressed, it will be easier to move towards more stable
fertilizer prices as well as maize prices –and thereby improve profitability;
ii. He emphasized the need to observe Kilimo Kwanza - which is also reflected in
ASDP-2 particularly when drawing results framework;
Emerging issues and Recommended Interventions/ Research on Agriculture
Input Policy
Key Issues:
i. There is low fertilizer response and the need to package NAIVS with other
interventions;
ii. Challenges in targeting beneficiaries and abuse by agro dealers;
iii. Fiscal burden for NAIVS
Potential Interventions/ Research Recommendation
i. Dialogue with MALF as NAIVS are being reviewed;
ii. Carrying out the pilot e- voucher system;
iii. Applying CGE modeling to guide rationalization of resources;
iv. Reducing subsidy rate by the government;
Wrap Up of Day 3 -by Prof. Andrew Temu
Morning Session:
Two papers:
1. Access to land – Implications for Agriculture Transformation Dr. Milu Muyanga
2. Land Compensation models schemes and valuation models Don Mitchell
Take Away Issues:
Dr. Milu Muyanga: On Access to Land and Transformation:
The Tilting balance from SHF to SSCF, Medium and Large Scale Farming;
78
Graduating from Traditional to Commercial v/s Individuals buying land to enter-
small small scale commercial farming is what we want to move away from use of
hand hoe;
What should policy address to ameliorate conflicts during the process?
Innovative ways to enhance productivity may mitigate effects;
Differentiate Small Scale Commercial Production v/s Traditional SHF;
We have to be alert of Youth population growth, gender and access to land;
The TDV 2025 goal of reducing population in Agriculture from 75% to 45%;
The reality regarding land abundance vis-à-vis land scarcity in the country;
Don Mitchell: Land Compensation Schemes and Valuation Models
Appreciated: Review of Compensation Schemes and Valuation Models;
Noted that the work is very preliminary;
Most of the aired views are ’Status’ and ‘What’ Should be done;
Responses expressed desires of ‘HOW’ we should improve;
Key is a Comprehension of the Land Legal Framework;
The Basic Land management ought to be looked at from the Land Acts;
Land is owned by the State;
A takeoff point should be Land Use Planning and Management System/Administration;
A call for better coordination amongst the Agric Lead Ministries – Cross Ministerial;
Mid Morning Session
Three papers:
1. Dayle Furnish - Secured Transactions Reform
2. Freddie Manento – Leveraging Mobile Technology in Accessing Market information
and Financial Services
3. Abdallah Hassan – Smart Farming in Tanzania
Take Away Issues
Prof Dayle Furnish – On Secured Transactions Reforms:
Alternative Collateralization would help Agriculture;
Leveraging movable assets as collateral: The Need for a New Law? Act?
Secured Interest / Self-Liquidating Collateral / Private Property Registry;
Relationships with the other Legislated Acts e.g. overseeing WRS, and others;
Collateral Registry – Establishment Challenges;
There is no opposition, but little progress;
The need to get right of valuing collateralized items – Think on Recovery;
Banks should expect to go through a learning curve;
Mr. Freddie Manento: On Leveraging Mobile Phones for Marketing
Tanzania a leading Country in Mobile finance Services in Africa -Tap on the
benefits!!!
Call: Watch out regulation and security as we tap on the technology;
Statistics on mobile phone penetration ought to always be cautiously interpreted;
79
Probably TCRA’s tallying method could be improved;
Concerns – costs of tapping on the technology, charges by mobile operators;
An interest would be: Rural v/s Urban Mobile penetration – Agriculture;
May call for segmentation of services e.g. Apps for non-smart phones for rural;
Harmonization of the services related to agriculture in one source;
Mr Abdallah Hassan - On Smart and Precise Farming: Hydroponic, Aquaponic, Azola-
Animal Feeds
Concerns – costs of the technology
A way out here would be to fabricate using local material
Justification for deploying the technologies – land abundance!!
Productivity Enhancing, Environmental concerns
Probably research and technology
Afternoon Session
Three papers:
1. Gungu Mibavu – Influencing Micro-policy and regulatory changes in Tanzania: The
Case of Soil Health Node
2. David Mather – Fertilizer Response: Inputs Subsidy Implications
3. Prof Godfrey Mrema – An Evaluation of Agriculture Mechanization in Tanzania
Take Away Issues
Mr. Gungu Mibavu –On Soil Health Node and NAIVS
Complexity of Micro-Policies and Mixed Results demonstrated by NAIVS;
We have to appreciate this initiatives;
Where and how exactly could local translation of policies be done?
NAIVS – well thought initiative [A Smart Initiative]
Acknowledge the private sector engagement;
Lessons of loopholes for abuses ought to be addressed e.g. Deploying E – Vouchers;
Mr. David Mather – Fertilizer Response: Inputs Subsidy Implications
Analyses addressing imported inputs usage should address the value chain;
In Tanzania costs, those after the CIF, from the port to the farm are critical;
Comprehensive Improved Inputs and Crop Management Practices;
Generation and dissemination of crop management packages;
Comprehension of soil status – low cost soil testing , through a PPP [public good];
Noted the PDB supported soil mapping initiative;
Prof Godfrey Mrema – An Evaluation of a Mechanization Intervention
Key Pre-requisites for successful mechanization;
Existence of Medium Scale Farmers [Advanced beyond traditional smallholders]
Entrepreneurial acumen;
Supportive Industrialization;
80
Results of mechanization may not be obtained by numbers of equipment alone – e.g.
increases in numbers of tractors v/s tilled land - Comprehensive Approaches;
Africa’s Goal of getting rid of the hand hoe;
ASDP 2 is called upon to invest heavily in mechanization vis-à-vis irrigation and value
addition;
It may be necessary to bring on board: irrigation, spraying, agro-processing etc
Other ‘Take-away’ for The PAG
There is a need of consistency and continue anchoring all our efforts onto Kilimo
Kwanza;
How could policy changes, proven and needed, be effected swiftly - such as seed rules and regulations, harmonization collateral registry, imports regulation;
More representation and feedback from Private Sector is needed in such for a - not
necessarily primary producers but low down the value chains. This could be the best
way to get ideas e.g. industrialization policy challenges;
Fisheries and Livestock have received relatively less attention in this meeting;
Environment and Climate Change should start featuring strongly -not necessarily as a
theme itself, but as a crosscutting issue;
Better coordination and cross feeding of information across initiatives is underscored even within the sector interrelationships: Land –Finance-Mechanization-
Inputs etc. SILOS of Initiatives might not work;
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2016 Annual Agricultural Policy Conference observed emerging new issues and policy
challenges in transforming agriculture for food security, employment creation and reduction
of poverty in Tanzania. The main issues and recommendations from the conference were as
follows:
Innovation and Technology in Agriculture: Mobile Technology
There are many promising initiatives on mobile technology but inadequate
coordination of efforts thus the need to establish coordination platform;
The mobile technology can be very beneficial in agriculture –to ease access to
agriculture information and finance but there is a need for segmentation of services
to ensure access to non smart phone users in the rural areas;
There are concerns over high cost of mobile services and security issues –thus need for cost harmonization and review of security regulations;
Agriculture Sector Policy
Export permit suffocate trade despite removal of export ban and decentralization –
hence the need to institutionalize free trade;
NFRA – pricing stabilization policy not effective and distorts markets –thus the need
to redefine mandate and complete pricing policy research;
The involvement of private sector will help to create a balance and better results;
81
Rethink about NFRA stock size –looking into the opportunity cost of holding large
stock versus trading off food shortage risk –thus fiscal burden Dialogue with MALF;
Agriculture Markets and Trade Policy
Crop produce CESS and taxation by multiple institutions add burden to local producers
hence the need to initiate constructive discussion and review LGA Financial Act to address
the challenge;
There is lack of rule-based import policy on rice, sugar, etc thus the need to Institute rule-
based import through parallel markets;
Establishment of the Marketing Intelligence Unit –to make export data available and promote
mobile and e-payment for local taxes;
Understanding the implication of food system transformation - to Smallholders, women and
youth employment, food safety, agro-processing and agric sector transformation is
important thus a need to complete research on food systems transformation;
Enabling Policy for Private Sector Investment
There is high rate of taxes – including corporate tax , VAT and other taxes hence the need to review the relevant legislations and provide incentives to agriculture;
GoT need to review land policy and improve procedures for investors to access
land;
Massive investment is needed in infrastructure, ports, railway systems and transport to increase competitiveness;
Also, consider adopting innovative policies from other countries such as Delivery of
Input Subsidies to Smallholders through Visa Card -to reduce fraud, and introduction
of cash reserves instead of strategic grain stocks. Both policies are implemented in
Mozambique;
Reducing a series of regulations to increase the competitiveness of the coffee value chain in Tanzania. Also be cautious on under regulation to avoid market distortion;
Fast-track implementation of SADC Harmonised Seed Regulation System;
There is a need for WB/EBA report validation– e.g. input sector is rated as
performing well, thus research on fertilizer marketing and transport cost is needed;
Land Tenure Policy
Lack of protection for farm land thus the need to promote knowledge on the land
legal framework and scaling up land surveying and titling to protect smallholders and
village land. Hence need for Protection of Farm Land bill
Promote more investment in land surveying and capacity development in land use
plans in order to improve land management practices;
There is emergence of medium size farms – the need to learn its implication on
smallholders;
There are conflicts between farmers livestock keepers thus the need for research in
this area;
82
Access to Finance and Technology
There is lack of appropriate credit products for smallholder farmers thus need for Secured transactions reforms and leverage movable asset as collateral;
Review regulations on mobile services to include financial harmonization;
Conduct research on agriculture finance;
Agriculture Input Policy
There is low fertilizer response thus need to package NAIVS with other interventions;
Continue dialogue with MALF as NAIVS is being revived
Introduce the use of e-vouchers system in subsidy program to help minimize
cheating and fraud;
Establish ‘one stop centre’ to ease access to services offered by TBS, TFMA, OSHA,
TFDA etc;
5. CLOSING REMARKS
Dr. David Nyange, Member of PAG Steering Committee
i. The 2016 AAPC looked into three thematic areas - agricultural transformation,
job creation and poverty reduction. The main question is -how do we link these
together. It was mentioned that an average land size for smallholders is 2 acres
and production is 1 ton per hector. Farmers make a profit of 200 dollars a year.
If improved smallholder farmers can make a profit of up to 400-600 dollars per
annum. On average, one farmer needs 2,000 dollars a year to produce above
average;
ii. Other options would be to: Increase farm sizes through agriculture
mechanization. This can boost productivity and there are countries that are
doing so;
iii. Diversification into high value crops such as onions which can make a profit of
USD 1,500 per ha and sometimes up to USD 2,000 per ha;
iv. Reducing the cost of production and, helping farmers to get lucrative markets;
These activities are interlinked and should be worked upon as a package. Programs such as
ASDP-2 are responsive to it.
Next steps
i. There will be a follow up event (organized by PAG) to reflect on what comes
out of the conference from the report; will be –to identify issues that require
further research and those which need to be taken on to the government;
Finally, Dr. David Nyange expressed his gratitude and appreciation to the following:
i. The main facilitator and his team;
83
ii. PAG for mobilizing resources and preparation;
iii. The government of Tanzania -because the convention was graced by high level
delegation including Hon. Deputy Minister, the Permanent Secretary, Directors
and Retired Government Officials;
iv. Resource persons- presenters; panelists and the rest of participants for their
contributions;
84
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: PROGRAM OF ACTIVITIES
2ND ANNUAL AGRICULTURAL POLICY CONFERENCE
Opening Session
DAY 1: Tuesday, February 23rd, 2016
Overall Moderator: Prof.
Andrew Temu, Sokoine
University of Agriculture
TIME ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE
PERSON/ORGANIZATION
1400 – 1600 OPENING SESSION
- Registration
- Welcoming remarks and introduction
- Objectives of the Annual Agricultural Policy
Conference
- Key note presentation: Progress in policy
reforms under the New Alliance/CAADP
framework in Tanzania
- Inviting the Guest of Honor
- Opening speech by the Guest of Honor
- Vote of thanks followed by media
engagement
- Prof. Andrew Temu
- Prof. Samwel Wangwe,
Chairperson PAG
- Geoffrey Kirenga, CEO
SAGCOT Center
- Dr. Florens Turuka,
Permanent Secretary MAFL
- Hon. Mwigulu Nchemba,
Minister for Agriculture,
Livestock and Fisheries
- Facilitator
1600 – 1800 Welcoming remarks for the 2016 Innovation and
Technology Symposium
Innovation and Technology in Agriculture
Panel-I: Mobile technology
- Use of mobile telephone in M&E – PushMobile
- E-Soko
- Mkulima – Vodacom
- Digital payment of local taxes – MaxCom
- SRI - Nafaka
- Horticulture - TAHA
Prof. Samwel Wangwe
PAG Chairperson
David Nyange
18:00– 20:00 Cocktail Reception ANSAF/Secretariat
Day 2: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016
0830 - 1000 THEMATIC AREA 1: AGRICULTURE
SECTOR POLICY
Paper 1.1: Policy Options for Food Security,
Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction, by Don
Mitchel
Paper 1.2: Impact of NFRA pricing on producer and
consumer markets: The case of Maize
Paper 1.3: An assessment of COWABAMAS and
NFRA with policy implications to sustainable
marketing
Panelist:
Moderator: David Nyange, MSU
Don Mitchel, CoP, USAID/SERA
Karl Pauw, MAFAP with
Alethia Cameron; Emiliano Magrini,
Ntemi Nkonya, Guillaume Pierre
Audax Rukonge, ANSAF
85
Kim Mhando, Policy Analyst, East Africa Green
Council
Winnie Bashagi, CEO, Rice Council of Tanzania
1000 - 1030 Tea Break
1030 - 1230 THEMATIC AREA 2: AGRICULTURE
MARKETS AND TRADE POLICY
Paper 2.1: Food systems transformation in Tanzania
Paper 2.2: Impact of EU Trade and Investment
policies in Tanzania’s Agriculture: Implications on
policy coherence for development
Paper 2.3: Evidence based decision-making in
implementation of agriculture strategies -
Challenges and Opportunities of agriculture M&E in
Tanzania
Panelist:
Odilo Majengo, MIT, Director of Marketing
Jason Snyder, Michigan State University
Said Salum, Bakheresa Group of Companies
Neema Mrema, CRS
Moderator: Prof. Peniel Lyimo
David Tschirley, Michigan State
University
Solomon Baregu – ESRF
Dr. Sophia Mlote, MALF
Stella Massawe/Prudence Lugendo/
ReSAKSS/PAPAC
1230 - 1400 Lunch Break
1400 - 1600 THEMATIC AREA 3: ENABLING POLICY
FOR PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENT
Paper 3.1 Enabling the Business of Agriculture
(EBA) in Tanzania
Paper 3.2 Agriculture Business Environment Survey
Paper 3.3: What is happening in 4 Production
Zones vis-à-vis International Markets?
Paper 3.4: Policy Advocacy to Unlock the Potential
of Soya Value Chain in Tanzania
Panelist:
Raveliana Ngaiza, MALF
Jacqueline Mkindi, TAHA
Moderator: Michael Kairumba,
Agriculture Market Development
Trust (AMDT)
Hans, World Bank, Washington
Don Mitchel, USAID/SERA
Gilead Teri, ANSAF
Kim Mhando, EAGC
1600 - 1630 Tea Break
1630 - 1700 Recap and closing of Day 1
Prof. Andrew Temu
Day 3: Thursday, February 25TH, 2016
TIME ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE
PERSON/ORGANIZATION
0830 - 1000 THEMATIC AREA 4: LAND TENURE POLICY
Paper 4.1 : Agricultural Land Dynamics and Land Policy
in Rural Tanzania
Moderator: Sophia Mlote
Milu Muyanga, Thomas Jayne,
Michigan State University
86
Paper 4.2: Land Compensation Schemes and Valuation
Models
Panelists:
Steve Michael, MALF
Steven Luvuga, Mviwata
Prof. Ntengua Mdoe, Sokoine University of Agriculture
Don Mitchell, SERA Project
1000 - 1030 Tea Break
1030 - 1230 ACCESS TO FINANCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Paper 5.1: Secured Transactions Reforms: Leveraging
movable asset as collateral for SME access to credit
Paper 5.2: Leveraging mobile technology in accessing
market information, and financial services
Paper 5.3 : Smart Farming in Tanzania: Hydroponic,
Acquaponic and Azora Technologies
Panelist:
Rehema Shange, CRDB Bank
Rafael Wayne, MSU
Moderator: Alex Mkindi, SERA
Dare Furnish, Arizona State
University/Sera Project
Freddie Manentho, PushMobile
Abdallah Hassan, ESRF
1230 - 1400 Lunch Break
1400 - 1600 THEMATIC AREA6: AGRICULTURE INPUT
POLICY
Paper 6.1: Influencing Micro (policy and regulatory)
changes in Tanzania: The Case of Soil Health Node
6.2 Evaluation of the mechanization program under
ASDP 1
6.3 Smallholder Maize Nitrogen Response Rate
Panelist;
Prof. Isaack Minde, MSU
Liston Njoroge, AGRA
Dr Mshindo Msolla, AFAP
Moderator: Dr Tausi Madavida
Gungu Mibavu, MALF
Prof. Godfrey Mrema,
ReSAKSS/PAPAC
David Mather, Michigan State
University
1600 - 1630 Tea Break
1630 - 1700 Recap of day2 and closing of the Conference
Prof. Andrew Temu
Prof. David Nyange
86
APPENDIX 2: SPEECH OF THE GUEST OF HONOUR
STATEMENT BY DR FLORENS TURUKA, PERMANENT SECRETARY, MINISTRY
OF AGRICULTURE, LIVESTOCK AND FISHERIES OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF
TANZANIA AT THE 2ND ANNUAL AGRICULTURAL POLICY CONFERENCE AT
SERENA HOTEL DAR ES SALAAM, 23RD FEBRUARY 2015
Conference Theme: “Agricultural Sector Transformation for Food Security, Jobs Creation and
Poverty Reduction”
Professor Samwel Wangwe – Chairperson of the Policy Analysis Group (PAG),
Mr. Geoffrey Kirenga, CEO SAGCOT Center
Development Partners,
Distinguished delegates from: Agriculture Sector Lead Ministries, private sector, farmer
associations, research institutions, NGOs, and Civil society,
Ladies and Gentlemen
It is my pleasure and honor to address the “2nd Annual Agricultural Policy Conference” on behalf of
the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, of the Government of the United Republic of
Tanzania. First, let me thank the Policy Analysis Group (PAG) for organizing this policy conference
which is quite timely as the Government prepares to launch the second phase of the Agricultural
Sector Development Program (ASDP II). Success of ASDP II hinges on a good policy environment
so as to make agriculture profitable and competitive.
Ladies and Gentlemen: I have been informed that the theme for this year’s conference is
“Agricultural Sector Transformation for Food Security, Jobs Creation and Poverty Reduction”.
This conference is quite timely as my Ministry is in the process of revising the Agricultural Sector
Development Strategy (ASDS) and formulating Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDP II).
I hope that the issues you are discussing will help to shape both ASDS and ASDP II.
Chairperson; Since 2006, the Government of Tanzania has been implementing Agricultural Sector
Development Program (ASDP). As ASDP was being reviewed in order to align it with the
Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) we realized that there were
gaps in ASDP. These include:
Inadequate engagement of the private sector in agriculture
Weak linkage between agriculture and nutrition
Slow pace of implementing policy reforms
Inadequate investment in the agricultural sector
In order to correct these deficiencies, the government in collaboration with key stakeholders
embarked on the following initiatives:
Established Kilimo Kwanza and Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor (SAGCOT) in 2010
for a greater engagement of the private sector
Formulated “Tanzania Agriculture and Food Security Investment Plan –TAFSIP) in 2011” in
line with the CAADP framework
Committed under the “New Alliance on Food Security and Nutrition” to facilitate policy
reforms in 2012
87
Adopted in 2013 “Big Results Now” popularly known as BRN in agriculture to accelerate
implementation of development projects in agriculture by prioritizing rice, maize and
sugarcane value chains
An recently, the Government formulated second phases of the Agricultural Sector
Development Strategy (ASDS II) and Agricultural Sector Development Program (ASDS II).
Chairperson; Implementation of these initiatives is beginning to yield results as follows:
During the last 15 years Tanzania has overall been food self-sufficient despite some challenges in
intra-regional trade due to inadequate infrastructure
The growth agriculture DGP has accelerated slightly from 3 percent in 2006 to about 4 percent in
2014.
Revenue from export of some crops has grown steadily in some of the crops. For example revenue
from tobacco export has increased from $40 million per year 2006 to $240 million in 2013.
Production of staples has also increased. For example rice production increased from 400,000 tons
in 2004 to 1.5 million tons in 2014. Similarly in recent years Tanzania has experience a bumper
maize harvest which has posed a challenge in finding a market for surplus maize.
Chairperson; Despite these notable successes, the agricultural sector has not maximized its
potential and is faced with new challenges as you have been discussing in this conference. The 4
percent growth of agricultural sector GDP lags behind the overall economic growth which stands at
7 percent. This means, agriculture is not yet the driver of the growth of the economy. For
economic growth to be inclusive, agricultural sector growth needs to accelerate at least to the
CAADP recommended rate of 6 percent.
Inadequate investment by the private sector has resulted in marketing challenges by our farmers.
Last year we had a surplus production in maize and rice and farmers had difficulties in marketing
their produce. Population growth, youth unemployment, climate change, all combined have
increased the complexity of challenges in the sector
Chairperson; In order to overcome these challenges, it is important to have the right policies in
place. The Ministry of Agriculture, attaches a greater importance to policy research and reforms.
We welcome effort by the Policy Analysis Group in supporting our effort in promoting evidence-
based policy making.
Ladies and Gentlemen; The Ministry of Agriculture has advocated to the Government
implementation of policy reforms in response to concerns raised by farmers and private sector.
Some of these issues have been echoed by some of you in the Policy Analysis Group through your
research work. I would like to highlight some of the recent and underway reforms which include:
Removal of export ban on staples such as maize and rice
Fiscal policy e.g. amendment of the Value Added Tax (VAT) which has exempted most of
agricultural imports. Further reforms are being proposed in the new VAT bill.
Reforms in the produce cess which are underway in collaboration with the PO-RALG
Reduction of land rent for agriculture
Addressing over-regulation in agriculture through agricultural board reforms
Dialogue to promote a transparent and rule based procedure for importation of
commodities such as rice and sugar. Such effort is includes establishment of the Marketing
Intelligence Unit
These are just few examples of the policy reforms that we are currently pursuing and hopeful to be
completed soon.
88
The government commitment to undertake policy reforms under the CAADP Framework on the
New Alliance on Food Security and Nutrition, is evidence on how the government attaches greater
importance to policy reforms.
The 5th phase Government emphasizes the need to ensure food security and poverty reduction in
the country through:
Farmers access to input
Farmers access to credit
Farmers access to markets
Efficient delivery of extension services
Most importantly, the new Government emphasizes greater accountability in implementation of
development programs including agriculture, and rational utilization of resources.
Soon we will be outlining our priorities under ASDP II during the launching event and consultative
meetings before the launch event.
I wish a successful deliberation during this conference as you share your research results and make
the knowledge available for the government and policy makers.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
89
APPENDIX 3: SUMMARY OF KEY EMERGING ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 2ND ANNUAL AGRICULTURAL
POLICY CONFERENCE
THEMATIC AREA ISSUES POTENTIAL RESEARCH/
INTEVENTION BY PAG
RESPONSIBLE PAG
MEMBER (S)
Keynote paper – New Alliance
Progress Report
- Emerging new issues
- Aligning New Alliance with CAADP
and ASDP II
- Timely delivery of progress report
- Adoption into the New
Alliance Matrix
- Mainstreaming into ASDP II
RF e.g. DPP join PAC;
enlighten new leadership at
MALF
- Support PAC
- PAG/PAC
- PAC/PAG
- SAGCOT
- ReSAKSS
- Africa Lead
Featured session – Innovation and
technology – Leveraging mobile
technology
- Many promising initiatives but
inadequate coordination of effort
- Establish a coordination
platform
?
Agriculture Sector Policy – with a
focus on food security
- Export ban removed but export
permit suffocate trade despite
decentralization
- NFRA –stock size; trading off food
shortage risk vs opportunity cost of
holding large stock – fiscal burden
- NFRA – pricing policy – its
stabilization policy not effective;
defining its mandate versus Disaster
Management Unit
- Sustainable solution produce
surplus for Tz to establish itself as
consistent reginal exporter for
maize
- Institutionalization of free
trade e.g. legislation
- Dialogue with MALF
- Complete pricing policy
research
- CGE modelling on returns to
public investment (attention:
NFRA, NAIVS, etc)
- MSU?
- SERA
- MAFAP
- MSU
90
THEMATIC AREA ISSUES POTENTIAL RESEARCH/
INTEVENTION BY PAG
RESPONSIBLE PAG
MEMBER (S)
Agriculture Markets and Trade - Lack of rule-based import policy –
rice, sugar, etc
- Import through parallel markets
- Difference in tariff between
Zanzibar and mainland
- What are implications of food
systems transformation –
smallholders, women and youth
employment, food safety, agro-
processing and ag sector
transformation
- Institute rule-based import
- Establishment of the
Marketing Intelligence Unit
- Make export data available –
-mobile and e-payment for
local taxes
- Complete research on food
systems transformation
- Promote transparency in the
market through commodity
exchange
- SERA
- SERA/MSU
- MAFAP
Enabling Environment for Private
Sector
- High Produce cess
- High VAT
- High Corporate tax
- Unfavorable land tenure policy
- WB/EBA report validation –e.g
input sector rated as performing
well
- 1982 LGFA review
- VAT bill review
- Incentives to agriculture bill
- Research on fertilizer
marketing and transport cost
- MSU
- MALF task force
(TAHA, PDB,
MSU, ACT)
- WB
- AGRA
- MAFAP
Land Tenure - Emerging medium size farms –
what is the fate of smallholder
- What is the definition of medium
size farms
- Farmers livestock keepers conflict
- Scaling up land survey and titling
- No protection for farm land
-
- Complete research on access
to land
- Research on land/resource
conflict
- Protection of farm land bill
- MSU
- ?
Access to Technology and Finance - Leverage movable asset as
collateral
- Lack of appropriate credit products
- Secured transactions reforms
- Research on agriculture
finance
- SERA/MSU
91
THEMATIC AREA ISSUES POTENTIAL RESEARCH/
INTEVENTION BY PAG
RESPONSIBLE PAG
MEMBER (S)
for smallholder farmers
Agriculture Input Policy - Low fertilizer response and need to
package NAIVS with other
interventions
- Challenges in targeting beneficiaries
and abuse by agro-dealers
- Fiscal burden for NAIVS
- Dialogue with MALF as
NAIVS is being revived
- Pilot e-voucher system
- CGE modeling to guide
rationalization of resources
- Reducing subsidy rate
- AGRA
- MSU
92
Appendix 4: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
THE 2ND ANNUAL AGRICULTURAL POLICY CONFERENCE FROM 23RD – 25TH FEB. 2016
List of Participants
DAY 1
23RD FEBRUARY 2016
Name of
Participant
Gender
(M/F)
Full Name of
Organization/Institutio
n
Type (Select one)1
Government/Public
2 Research /
University3 Farmer
Organization
4 Private/For-Profit
5 NGO / Nonprofit
Country Contact Details (Email,
Phone)
1 James N. Lhimbe M Tanzania Cotton Board 1 Tanzania 0755 070145
2 Ajally S. Nkoma M
Tanzania Sugarcane
Growers Association 3 Tanzania 0714 022188
3 Revelian S. Ngara M MALF 1 Tanzania 0782 669382
4 Dr. Richard K. M MALF 1 Tanzania 0784 239946
5 Benedict Sanga M MAXCOM 4 Tanzania 0765 804939
6 Kilian Myenzi M Mlimakiti Traders 1 Tanzania 0714 028734
7 Kim Mhando M
Eastern Africa Grain
Council 1 Tanzania 0784 636169
8 Mary Main F VECO/EAGC 5 Tanzania 0686 067576
93
9 Claire Ijumba F MSU 4 Tanzania 071 3138143
10 Daktari Hawgwa M MALF 1 Tanzania 0787 928288
11 Adela Ng'atigwa F MALF 1 Tanzania 0204 239996
12 Dr. Tom Cadogan M Embassy of Ireland 1
Non
Tanzanian 0718 040744
13 Emmanuel Zuri M Agrimark 4 Tanzania 0767 200885
14 Prudence Y. Lugendo M PARAC/MALF 1 Tanzania 0752 287691
15 Omary A. Mwapmu M Amsha Institute 3 Tanzania 0716 966447
16 Rafael Ualene M Mchigan State University 2
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
17 Mwita Mchanzi M Global Community
Tanzania
mmchuni@globalcommuni
ty.org.tz
18 Gaston M. Francis M
Little Buyers Tanzania
LTD 2
19 Innocent Mabiki M
Little Buyers Tanzania
LTD 2
20 Darshana Pema F DALBERG 4 Tanzania
om
21 Ubby Bova F DALBERG 4 Tanzania [email protected]
22 Dervanic Vussondi M DALBERG 4 Tanzania
devang.vussondi@dalberg.
com
23 Eric Lema M East
Tanzania [email protected]
24 Issa Omary M
Tanzania
m
25 Festo Maro M COSTEC 1 Tanzania 0754 613648
26 Owen Nelson M IITA 2 Tanzania 0787 043486
27 Chuma Eliezer M MALF 1 Tanzania 0786 005757
28 Glead Teri M ANSAF 5 Tanzania 0689 222268
29 Revelian S. Ngara M MALF 1 Tanzania 0782 669383
30 Edger Adolph M ANSAF 5 Tanzania 0713 700038
94
31 David Nyange M MSU/MALF 2 Tanzania 0754 272573
32 Richard Y Kasuga M MALF 1 Tanzania 0769 239946
33 Paul A. Mdinga M M.A.U.A 4 Tanzania 0756 467618
34 Moses Challe M
Bussiness Destination
Africa 4 Tanzania 0767 749392
35 Frank Lukele M Internation Tanfeed LTD 4 Tanzania 0718 133003
36 Augustino Mlangwa M Kickstart INTL 5 Tanzania 0787 024862
37 Mwajuma Shabani F ANSAF 5 Tanzania 0769 928757
38 Edith Lazaro F SERA 2 Tanzania 0756 610851
39 Josephat Kanyanya M SERA 2 Tanzania [email protected]
40 Edger Adolph M ANSAF 5 Tanzania 0713 700038
41 Godwin Membe M AFRiCA LEAD 5 Tanzania 0717 198786
42 Hellen Kavava F Times FM
Tanzania 0714 414646
43 Christopher Wallace M Tanzania Human F 5 Tanzania 0718 868998
44 Stephen Michael M MALF 1 Tanzania 0716 777730
45 Winnie Bashagi F Rice Council of Tanzania
Tanzania 0754 865664
46 Getacuon Gebro M ILRI
Non
Tanzanian 251 911237639
47 Alex Mangowi M DFID 1 Tanzania 0755 546326
48 Mabrura Kivuyo M ANSAF 5 Tanzania 0715 302486
49 Dr. Tausi Koda M ESRF 5 Tanzania 0784 453102
50 Mustapha Issa M Care International 5 Tanzania [email protected]
51 Jackson Mahenge M AFRICA LEAD 5 Tanzania
om
52 Faith Fernandes F
Quincwood
53 Amir Mpungwe M ICHIMA Farms 4 Tanzania [email protected]
54 Muro Banadi M Helvesters 5 Tanzania [email protected]
55 Rotsu Hafiwana M JICA/ARDS Projects 1
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
95
56 Paul Mandele M Agrimark 4 Tanzania [email protected]
57 Glead Teri M ANSAF 5 Tanzania [email protected]
58 Zibby Bora F Dalberg 4 Tanzania [email protected]
59 Prof. F. Lekule M Sokoine University 2 Tanzania [email protected]
60 Dr. Furaha Mramba F TVLA 1 Tanzania [email protected]
61 Arvind Pori M KAP Equipment LTD 4 Tanzania [email protected]
62 Barry Shapiro M ILRI 2
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
63 Solomon Desk M ILRI 2
Non
Tanzanian
m
64 Rose Tesha F VSO 5 Tanzania [email protected]
65 Jackline Mkindi M TAHA 5 Tanzania [email protected]
66 Jason Snyder M Michigan state 2
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
67 Jeff Euwena M Cloudburst
Non
Tanzanian
68 Hussein Nassoro M Africa Dira/IFM 4 Tanzania [email protected]
69 Omar .J. B M DG-SIDO 1 Tanzania [email protected]
70 Ester Mutalembwa F MALF 1 Tanzania [email protected]
71 Freddie Manento M Push 4 Tanzania
.tz
72 Karl Pauw M FAO 2
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
73 Asha Bani F TZ Daima 4 Tanzania [email protected]
74 Fumihiko Suzuki M JICA 1
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
75 Lucky Mgeni M Urambo UDC 1 Tanzania 0784 608832
76 Robert Pascar M
Tanzania Agricultural
Develoment Bank
Tanzania 0754 2978639
77 Anders BergFors M ECO Energy 3 Tanzania 0756 533030
96
78 Stella Massawe F RCSAKSS
Non
Tanzanian 254 721432351
79 Mary Mgonja F AGRA 5 Tanzania 0754 363148
80 Milu Muyanga M MSU 2
Non
Tanzanian 1517 5999345
81 Asfaw Neganza M ILRI 2
Non
Tanzanian 251 0911740699
82 Augustino Mbulumi M
Cereal and other produce
Board 1 Tanzania 0754 842424
83 Christine Abulctsa F Push for Change 4 Tanzania 0689 303218
84 G. Kirenya M SAGCO 4 Tanzania
m
85 Theresia Henjewele F MOFP 1 Tanzania [email protected]
86 Jom Kayibi M ESRF 1 Tanzania [email protected]
87 Samuel Wangwe M Daima Association 4 Tanzania [email protected]
88 John Chassama M
Mining Industry Trade &
Investment 1 Tanzania [email protected]
89
Dr Abdu A.
Hayghaimo M MALF 1 Tanzania 0784 363631
90 Hem Chandro Ray M Brac Maendeleo Tanzania 5 Tanzania [email protected]
91 Desinee Allen F Dalberg 4 Tanzania [email protected]
92 Steve Kisakye M Dalberg 4 Tanzania [email protected]
93 Steve Ball M Farm Afica 5 Tanzania [email protected]
94 Emmanuel Lymo M SAGCOT Centre 5 Tanzania [email protected]
95 Ntegua Mdoe M SUA 2 Tanzania [email protected]
96 Pius Mwashikumbuli M Ministry of Agriculture 1 Tanzania [email protected]
97 Clara Melchion F Embassy of Switzerland 1 Tanzania
.ch
98 Ally K. Mnzava M
Ministry of Agriculture
Livestock and Fisheries 1 Tanzania 0713 499572
97
99 Egidius Rwiza M Kick Start
Tanzania 0714 213653
100 Liston Njombe M AGGRA
Tanzania 0776 000190
101 Oscar Opiyo M
BCA Grains & Feed co
LTD 4 Tanzania 0715 772195
102 Alethia Cameron F MAFAP (FAO) 1
Non
Tanzanian 0745 121669
103 Evuime M F AGGRA 5
Non
Tanzanian 0786 238779
104 Nkonya M. M MAFAP 2 Tanzania 0784 316570
105 Festo Maro M MAFAP 1 Tanzania 0754 613648
106 Benjamin Mtaki M US Embassy 1 Tanzania 0787 565216
107 David Mpiri M
4 Tanzania 0754 277581
108 Owen Nelson M
International Institute of
Tropical Agriculture 2 Tanzania 0787 043486
109 Jane Marwa F
Ministry of Agriculture
Livestock and Fisheries 1 Tanzania 0713 465812
110 Emmanuel Mawizi M TFP blog
Tanzania 0715 875398
111 Lameck Kikoka M RUDI 5 Tanzania 0755 950202
112 Mdachi Bakari M TAHA 5 Tanzania 0712 841924
113 Peniel M. Lyimo M Retired Civil Servant 4 Tanzania 0784 222115
114 Nezarlor Kitosi M
Ministry of Agriculture
Livestock and Fisheries 1 Tanzania [email protected]
115 John Luhende M Wapo radio Fm
Tanzania 0713 905266
116 Alli Matala M Pride Fm Radio
Tanzania 0658 532351
117 Patrick Mdee M TAKOMA investment
Tanzania
118 Chuma Eliezer M
Ministry of Agriculture
Livestock and Fisheries 1 Tanzania [email protected]
119 Konli Uezon M Fauhaben.bley
Tanzania
120 Sizya Rugege M IFAD 1 Tanzania [email protected]
98
121 Ben Moshi M SILVERLANDS (T) LTD 4 Tanzania [email protected]
122 B. E Semwaik M
Kyela District
Commissiner 1 Tanzania
m
123 Isaack Minde M Michigan State University 2 Tanzania [email protected]
124 Issa Naumanga M
Tandahimba District
Council 1 Tanzania [email protected]
125 Andes Kakiko M
Ministry of Agriculture
Livestock and Fisheries 1 Tanzania [email protected]
126 Hussein Nassoro M
Ministry of Agriculture
Livestock and Fisheries 1 Tanzania
om
127 Philemon J. Kiemi M SYECCO Singida 1 Tanzania
m
128 Constantine Nyilawila M
Ministry of Agriculture
Livestock and Fisheries 1 Tanzania [email protected]
129 Banan Grant M AFRICARE 5 Tanzania [email protected]
130 Julius Wambura M Frablio Enterprise LTD 4 Tanzania 0764 411414
131 Gaddafi Swalleh M
Tanzania 0765 481858
132 Yohana Kuvugha M
International Tanfeeds
LTD 4 Tanzania 0658 887777
133 Dennis Sirjeff M Jefren Agrifriend Co. LTD 4 Tanzania 0754 027703
134 Phoebe Mauma F
Peak Performance
International Tz 4 Tanzania 0718 537919
135 Mwaluk Mpangwa M Kick Start 5 Tanzania 0754 015298
136 Christine Abulctsa F Push Mobile LTD 4 Tanzania 0689 303218
137 Gerold Msemwa M Litenga Holding LTD 4 Tanzania 0755 231144
138 Asia Gamba M Mlimani TV
Tanzania 0653 849575
139 Farid Ally M Mlimani TV
Tanzania 0718 639449
140 Mackriner Siyoverwa M Radio Mliman
Tanzania 0717 061304
141 Sarah Zuberi M Tumaini International
Tanzania 0652 489557
142 Julius Wambura M Frablio Enterprise LTD
Tanzania 0764 411414
99
143 Dr Mshindo Msolla M AFAP
Tanzania 0754 849970
144 Emmanuel Mstafa M Tanzania Meat Board
Tanzania 0767 411195
145 Harold Carey M USAID 1
146 Dr. Sophia Mlote F MALF-PAPAC 1 Tanzania
0753 362 502
THE 2ND ANNUAL AGRICULTURAL POLICY CONFERENCE FROM 23RD – 25TH FEB. 2016List of Participants
DAY 224TH FEBRUARY 2016
SN
Name of Participant Gender
(M/F)
Full Name of
Organization/Institution
Type (Select one)
1 Government/Public
2 Research /
University
3 Farmer Organization
4 Private/For-Profit
5 NGO / Nonprofit
Country Contact Details (Email,
Phone)
1 Gadrick Mukushi M GOGAM COMPANY 4 Tanzania 0712 792642
2 Faisal Samson M
COMPANERO FARMERS
LTD 4 Tanzania 0765 666000
3 Emma Ijinika M. F
PRESIDENT'S DELIVERY
BUREAU(PDB) 1 Tanzania [email protected]
100
4 Alli Matage M PRIDE FM RADIO
Tanzania 0658 532351
5 John Luhende M WAPO RADIO
Tanzania 0713 905266
6 John Riber M MEDI TZ 5 Tanzania 0764 706777
7 Bens Mosha M SILVERLANDS 4 Tanzania 0754 276028
8 Emmanuelly Lyimo M SAGCOT CENTRE 5 Tanzania 0717 735527
9 Emmanuel Mndu M AGRIMARK 4 Tanzania 0764 200885
10 Nancy Ndale F
BCA GRAIN& FEED
COMPANY LTD 4 Tanzania 0715 772195
11 Gerord K. Msemwa M
LITENGA HOLDING
LTD 4 Tanzania 0768 235419
12 Seleman Abufa M
DAR CHICKEN
GROWERS
ASSOCIATION 3 Tanzania 0784 023838
13 Kelvin Katunzi M
DAR CHICKEN
GROWERS
ASSOCIATION 3 Tanzania 0713 362525
14 Danny David M ANSAF 5 Tanzania 0754 780693
15 Mercy Ndatulu F MSU 5 Tanzania 0755 090899
16 Prudency Y. Lugendo M PAPAC/MALF 1 Tanzania 0752 287691
17
Mackriner R.
Siyovelwa F MLIMANI TV
Tanzania 0717 061304
18 Asia Gamba F MLIMANI RADIO
Tanzania 0756 804202
19 Faridy Ally M MLIMANI TV
Tanzania 0718 639449
20 Anderi Bergfori M ECOENERGY 4
Non
Tanzanian 0756 533030
21 Anna Malongo F
3 Tanzania 0675 999658
22 Alethia Cameron F MAFAP (FAO) 1
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
23 Omary Mwaimu M AMSHA 3 Tanzania 0716 966447
24 James N. Shimbe M TCB 1 Tanzania 0755 070145
101
25 Hussein Mansor M MALF 1 Tanzania 0784 262257
26 Megumi Kaneda F JICA/DADP PROJECT 1
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
27 Davis Tschirke M MSU 2
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
28 Silas Ngalji M NAFAKA 5 Tanzania 0754 445450
29 Stella Massawe F ILRI/RESAKSS-ECA 5
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
30 Kim Mhando M EAGC 5
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
31 Mbarwa Kivuyo M ANSAF 5 Tanzania [email protected]
32 Olive Kivuyo F
Tanzania [email protected]
33 B.E. Semwaiko M
HALMASHAURI YA
KYELA 1 Tanzania [email protected]
34 Alex Mkindi M SERA 2 Tanzania [email protected]
35 Hussein Nassoro M AFRICA DIRA 4 Tanzania [email protected]
36 Andes B. Kakiko M MALF 1 Tanzania [email protected]
37 Rafael Ualemera M MSU 2
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
38 Milu Mvyanga M MSU 2
Non
Tanzanian 151 75993445
39 T. Cadscan M IRELAND 1
Non
Tanzanian 0718 040 744
40 A. Mbukumi M
CEREAL & OTHER
PRODUCE BOARD 1 Tanzania 0754 842424
41 David Mather M
MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY 2
Non
Tanzanian 0786 597405
42 Nkonya N. M MAFAP 2 Tanzania 0784 316570
43 Christina Misana F ANSAF 5 Tanzania 0688 026997
44 Sophia Mlote F MALF -PAPAC 1 Tanzania [email protected]
102
45 Lucky Mgeni M URAMBO UDC 1 Tanzania [email protected]
46 Ntengua Mdoe M SUA 2 Tanzania [email protected]
47 Don Mitchell M SERA 2
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
48 Dale Furnish M SERA 2
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
49 Mwajuma Shaban F ANSAF 5 Tanzania 0769 928757
50 Karl Pauw M FAO/MAFAP 2
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
51 Josephat Kanyunyu M SERA 5 Tanzania
josephat.kanyunyu@tzsera
.com
52 Ernest Mnfuruki M USAID/SERA 2 Tanzania [email protected]
53 Arvind Puri M KAP EQUIPMENT 4
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
54 Kulwa Mtaki F DAQ 1 Tanzania [email protected]
55 Harold Carey M USAID 1
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
56 Takashi Higuck M EMBASSY OF JAPAN 1
Non
Tanzanian 0752 296918
57 Emmanuel Mstafa M TMB 1 Tanzania 0767 411195
58 Emmanuel Kombala M KDC 1 Tanzania
59 Elieza Daudi M SISAL GROWERS 3 Tanzania [email protected]
60 Emmanuel Mselela M TGFAC 5 Tanzania [email protected]
61 Constantine Nyilawila M MALF 1 Tanzania [email protected]
62 Michael Kaimmba M
AGRICULTURAL
MARKETS DERT TNISH 5 Tanzania 0788 779722
63 Henry Kinyue M PDB 1 Tanzania [email protected]
64 Frank Lekule M INT. TANFEEDS LTD 4 Tanzania 0718 133003
65 Gaddafi Swaleh M MJASILIAMALI 4 Tanzania 0765 481858
66 Yohana Kavugha M INT. TANFEEDS LTD 4 Tanzania 0658 887777
103
67 Phoeba Mauma F INT. TANFEEDS LTD 4 Tanzania 0718 537919
68 Jane Mutua F PPIT 4 Tanzania 0789 222186
69 Egidius Rwiza M PPIT 4 Tanzania 0715 024860
70 Moses Challe M KICKSTART 5 Tanzania 0767 749392
71 Obedi Daudi M
BUSINESS DESTINATION
AFRICA 4 Tanzania 0719 538196
72 Darshawa Pema F DALBERG 4 Tanzania
om
73 Zibby Bora F DALBERG 4 Tanzania [email protected]
74 Fumihiko Suzuki M JICA 1
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
75 Lameck Kikoka M RUDI 5 Tanzania [email protected]
76 Rechele Arcese F IFAD 1
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
77 Mark Lyimo M MALF 1 Tanzania [email protected]
78 Godfrey Bwawa M
INDEPENDENT
CONSULTANT 4 Tanzania
m
79 Maureen Kwilasa F ONE ACRE FUND 5 Tanzania
maureen.kwilasa@oneacre
fund.org
80 Prof F. P. Lekule M INT. TANFEEDS LTD 4 Tanzania 0787 690023
81 John Chassama M
MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY
TRADE AND
INVESTMENT 1 Tanzania 0784 643242
82 Maina Myenzi F VECO EA 5 Tanzania 0686 067576
83 Kilian Myenzi M MLIMAKIFI TRADERS 1 Tanzania 0714 028734
84 Neema Rwebangira F ANSAF 5 Tanzania 0764 491211
85 A. Ng'atigwa F MALF 1 Tanzania 0754 739996
86 Ho Yuan Ching F FAO 1 Tanzania [email protected]
87 Chris Maongezi M
KILOMBERO
PLANTATION LTD 4 Tanzania 0769 112233
104
88 Benedict C. Cosmas M
HIGHER EDUCATION
LOANS BOARD 1 Tanzania 0767 585898
89 Nancy Lazaro F ILO 1 Tanzania 0763 160186
90 Samuel Wangwe M REPOA/DAIMA 4 Tanzania [email protected]
91 Mwita Mchuni M GLOBAL COMMUNITIES 5 Tanzania [email protected]
92 Phillemon J. Kiemi M PEAK PERFORMANCE 4 Tanzania [email protected]
93 James K. Millya M BUNGE 1 Tanzania [email protected]
94 Philemon J. Kiemi M SYECCOS-SINGIDA 5 Tanzania [email protected]
95 Lomo Ishikawa M SIDO 1 Tanzania [email protected]
96 Gungu Mibavu M MALF 1 Tanzania [email protected]
97 Amos Omore M ILRI 2 Tanzania [email protected]
98 Jane Marwa F MALF 1 Tanzania [email protected]
99 Issa Maumanga M
TANDAHIMBA DISTRICT
COUNCIL 1 Tanzania [email protected]
100 Tertula Swai F UN WOMEN 5 Tanzania
g
101 Devang Vussonji M DALBERG 4 Tanzania
om
102 Ester Mutalebwa F MALF 1 Tanzania [email protected]
103 Ally K. Mnzava M MALF 1 Tanzania [email protected]
104 C. Kirenga M SAGCOT 1 Tanzania
105 Ajuaye Sigalla F FAO TANZANIA 1 Tanzania [email protected]
106 Omar Awabdeh M FAO HQ 5 Tanzania [email protected]
107 Jackquline Mkindi F TAHA 5 Tanzania [email protected]
108 Fabio Siani M EMBASSY OF SWEDEN 1 Tanzania [email protected]
109 Julius Wambwa M FRABLIO ENT. LTD 4 Tanzania [email protected]
110 Liston Njoroge M AGRA 5 Tanzania [email protected]
111 Juma B. Ngamuo M EAGC 5 Tanzania [email protected]
112 Joyce Mndambi F USAID 1 Tanzania [email protected]
105
113 Jizy A. Lugeye M IFAD 1 Tanzania 0754 291282
114 Peniel Lyimo M RETIRED CIVIL SERVANT 4 Tanzania 0784 222115
115 Theresia Henjewele F MOFP 1 Tanzania 0713 233109
116 Nsanya Ndanshau M IRISH EMBASSY 1 Tanzania 0784 350703
117 Pius Mwashikubula M MALF 1 Tanzania 0767 888332
118 Shushu Konofome M KILIMO 1 Tanzania 0786 881833
119 Solomon Baoegu M ESRF 2 Tanzania 0713 995099
120 Muro Banadi M HELLETAS 5 Tanzania 0712 399189
121 Winnie Bashigi F RCT
Tanzania 0754 865664
122 Oscar Opiyo M
BCA GRAIN& FEED
COMPANY LTD 4 Tanzania 0715 772195
123 Wilhelm Ruseruka M
4 Tanzania 0654 168232
124 Paul A. Mdinka M M.A.U.A 4 Tanzania 0756 467618
125 Christopher Wallace M TAHURA 5 Tanzania 0718 868998
126 Emimel M. F AGRA 5
Non
Tanzanian 0786 238779
127 Rodney Swai M TUWASILIANE LTD 4 Tanzania 0683 086336
128
Reosemary
Mwakiwangwe M EAMBMTI 5 Tanzania 0717 190856
129 Godwin Mende M AFRICA LEAD 5 Tanzania 0717 195786
130 Jackson Mahenge M AFRICA LEAD 5 Tanzania 0762 493907
THE 2ND ANNUAL AGRICULTURAL POLICY CONFERENCE FROM 23RD – 25TH FEB 2016
List of Participants
DAY 3
25TH FEBRUARY 2016
106
SN
Name of
Participant
Gender
(M/F)
Full Name of
Organization/Institutio
n
Type (Select one)
1
Government/Publi
c
2 Research /
University
3 Farmer
Organization
4 Private/For-
Profit
5 NGO / Nonprofit
Country Contact Details (Email,
Phone)
1 Dennis Sirjeff H. M
JEFREN AGRIFRIEND
SOLUTIONS 4 Tanzania 0752 027703
2 Prudence Y. Lugendo M PAPAC/MALF 1 Tanzania 0752 287691
3 Farid Ally M MLIMANI TV
Tanzania 0718 639449
4 Asia Gamba F MLIMANI TV
Tanzania 0653 844575
5 Aneth Kayombo F SERA PROJECT 1 Tanzania 0655 667006
6 Edna Lugao F ANSAF 5 Tanzania 0755 298781
7 Gaston Francis M
LITTLE BUYERS
TANZANIA LTD 4 Tanzania 0715 241177
8 Christine Abulitsa F
PUSH MOBILE MEDIA
LTD 4 Tanzania [email protected]
9 Chuma Eliezer M MALF 1 Tanzania [email protected]
10 Kilian Myenzi M
MLIMAKIFI TRADERS
KIBAIGWA 1 Tanzania [email protected]
11 Silas Nghambi M NAFAKA 5 Tanzania [email protected]
12 Ally K. Mnzava M MALF 1 Tanzania [email protected]
13 Kim Mhando M EAGC 5 Tanzania [email protected]
14 Jom Kajiba M ESRF 5 Tanzania [email protected]
15 Abdallah Hassan M ESRF 5 Tanzania [email protected]
107
16 Costantine Nyikawila M
MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE
LIVESTOCK & FISHERIES 1 Tanzania [email protected]
17 Oscar Opiyo M
BCA GRAIN & FED
Co.LTD 4 Tanzania [email protected]
18 Nancy Ndale M
BCA GRAIN & FED
Co.LTD 4 Tanzania [email protected]
19
Leochrister A.
Wambura F FRABHO ENT. LTD 4 Tanzania [email protected]
20 Samuel Wangwe M REPOA/DAIMA 4 Tanzania [email protected]
21 Paul A. Mchome M M.A.U.A 4 Tanzania 0756 467618
22 James K. Millya M BUNGE 1 Tanzania 0754 840004
23 Brasi Msugu M FOOD TRADERS 5 Tanzania 0768 014924
24 Magreth L. Henjewele F
FORUM FOR TZ
CAPACITY BUILDING 5 Tanzania
0754660146
25 Andrew Temu M SUA 2 Tanzania [email protected]
26 Olive Kivuyo F
Tanzania [email protected]
27 DB Furnish M SERA/USAID 1
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
28 Lameck Kikoka M RUDI 5 Tanzania [email protected]
29 Peniel Lyimo M RETIRED CIVIL SERVANT 4 Tanzania [email protected]
30 Rafael Ugie M MSU 2
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
31 Nkonya N. M MAFAP 2 Tanzania 0784 3165 70
32 Fumihiko Suzuki M JICA 1
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
33 Richard Y. Kasuga M MALF 1 Tanzania [email protected]
34 P. Carstedt M
4
Non
Tanzanian
35 Rachele Arcese F IFAD 1 Non [email protected]
108
Tanzanian
36 Maureen Kwisalu F ONE ACRE FUND 5 Tanzania
maureen.kwilasa@oneacrefun
d.org
37 Audax Rukonge M ANSAF 5 Tanzania
38 Michael Kaimmba M AMDT 5 Tanzania [email protected]
39 Melijabeen Alarakhia F UN WOMEN 1 Tanzania
melijabeen.alarakhia@unwom
en.org
40 Ntengua Mdoe M SUA 2 Tanzania [email protected]
41 Harold Carey M USAID 1 Tanzania [email protected]
42 Godgiff Swai M SUA/AFRICA LEAD 2 Tanzania [email protected]
43 Milu Mvyanga M MSU 2
Non
Tanzanian 151 75993445
44 Don Mitchell M SERA 1
Non
Tanzania [email protected]
45 Ernest Mufuruki M SERA 1 Tanzania [email protected]
46 Neema Rwebangira F ANSAF 5 Tanzania [email protected]
47 Stephen Michael M MALF 1 Tanzania
m
48 Godfrey Bwana M PRIVATE CONSULTANT 4 Tanzania 0754 600900
49 Gilbert Mboya M UDSM 1 Tanzania 0769 484436
50 Tertula Swai F UN WOMEN 5 Tanzania 0754 605019
51 Theresia Henjewele F MOFP 1 Tanzania 0713 233109
52 Nsanya Ndanshau M IRISH EMBASSY 1 Tanzania 0784 360703
53 Godwin Mende M AFRICA LEAD 5 Tanzania 0717 195786
54 Patrick Matee M AKOMA INVESTMENT 4 Tanzania 0774 787260
55 Tego Ismail M SIDO HQ 1 Tanzania 0713 471820
56 Paul Mandele M AGRIMARK 4 Tanzania [email protected]
57 Tausi Kuch F ESRF 5 Tanzania [email protected]
58 John Riber M MFDI 5 Tanzania 0784 707777
109
59 Mark Lyimo M MAFC 1 Tanzania [email protected]
60 Ben Moshi M SILVERLANDS 3 Tanzania 0754 276028
61 Revelian S. Ngaza M MALF 1 Tanzania 0782 569383
62 Daktari Hango M MALF 1 Tanzania 0787 928288
63 Tumain Elibariki M FARM AFRICA 5 Tanzania 0788 325299
64 Ijinika Emma F PDB 1 Tanzania [email protected]
65 Nezarlor Kitosi M
Ministry of Agriculture
Livestock and Fisheries 1 Tanzania [email protected]
66 Phoebu Mauma F PEAK PERFORMANCE 4 Tanzania
nt.tz
67 Jane Mutua F PEAK PERFORMANCE 4 Tanzania
.tz
68 Muro Banadi M
Tanzania [email protected]
69 Saidi Wembe F SAGCOT 5 Tanzania
70 Rehema Shambwe F CRDB BANK PLC 4 Tanzania
rehema.shambwe@crdbbank.
com
71 Adam Stefan M USAID 1 Tanzania [email protected]
72 Gungu Mibavu M MALF 1 Tanzania [email protected]
73 Freddie Manento M PUSH 4 Tanzania [email protected]
74 Naumanga Issa M
TANDAHIMBA DISTRICT
COUNCEL 1 Tanzania [email protected]
75 Mbulumi A. M
CEREALS & OTHER
PRODUCE BOARD 1 Tanzania 0754 842424
76 Anna Malongo F
3 Tanzania 0675 999658
77 Wilhelm Ruseruka M
4 Tanzania 0654 168232
78 Alex Nkilidi M SERA 1 Tanzania 0683 326332
79 John Chassama M
MINISTRY OF
INDUSTRY, TRADE &
INVESTMENT 1 Tanzania 0784 643242
80 Gilead Teri M ANSAF 5 Tanzania 0689 222268
110
81 Edgar Aldoph M ANSAF 5 Tanzania 0713 700038
82 Emmanuel Mstafa M TMB 1 Tanzania 0767 411195
83 Mwajuma Shabani F ANSAF 5 Tanzania 0769 928757
84 Omary A. Mwaimu M AMSHA 3 Tanzania 0716 966447
85 Owen Nelson M IITA 2 Tanzania 0787 043486
86 Mbakua Kivuyo M ANSAF 5 Tanzania [email protected]
87 Sophia Mlote F MALF-PAPAC 1 Tanzania [email protected]
88 D Tcshule M MSU 2
Non
Tanzanian
89 H.M. Gondwe M USAID-PS3 1 Tanzania [email protected]
90 Lucky Mgeni M URAMBO UDC 1 Tanzania [email protected]
91 Sizya Lugeye M IFAD
Tanzania [email protected]
92 Alethia Cameron F MAFAP (FAO) 1
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
93 Geofrey Mrema M SUA 2 Tanzania [email protected]
94 Geoffey Kirey M SAGCOT 5 Tanzania
95 Kain Mvanda M IRISH AID 1 Tanzania kainimvanda@
96 Edith Lazaro F SERA 1 Tanzania [email protected]
97 Josephat Kanyunyu M SERA 1 Tanzania
m
98 Brenda Lyimo F MSU 2 Tanzania 0766 511599
99 Darshawa Pema F DALBERG 4 Tanzania [email protected]
100 Justice Mangu M NYUKI BEES SAFARI 4 Tanzania 0689 374399
101 Philemon J. Kiemi M SYECCOS-SINEIIDA 3 Tanzania 0765 895805
102 Megumi Kaneda F JICA/DADP PROJECT 1
Non
Tanzanian [email protected]
103 Stephen Ruvuga M MVIWATA 5 Tanzania [email protected]
104 Ellen Manyangu F EFM RADIO
Tanzania 0717 472700
111
105 Oliver Nyeriga F EATV
Tanzania 0718 899947
106 Ombeni Mmbwambo M EATV
Tanzania 0767 329231
107 Njonanje Samwel M EA RADIO
Tanzania 0716 296053
108 Njoroge Liston M AGRA
Tanzania [email protected]
109 Andrew Chale M MO DEWJI BLOG
Tanzania [email protected]
110 Clara Machiwa F SWISS EMBASSY
Tanzania 0713 403077
111 Julius Wambura M FRABHO ENT. LTD
Tanzania [email protected]
