Republic of Zambia

Global Agriculture and Food Security Programme

(GAFSP)

Support to National Agriculture Investment Plan (NAIP)

GAFSP PROPOSAL FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA

AGRICULTURE PRODUCTIVITY AND MARKET ENHANCEMENT PROJECT (APAMEP)

Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock

Lusaka, Zambia

May 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Table of Contents i

Currency Equivalents ii

Fiscal Year ii

Acronyms and Abbreviations ii

PART 1: SUMMARY OF OVERALL AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SECURITY

STRATEGY AND ASSOCIATED INVESTMENT PLAN

1

1.1 Objectives, Indicators and Past Performance 1

1.2 Key Elements of the Policy Environment 2

1.3 Plan Components to Achieve the Objectives 4

1.4 Planned Composition and Level of Spending to Implement the Components 5

1.5 Financing Sources and Gaps 5

1.6 Process by Which the Strategy and Investment Plan were Developed 6

1.7 Implementation Arrangements and Capacity to Implement 6

PART 2: SPECIFIC PROPOSAL FOR GAFSP FINANCING 8

2.1 Specific Objectives, Expected Results and Target Beneficiaries 8

2.2 Activities to be Financed 10

2.3 Implementation Arrangements 17

2.4 Amount of Financing Requested 18

2.5 Preferred Supervising Entity and Government Team 19

2.6 Time Frame of Proposed Support 19

2.7 Risks and Risk Management 20

2.8 Consultation with Local Stakeholders and Development Partners 20

List of Appendices

Appendix 1.

NAIP Results Indicators 21

Appendix 2. Resource Gap Analysis 25

Appendix 3. Summary of Development Partners Commitment to NAIP 26

Appendix 4. NAIP Management Structure 33

Appendix 5. Target Crop Yields and Outputs 34

Appendix 6. Selection of Target Districts 36

Appendix 7. Proposed List of Irrigation Sites/Schemes 39

Appendix 8. NAIP Formulation Process 41

List of Tables

Table 1. Structure of NAIP linked to CAADP Pillars and SNDP 4

Table 2. Summary Budget for NAIP 5

Table 3. Preliminary Financing Gap 6

Table 4. Development Objectives/Outcomes and Outputs 8

Table 5. Activities to be Financed by GAFSP and their Alignment to CAADP 10

Table 6. Activities to be Financed and Their Amounts 18

Table 7. Government Technical Team Members 19

Table 8. Project Risks and Mitigating Measures 20

ii

Currency Equivalents

(May 2013)

1 USD = 5.29507 ZMW (Rebased, January 2013)

Fiscal Year

1st January to 31

st December

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AfDB ………… African Development Bank Group

Ag-CP ………… Agriculture Cooperating Partners

Ag-SAG ………… Agriculture Sector Advisory Group

AI ………… Artificial Insemination

ASPA ………… Annual Sector Performance Analysis

CAADP ………… Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme

COMESA ………… Common Market for East and Southern Africa

DDCC ………… District Development and Coordination Committee

DAES ………… District Agriculture and Environment Sub-committee

DP/CP ………… Development Partners/Cooperating Partners

FISP ………… Farmer Input Support Programme

FNDP ………… Fifth National Development Plan

GRZ ………… Government of the Republic of Zambia

JASZ ………… Joint Assistance Strategy for Zambia

IAPRI ………… Indaba for Agricultural Policy Research Institute

IFMIS ………… Integrated Financial Management Information System

KSS ………… Key Support Services

KPI ………… Key Performance Indicators

LIMS ………… Livestock Information Management System

M&E ………… Monitoring & Evaluation

MAL ………… Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock

MTEF ………… Medium Term Expenditure Framework

NAIP ………… National Agriculture Investment Plan

NAPS ………… National Aid Policy and Strategy

NAP ………… National Agriculture Policy

NALEIC ………… National Livestock and Epidemiological Information Centre

NAPA ………… National Adaptation Programme of Action

NGO ………… Non-Governmental Organization

PCU ………… Project Coordination Unit

PAES ………… Provincial Agriculture and Environment Committee

PDCC ………… Provincial Development Coordinating Committee

PS ………… Permanent Secretary

SADC ………… South African Development Community

SESA ………… Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment

SNDP ………… Sixth National Development Plan

USD/$ ………… United States Dollars

ZMW ………… Zambian Kwacha

1

PART 1:

SUMMARY OF OVERALL AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SECURITY

STRATEGY AND ASSOCIATED INVESTMENT PLAN

1.1 Objectives, Indicators and Past Performance

1.1.1. The Government’s overarching goal, as indicated in Vision 2030, is to become a

“prosperous middle-income country by the year 2030”, with a competitive and outward oriented

economy, where hunger is eradicated and poverty is reduced to minimal levels (GRZ, 2006).

Towards this vision, national development planning was reintroduced in 2003. The Fifth

National Development Plan (FNDP) was implemented between 2006 and 2010. It generated

macroeconomic stability, economic growth, infrastructure development, maternal and infant

mortality rates reduction and increased education enrolment. The Sixth National Development

Plan (SNDP: 2011 to 2015) is aimed at consolidating the FNDP gains. SNDP (2011-2015) seeks

to sustain economic growth, poverty reduction, creation of employment, policies, strategies and

programmes to generate broad-based pro-poor growth, employment and human development.

SNDP’s objective is to “accelerate infrastructure development, economic growth and

diversification, promote rural investments, accelerate poverty reduction and enhance human

development”. It identifies agriculture (crops, livestock and fisheries), mining, tourism,

manufacturing and commerce and trade as priority growth sectors.

1.1.2. SNDP (2011-2015) prioritizes agriculture as the key sector in achieving sustainable

economic growth and reducing poverty in Zambia due to the country’s rich endowment in

natural resources (especially arable land) and dependency of 70 percent of the rural population

on agricultural related activities and livelihoods. The National Agriculture Investment Plan

(NAIP) under the SNDP (2011-2015) has been developed to:

a) diversify and attain national and household food security;

b) promote soil management for sustainable agricultural production and growth;

c) promote the development of competitive, efficient and transparent public and private

sector driven marketing system for agriculture commodities and inputs;

d) increase quality livestock numbers;

e) expand both domestic and international market access for livestock;

f) promote fish trade and marketing; and

g) promote sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources and increase fish production.

1.1.3. NAIP is a well-developed, coordinated and focused investment plan that facilitates

public, private, farmer organizations and individual farmer participation. NAIP is aligned to the

Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) which seeks to facilitate

the achievement of annual agricultural growth rate of at least 6% and budgetary allocation of at

least 10% of national budgets to agriculture. NAIP’s overall objective is “to facilitate and

support the development of a sustainable, dynamic, diversified and a competitive agricultural

sector that assures food security at household and national levels and maximizes the sector's

contribution to gross domestic products (NAP, 2012)”.

1.1.4. Investment Priorities: NAIP will achieve the above mentioned goal through four

programmes namely: (1) Sustainable Natural Resources Management, (2) Agricultural

Production and Productivity Improvement, (3) Market Access and Services Development and

(4) Food and Nutrition Security and Disaster Risk Management. The investment plan also

identifies two Key Support Services (KSS) namely i.e. (1) knowledge support systems and (2)

institutional strengthening. The cross-cutting issues, (i) Gender, (ii) Environment, (iii) Other

2

sector policies & on-going plans, and (iv) decentralization, have been embedded into all the four

NAIP programmes as well as the KSS components.

1.1.5. Monitorable Indicators: The NAIP Results Indicators are shown in Appendix 1. The

following five impact indicators will be tracked between 2013 and 2018: (i) reduction of rural

poverty from 77% to 50%; (ii) increase in agricultural exports as a percentage of non-traditional

exports from 41% in 2011 to 55%; (iii) reduction in chronic malnutrition of children under five

from 45% to 30%; (iv) reduce soil erosion per hectare per year from 20 to 10 tonnes, and; (v)

increase cereals production from 3.2 to 6.0 million tonnes.

1.2 Key Elements of the Policy Environment

1.2.1. The Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ) has put in place the Vision 2030 that

articulates long-term alternative development policy scenarios at different points which would

contribute to the attainment of the desirable social economic indicators by the year 2030. By

then, Zambians are expected to be living in a strong and dynamic middle-income industrial

nation that will provide opportunities for improving the well-being of all, embodying values of

socio-economic justice, underpinned by the principles of (i) gender responsive sustainable

development, (ii) democracy, (iii) respect for human rights, (iv) good traditional and family

values, (v) positive attitude towards work, (vi) peaceful coexistence, and (vii) private-public

partnerships. The Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) and annual budget are being

used as implementation tools for these various strategic plans.

1.2.2. Agriculture Policies: The agricultural sector is guided by the National Agriculture Policy

(NAP: 2004-2015) that is being reviewed and updated to reflect current thinking and political-

economic circumstances. Zambia has sub-sector strategies in crops, extension, irrigation,

livestock, fisheries, agricultural marketing, agricultural credit and finance, farm power and

mechanization, forestry and cooperatives. Other sectoral policies and reforms that will have

significant bearing on the achievements of outputs and outcomes of the NAIP relate to

HIV/AIDS, gender, governance, decentralization, youth, environment, climate change and

bioenergy policy. These policies are being supported by several Acts and Legal Instruments

including the environmental and pollution act, water rights act, land rights act, agricultural land

act, agricultural credit act, the plant variety and seed act, Bureau of Standards act, dairies and

dairy products act and small enterprise development. Stakeholders have lobbied for enactment

of an Agriculture Marketing Act to remove distortions in the market.

1.2.3. The Farmer Input Support Programme (FISP) is one of the activities consuming much of

the attention and budgetary resources for the agricultural sector. About 60 percent of the

agriculture budget goes to FISP and maize marketing subsidies. In view of this, Government is

in the process of restructuring and improving targeting of FISP. The restructuring will involve

supporting small-scale farmers through an e-voucher arrangement. Over 700,000 small scale

farmers are ear-marked for support from 2014 FISP scaled up nation-wide but 2017 and 2018

will see a decline in those supported under the e-voucher system to 600,000 per year, as some

recipients will graduate from the FISP. The e-voucher has an advantage over the current

arrangement as it is value-based rather than input based. This allows for flexibility in the choice

of inputs to buy, thus facilitating enterprise diversification. Farmers and Government are

expected to contribute 40% each, of the total cost of the inputs while the private sector will

contribute 20% through transportation and other logistical related issues. These reforms will

lead to reduction of public expenditure, enhanced diversification, improved efficiency in

targeting as well as payment system and increase private sector participation and transparency.

3

1.2.4. The Government signed the CAADP Compact on 18th January 2012 to support the

implementation of the National Agricultural Policy (NAP) and the Vision 2030 through

National Development Plans. The CAADP Compact sets the parameters for long term

partnership in the agricultural sector and specifies key commitments on the part of Government,

Development Partners (DPs), civil society and private sector which should lead to improved

resource investment in tackling poverty, hunger and malnutrition. The purpose of the CAADP

Compact is to (i) increase effectiveness in planning and execution of efforts of Government,

private sector and other players, and (ii) provide a solid framework under which assistance can

be scaled up to help meet the short and long term investment needs for sustained growth of the

economy. Four pillars of Zambia CAADP Compact are:

Pillar I (sustainable land and water management): Government will implement

policies and programmes that support increased agricultural productivity, sustainable

land and water management;

Pillar II (rural infrastructure and markets): Government and the private sector will

implement and adhere to predictable, rule-based market and trade policies and

strengthen public-private coordination and dialogue, identify investment priorities in

infrastructure development and facilitate private sector scaling up investments in

production inputs and output markets;

Pillar III (food supply and hunger): Government to promote diversified extension

messages and in partnership with private sector and Civil Society Organisations explore

social protection instruments; and

Pillar IV (agriculture research and technology dissemination): Government to

provide adequate resources in order to develop cost effective, demand-driven research

and extension linkages focusing on the public-private partnerships.

1.2.5. By endorsing the CAADP Compact, the Government pledged to fulfil the commitments

specified, in line with the goals, objectives, principles, and modalities laid out in Vision 2030,

NAP and National Development Programmes. The DPs pledged to fulfil the commitments

specified therein in line with the Joint Assessment Strategy for Zambia (JASZ). The African

Union (AU), Southern African Development Community (SADC), Common Market for Eastern

and Southern Africa (COMESA) and other regional partners pledged to fulfil commitments in

line with the Maputo Declaration and global principles of CAADP implementation.

1.2.6. NAIP provides for increased capacity for effective management of aid, including the

strengthening of the donor coordination capacity to facilitate improved management of

resources and aid flows. All external resources given to the Government are delivered, managed,

monitored and reported through the existing public sector management system in the same

manner domestic resources are handled. The annual national budget shall define the areas where

external resources shall be required. The Government shall require timely information on DPs’

aid commitments and disbursement schedules so as to secure the required predictability of

external support and its effective integration into the national planning system.

1.2.7. JASZ was signed by 10 major donors, founded on the principles of strengthening local

ownership of the development process and enhancing aid effectiveness and mutual

accountability in the spirit of international agreements - Monterrey Consensus on Financing for

Development (2002), the Rome Declaration on Aid Harmonization (2003), the Marrakesh

Agreement on Managing Results for Development (2004), and the Paris Declaration on Aid

Effectiveness (2005). JASZ is a unique document in the history of aid cooperation in Zambia

and represents DPs collective response to the country’s Vision 2030, the National Development

Plans and NAPS, which constitute the national framework for reducing poverty and promoting

sustainable development.

4

1.3 Planned Components to Achieve the Objectives

1.3.1. The low investments, low production, low productivity and weak market linkages among

the smallholder farmers are some of the challenges currently affecting the agriculture sector.

Climate change is exacerbating this challenge due to droughts, waterlogging, seasonal floods,

long dry spells and poor rainfall distribution. The constraints to growth of the sector include

inadequate extension services, inadequate infrastructure, livestock diseases, overfishing and

poor functioning of markets, inadequate storage and limited electricity.

1.3.2. Measures to Address the Issues: NAIP’s overall goal will be realized through

implementation of four inter-related programmes and KSS namely (1) Sustainable Natural

Resources Management (2) Agricultural Production and Productivity Improvement (3) Market

Access and Services Development (4) Food and Nutrition Security and Disaster Risk

Management and two categories of KSS (1) knowledge support systems and (2) institutional

strengthening. The cross-cutting issues include (i) Gender, (ii) Environment, (iii) Other sector

policies & on-going plans, and (iv) decentralization. Table 1 shows the NAIP key programmes

which will help to address the constraints and their alignment to the CAADP Pillars.

Table 1: Structure of NAIP linked with CAADP Pillars and SNDP

Programme Components/Outcomes CAADP Pillars SNDP

1. Sustainable natural

resources management

Land use planning, administration

and management.

Efficient water use & irrigation

Forestry management

Efficient energy use from natural

resources

Capture fisheries

Pillar 1: Sustainable

Land Management

Programme

Part 5: Natural

Resources.

Part 3: Water and

Sanitation

Land development

water resources

development

2. Agricultural

production and

productivity

improvement

Regulations & policy reforms.

Livestock productivity and

production.

Livestock research

Animal health & disease control

Improved crop productivity

Access to farm inputs

Good agricultural practices

Mechanization of crop production.

Improved aquaculture production

and productivity

Enhancing environment for

aquaculture development

Agricultural

Productivity

Improvement

Programme

Agriculture

Investment

Promotion

Programme

Part 4: Agriculture,

Livestock and Fisheries

Crop diversification

3. Market access and

services development

Institutional market arrangements

Rural and market infrastructures

Rural Finance

Value Chain integration

Agricultural

Marketing

Programme

Agriculture

Investment

Promotion

Programme (part)

Part 1: Financing

Part 2: Infrastructure

Part 4: Agriculture,

Livestock and

Fisheries;

Manufacturing;

Commerce and Trade.

4. Food and nutrition

security and disaster

risk management

National and household food

security

Access to nutritious foods

Risks Management & Disaster

mitigation capabilities

Food and Nutrition

Security Program Part 1: Cross-cutting

issues; Financing

Part 2: Infrastructure

Part 4: Agriculture,

Livestock and Fisheries

Key Support Services-

Knowledge support

systems

Strengthen seed systems

Strengthen research systems

Strengthen agricultural Training and

Research and

Extension

Enhancement

Part 5: Science,

Technology and

Innovation; Information

5

Programme Components/Outcomes CAADP Pillars SNDP

education Program and Communications

Technology

Agricultural Research

Key Support Services-

Institutional

Strengthening

Policy dialogue and analysis

Financial management

Human Resources Management

Planning, M&E

Part 1: Macroeconomic

Policies and Structural

Reforms

Part 3: Education and

Skills Development

Cross-Cutting Issues

Gender, Environment,

Other sector policies &

on-going plans and

decentralization.

Part 1: Cross-cutting

issues;

Part 5: Social Protection

Part 6: Regional

Development

1.4 Planned Composition and Level of Spending to Implement the Components

1.4.1 For each NAIP programme, baseline and 2018 target values were identified. Following

an output based budgeting methodology, the NAIP summary base cost for the total programme

is US$ 2,730.69 million (2014-2018), as presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Summary Budget (in US$ million) for NAIP (2014-2018)

Programme

Implementation Period (Years)

Total

Source of Funding

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 GRZ/CP Farmers Private

Sector

Crop Production and

Productivity 180.30 180.39 180.54 155.44 156.01 852.68 379.12 319.25 154.30

Livestock Production and

Productivity 68.51 75.17 81.45 69.96 59.16 354.25 332.06 20.19 2.00

Aquaculture Production

and Productivity 12.89 11.57 10.79 10.21 6.09 51.57 45.58 1.93 4.06

Market Access and

Services Development 19.62 55.82 99.70 23.28 58.80 257.21 209.73 11.48 35.99

Food and Nutrition

Security and Disaster

Management

110.13 137.27 137.80 137.49 137.17 659.86 640.71 19.15 0.00

Sustainable Natural

Resources Management 39.15 62.43 66.77 62.24 50.22 280.80 259.79 19.66 1.35

Knowledge Support

Systems 49.91 69.00 50.38 41.79 43.39 254.48 254.48 0.00 0.00

Institutional

Strengthening 7.86 5.09 2.60 2.03 2.28 19.86 19.86 0.00 0.00

Total 488.37 596.74 630.02 502.44 513.13 2,730.69 2,141.33 391.67 197.70

Percentage 17.9% 21.8% 23.1% 18.4% 18.8% 100.0% 78.4% 14.3% 7.3%

Source: NAIP (2014-2018), Government of Zambia.

1.5 Financing Sources and Gaps

1.5.1 The preliminary financing gap was prepared based on the assumption that (i) 100% of

Ministry of Agriculture’s (MAL) budget (excluding Personal Emoluments-PE) goes to finance

the NAIP, (ii) 5% of Ministry of Lands Natural Resources and Environmental Protection’s

(MLNREP) non-PE budget goes to finance outputs and outcomes defined under the NAIP, (iii)

100% of agriculture sector DPs funding is considered available to finance NAIP priorities

(which are based on the MTEF), and (iv) about 10% of farmers and private commercial sector’s

expected contribution is readily available. Based on Table 2 (NAIP budget), the resulting

financing gap is US$ 651.19 million, as presented in Table 3.

6

Table 3: Preliminary Financing Gap (US$ million)

Source of Funding Implementation Period (years) Total (US$

million) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Total NAIP requirement 488.37 596.74 630.02 502.44 513.13 2730.69

MAL (non PE) 237.13 263.43 287.42 316.16 347.78 1451.93

MLNREP (non PE, 5%) 15.79 18.46 23.15 25.47 28.01 110.89

DPs’ agriculture sector commitments

(100% on-going and planned) 137.09 116.08 82.18 76.40 46.00 457.75

Private Sector (10% assumed available) 3.95 3.95 3.95 3.95 3.95 19.77

Beneficiaries (10% assumed available) 7.83 7.83 7.83 7.83 7.83 39.17

Total available funds 401.80 409.76 404.54 429.82 433.58 2079.50

Funding Gap 86.56 186.98 225.48 72.62 79.55 651.19

Source: NAIP (2014-2018), Government of Zambia.

1.6 Process by which the Strategy and Investment Plan were Developed

1.6.1. The development of the NAIP under the CAADP framework was based on all the major

strategies of the country, including, (a) NAP (2004), (b) FNDP (2006-2010), (c) SNDP (2011-

2015), (d) the Sections 3 and 14 of the Patriotic Front (PF) manifesto relating to Agriculture and

Land governance, and (e) Vision 2030. Consequently, the formulation process drew from the

rich and wide stakeholder consultations that preceded the implementation of these strategies. In

addition, the lengthy stakeholders consultation that preceded the formulation of the Zambia

CAADP Compact signed in January 2011 proved valuable.

1.6.2. Stakeholders’ consultation was undertaken at four levels: national, provincial, district

and community. At national level, separate meetings were conducted with DPs, the Private

sector, Agro-NGOs, International NGOs, Senior Government officials (including the Permanent

Secretaries). At provincial level, the Provincial Development Coordinating Committee (PDCC)

was engaged as well as key stakeholders at district level, including private sector, District

Development Coordination Committee (DDCC) and farmer organizations. Both male and

female farmers were consulted at community level through Focus Group Discussions.

1.6.3. The NAIP formulation process, Appendix 8, lasted for nearly six months, from June to

December 2012. With respect to the institutional housing of the NAIP formulation process, the

Policy and Planning Department of MAL interacted with the Formulation Team (FT) almost on

a daily basis. Indaba for Agricultural Policy Research Institute (IAPRI) housed the FT during

the whole formulation process. The IAPRI also provided the team with useful literature from its

rich archives in addition to availing the team with specific professional inputs from time to time.

IAPRI provided useful write-ups on the situation analysis, given its strength, work and

experience in policy analysis and agricultural research in general. The NAIP formulation

process also benefited from the input of the Agriculture Sector Advisory Group (Ag-SAG) and

the Agricultural Cooperating Partners (Ag-CPs) through their monthly meetings.

1.7 Implementation Arrangements and Capacity to Implement

1.7.1. The overall implementation responsibility of the NAIP will fall under the Ministry of

Agriculture and Livestock (MAL) whose major focus will be the creation of an enabling

environment for a private-sector led agricultural development and economic growth. MAL will

ensure linkages and synergies with other relevant Government ministries and institutions. MAL

will use the Ag-SAG to engage other stakeholders on key issues affecting the sector as well as

7

report progress on the implementation. At sub-national level, existing structures, namely; the

Provincial Agriculture and Environment Subcommittee (PAES) of the PDCC; the District

Agriculture and Environment Subcommittee (DAES) of the DDCC and the Community

Agriculture Committee (CAC), will be strengthened under the policy dialogue sub-component

of the Key Support Systems (Institutional Strengthening). The NAIP partnerships will include

DPs, financial institutions, input suppliers, agro-industry, traders and regional economic

communities such as COMESA and SADC.

1.7.2. Financing Modalities: The financing of NAIP will follow a mixture of modalities that

allows participating Cooperating Partners (CPs) and other actors to meet their reporting

obligations to their respective Governments. Nonetheless, the preferred modality of financing is

the Direct Budget Support (DBS). Notwithstanding a particular mode of financing, all financing

activities will come under the Integrated Financial Management Information System (IFMIS).

1.7.3. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E): The NAIP has a results-based M&E system. While

not ignoring the lower level indicators (input and output), NAIP’s M&E system focusses on

higher level indicators (outcomes and impacts) which are critical in tracking the intended change

and benefits accruing to the primary beneficiaries. The M&E system has incorporated the

following: (i) objectives; (ii) Key Performance Indicators (KPIs); (iii) data collection methods

for the indicators; (iv) institutional framework for data collection; (v) frequency of data

collection and responsibility; (vi) data analysis frequency and responsibility; and, (vii)

information dissemination plan. To operationalize the M&E system, MAL has M&E units at all

levels, that is, 5 officers at National level, 2 at Provincial level and 3 at District level. An M&E

directorate has also been established. Three evaluations have been planned, namely (i) base-line

evaluation to confirm and update the baseline values as well as fill the gaps where such values

do not exist, (ii) mid-line will review the extent to which NAIP will be on course in pursuing its

overall goals and objectives halfway through its lifespan, and (iii) end-line evaluation will

provide lessons during overall implementation period of the NAIP.

1.7.4. The Annual Sector Performance Analysis (ASPA) will be undertaken that would

culminate in annual review meetings involving all key stakeholders. This will provide a forum

for sector review as well as prioritize investment areas. Consequently, the annual work plan and

budget (AWPB) will be informed by findings from the ASPA. IAPRI and the Department of

Policy and Planning (PPD) of MAL will undertake these analyses.

8

PART 2:

SPECIFIC PROPOSAL FOR GAFSP FINANCING

2.1 Specific Objectives, Expected Results and Target Beneficiaries

2.1.1. Objectives: The overall objective of the project is to reduce poverty by ensuring food,

income and nutritional security among the smallholder farm households in 10 targeted districts.

The specific objectives are mainly to (i) increase agricultural production by 30% among the

smallholder farmers; (ii) increase market engagement to 50% of production among smallholder

farmers; (iii) enhance institutional capacity of key sector players; and (iv) reduce in chronic

malnutrition from 45% to 30% among under-five children in the target area.

2.1.2. Targeted Results: The expected results in relation to the objectives of the project are

summarized in Table 4 below. The NAIP monitoring and evaluation framework will be used to

assess the progress of the project.

Table 4: Development Objectives/Outcomes and Outputs

Project Development

Objective

PDO Indicators in Target Districts Use of Outcome

Monitoring

Reduce poverty by

ensuring food, income

and nutritional

security among the

smallholder farm

households

Increase in average income per household (from US$ 364

to US$500 per annum.

Measure whether farmers

could access high quality

inputs, extension services

and infrastructure to

increase yields/incomes.

Reduce average under-five chronic malnutrition from 45%

to 30%

To assess improvement in

the nutritional status of

participating households.

Specific Objectives Output Indicators for Specific Object Use of Output

Monitoring

To increase

agricultural

productivity by 30%

among the smallholder

farmers.

Livestock:

Pasture seed distributed for 700 ha (700 dairy women

farmers, 1ha each).

700 women livestock producers with improved dairy

breeds through pass-on scheme.

Milk yield increased from 1,500 litres to 2,500 litres per

cow per year.

10,000 livestock farmers access improved dairy breeds

through Artificial Insemination (AI).

600 women groups provided with 3 rounds of newcastle

vaccine per year and trained in improved poultry housing.

Increase production of fish from farms from 0 to 400 mt.

Assess the level of

adoption of improved

farming practices and their

contribution to increased

volumes of production.

Crops

Increase Soya bean yields from 1 mt/ha to 2 mt/ha.

Increase Sorghum yields from 0.65 mt/ha to 1.5mt/ha.

Maize yield increased from 1.93 – 3.5 mt/ha under

conservation agriculture rotations.

Increase cassava area from 12,545 to 24,100 ha.

Sweet potatoes area from 7,965 to 10,115 ha.

Area under conservation farming increased from 25,455 to

33,000 ha in target districts.

Area under mechanized agriculture increased from 127,274

to 140,000 ha in target districts.

Area under irrigation increased from 300 ha to 1,000 ha in

target districts.

10 fish cages for 250 youths established.

4 dams restocked with 1 million fingerlings (800 farmers).

Assess the level of

adoption of improved

farming practices and their

contribution to increased

volumes of production

9

Project Development

Objective

PDO Indicators in Target Districts Use of Outcome

Monitoring

To increase market

engagement to 50% of

production among

smallholder farmers

10 District Cooperative Unions (DCUs) are fully

functional.

120 special interest business primary cooperatives/farmer

groups strengthened.

Number of farmers with access to price and market

information increased by 50%.

Volume of agricultural product traded through formal

markets increased from 15% to 50%.

10,000 farmers (3,000 women) have access to finance.

Three (3) DCUs benefiting from matching grants for crop

processing plant.

300 km of access roads constructed (30km/district).

Four (4) processing plants installed in 3 DCUs.

6 Agro-Market Centres established.

180 agro-dealers (30% women) assisted with grants.

20 roadside market centres improved.

Assess the level of produce

conversion and business

partnerships leading to

increased value of products

and export volumes

To enhance

institutional capacity

of key sector players

Project Management

Project Coordination Unit established within MAL.

5 thematic technical reports on lessons learnt compiled.

20 consolidated Quarterly Progress Reports by MAL.

5 consolidated Annual Reports by MAL.

5 audit reports submitted.

Capacity Building

75,000 farmers (22,500 women) trained.

750 lead farmers trained in conservation agriculture and

other technical and business skills.

120 cooperatives trained in conservation agriculture and

other technical and business skills.

150 extension staff trained in various technologies.

2,000 youths trained in various technical/business skills

(fisheries, processing, and good agricultural practices).

60 District subject matter specialists trained.

Assess the effectiveness of

the coordination

mechanisms put in place to

ensure quality delivery of

services

To reduce in chronic

malnutrition from

45% to 30% among

under-five children in

the target districts.

22,500 women provided with orange sweet potato vines for

0.25 ha per farmer.

22,500 women farmers trained in nutrition.

7,000 female provided with 3 rounds of newcastle vaccine

per year and trained in improved poultry.

Assess the level of

adoption of technologies.

Assess the utilization of

food consumed leading to

reduction in malnutrition

2.1.3. Targeted Priority Value Chain Commodities: The project is focused on advancing

Government’s diversification agenda to broaden the farm income and food base for smallholder

producers. The project will therefore focus on promoting efficiency in production, processing

and marketing of cassava, soya beans, sweet potatoes, sorghum and irrigated vegetables as

priority crops in the target areas. In the same areas, the project will also target the promotion of

dairy and fish farming for special interest groups to improve nutrition and income. Some of the

crops are tolerant to droughts and dry spells, have low input requirements and high marketing

potential, value addition and nutritional value.

2.1.4. Targeted Areas: The Project will be implemented in 10 districts namely: Choma, Monze,

Gwembe, Sinazongwe, Kapiri-Mposhi, Serenje, Masaiti, Mpika, Chongwe and Kaoma, as

detailed in Appendix 6. The poverty and food insecurity in the target districts are deeply

entrenched. About 70% of rural households in these areas live below the poverty line, that is,

population living below US$1 a day, compared to 43% in the urban areas. The main criteria for

the selection of these Districts include (i) poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition prevalence,

(ii) HIV/AIDS prevalence rates, (iii) vulnerability to climate change and disaster risks - National

Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA, 2007) districts, (iv) potential for growth and to

10

respond to development interventions, (v) potential to promote diversification to non-maize

crops, (vi) facilitation of logistics in project implementation, and (vii) relative presence of

related, parallel or historical project interventions.

2.1.5. Targeted Beneficiaries: The estimated number of direct beneficiaries under the proposed

project is 75,000 households with 37,500 being female headed households while 2,000 shall be

the youth. Consequently, a total of 300,000 people (50% women) will directly benefit from the

project. In addition, about 200,000 households will indirectly benefit from the project

throughout the value chains. The categories of farm households to be supported will include

66,220 from rain fed areas and 8,780 from irrigation schemes. The project is expected to create

at least 1,000 fulltime jobs in processing and trade.

2.2 Activities to be Financed

2.2.1. The Project has 3 components which have been aligned to NAIP programmes and sub-

programmes and also linked to the CAADP pillars as presented in Table 5.

Table 5: Activities to be Financed by GAFSP and their Alignment to CAADP Technical Pillars

Activity to be Financed

in GAFSP Project

NAIP Programme Sub-Programmes or Outcomes Related CAADP

Technical Pillars

1. Agricultural

production and

productivity

Programme 2:

Agriculture production

and productivity.

Improved crop productivity

Access to inputs.

Good agricultural practices

Mechanization.

Increased livestock production

and productivity.

Pillar3: Increasing food

security and reducing

hunger.

Pillar 4: Agriculture

research, technology

dissemination and

adoption.

Programme 1:

Sustainable Natural

Resources

Management

Ensure Efficient Water Use and

Irrigation as well as aquaculture.

Pillar1: Extending the area

under sustainable land and

water management

2. Value Chain

Development and

Market linkages

Programme No. 3:

Market access and

services development

Institutional market.

arrangements and performance

Increase access to rural

infrastructure.

Increase access to rural finance.

Promote value chain integration.

Pillar 2: Improving rural

infrastructure and trade

related capacities for

market access

3. Institutional

Strengthening

Capacity Building and

Project Management

Key Support Area 1:

Knowledge Support

System.

Key Support Area 2:

Institutional

Strengthening.

Research.

Extension.

Seed services.

Agriculture education.

Planning M&E.

Financial management.

Human resources management.

Pillar 4: Agricultural

research, technology

dissemination and

adoption.

Crosscutting: Institutions

4. Nutrition Interventions Nutrition

Programme No. 4:

Food and Nutrition.

Security and Disaster.

Risk Management.

Food security.

Nutrition Security.

Pillar 3: Increasing Food

Security and Reducing

Hunger.

2.2.2. The Project components are (1) Agricultural Production and Productivity, (2) Value

Chain Development and Market Linkages, and (3) Institutional Strengthening. The details are

indicated in the following paragraphs:

11

Component 1: Agricultural Production and Productivity

Sub-component 1.1: Irrigation Development

2.2.3. The sub-component will focus on enhancement of irrigated agriculture which will

contribute to increasing agricultural production and productivity through improved irrigation

efficiency and expansion of irrigable land for both food and cash crops. The proposed

investments will be in form of expansion of existing irrigation schemes and also construction of

new irrigation schemes with full participation of the beneficiaries (smallholder farmers)

covering a total of 8 schemes with 1,045 hectares (ha) benefitting 1,945 farm households (1,518

male headed households/MHH and 427 female headed households/FHH).

2.2.4. The new scheme construction, with irrigation, drainage, road networks and associated

structures, will be carried out in 6 irrigation potential sites covering 887 ha benefitting 1,709

farm families (1,344 MHH and 365 FHH). Scheme expansion will focus on extending the

irrigation, drainage and road networks to additional potential irrigable areas adjacent to the

existing operational schemes. The total additional area is 158 ha benefiting about 236 farm

households (174 MHH and 62 FHH). The details are indicated in Appendix 7. Scheme

development activities will be based on experience gained through implementation of similar

previous and on-going irrigation infrastructure projects. Average plot holding size for the

schemes to be developed is 0.25 ha per farming household. The schemes will be constructed

using private sector contractors and supervising firms under the overall supervision of Ministry

of Works, MAL, and also farmer organizations. Scheme-specific farmer training activities will

focus on operation and maintenance of irrigation schemes, agronomy of irrigated crops, and also

irrigation water management. The management of the irrigation schemes will be through farmer-

owned organisations or partnerships with private sector to strengthen commercial linkages.

Lessons were drawn from on-going work by the World Bank, EU, Finland and AfDB.

2.2.5. Aquaculture: for the new irrigation schemes in Sinazongwe District, provision has been

made for smallholder farmers to venture into aquaculture in form of fish-ponds embedded to the

tail-end of a canal for 10 women and 10 youth groups. Cage-culture will also be practiced, in

Lakes Kariba and Lusiwasi, close to the irrigation water abstraction points for Buleya Mulima A

and B and Siatwinda irrigation schemes, for 10 women and 15 youth groups. Cage culture will

be simple low-cost aquaculture production system where fish will be held or enclosed in floating

net pens allowing water to pass freely between the fish and the pond permitting water exchange

and waste removal into the surrounding water. In cases where the water source is an existing

earthen dam, appropriate number of fingerings will be stocked in, at least, 5 reservoirs by the

Project and then managed by the community organisations. In either case, adequate training in

cage construction and fish-farming will be provided to the respective groups. Experiences and

lessons from on-going work by FAO and International Fish Centre will be utilised.

Sub-component 1.2: Crop Diversification and Intensification

2.2.6. Good Agriculture Practices - Conservation Farming and Mechanisation: The NAPA

(2007) and the Pilot Programme on Climate Resilience (PPCR: 2011) show that agriculture is

negatively affected by climate change. Given the low productivity, the scale up of the on-going

promotion of good agriculture practices becomes an imperative. Consequently, the project has

been designed to scale up successful “multiple-benefit” approaches for sustainable agricultural

intensification by smallholder farmers which have been successfully tested by the Government

through the Zambia National Farmers Union - Conservation Farming Unit (ZNFU-CFU) and

have proven their ability to build climate resilience, reducing poverty, enhancing biodiversity,

increasing yields and lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the interventions for

12

smallholder farmers adaptation to climate change will include: (i) improved land management

and climate-resilient agricultural practices; (ii) increased availability and efficiency of water use

for smallholder agriculture production and processing; (iii) increased institutional capacity for

adaptation at the local level; (iv) strengthened disaster risk reduction at the community level;

and (v) promotion of technologies that reduce vulnerability of rural livelihoods and increase

efficiency along agricultural value chains.

2.2.7. Conservation Farming: For rainfed agriculture, the project will promote dry-season land

preparation using minimum tillage methods, utilizing fixed planting stations (small shallow

basins), retention of crop residue from the previous harvest in the field or use of other mulches

or ground covers, and rotation of crops in the field. This will be combined with planting of trees

like Faidherbia albida which will provide mulch and nutrients and reduce the need for chemical

fertilizer. By eliminating the need for laborious land preparation, farmers adopting the system

will be able to plant close to the onset of the rains which has significant impact on crop yields.

The project will, through ZNFU-CFU, facilitate the acquisition of loans for farm mechanization

equipment such as tractors and ox-drawn rippers from private companies and training of

farmers. This will aim at covering over all participating households in training, provision of

agricultural inputs and implements for conservation farming in all 10 Districts. The main target

crops will be soya beans, cassava, sorghum, maize and sweet potatoes.

2.2.8. Crop Diversification: The project will diversify crop production in all 10 targeted

Districts by promoting production of non-traditional crops like cassava, soya beans, sorghum,

and orange sweet potatoes which have been selected based on tolerance to droughts, low input

requirements, marketing potential, value addition and nutritional value. These crops will be

promoted through introduction of new high yielding varieties. Zambia Research Institute and the

seed companies will be actively engaged to ensure that suitable varieties are made available for

multiplication. The project will provide resources for procuring agricultural inputs for use in the

demonstrations and roadside demos. The certified seed will be made available to smallholder

farmers through a revolving loan scheme where the farmers will give back to the farmer-groups’

seed pool in the ratio of 1:2 seeds. The e-voucher system will be used for the farmers to procure

seed from the private seed companies which will be planted on an additional total area of 10,000

ha which will directly benefit about 35,000 farm families with 50% being FHH.

2.2.9. Crop Intensification: The project has also identified maize, cassava and sorghum for

processing and value addition while groundnuts, cowpeas and common beans for soil fertility

improvement in a maize/legume crop rotation and nutritional purposes. Maize is already heavily

supported by FISP and the project will only focus on enhancing the productivity through

supporting farmers with knowledge and skills on crop management including conservation

farming and rotations. This will lead to increased volumes of maize production in the target

districts for further processing and value addition. Similarly improved seed varieties of cassava

and sorghum will be promoted and made available to farmers in the districts where these crops

are traditionally produced and farmers will be equipped with appropriate crop husbandry

practices in order to increase productivity leading to increased scale of production for processing

and value addition. The project intervention will complement the FAO initiated activities on

cassava in Serenje and Mpika Districts and the Cassava Taskforce. Farmer-groups will be

supported with processing equipment for maize and cassava. The project will also facilitate

linkages with manufacturing companies in case of sorghum and soya beans for further

processing and value addition. The planting materials for cassava, sorghum and soya beans will

be made available through a loan scheme described in the preceding section. The project is

expected to develop 10,000 ha with about 25,000 farm families directly benefitting from the

seed production and 100,000 indirectly (50% being women) benefiting over various stages of

the value chain.

13

2.2.10. The project will also support seed selection, multiplication and packaging for

groundnuts, cowpeas and common beans in order to increase their adoption under conservation

farming. About 500 seed growers will be supported with high quality seeds which will be made

available to at least 10,000 farming households at affordable prices through private agro-dealers.

Other activities will include provision of foundation seed to seed growers and other essential

inputs to seed growers for seed multiplication, conduct on farm trials, facilities for cleaning,

storage and other seed handling processes including machinery for cleaning, treating seed and

packaging and training on agronomic practices.

Sub-component 1.3: Livestock Development

2.2.11. Livestock development aims at improving livestock production and productivity through

use of good animal husbandry practices and improved dairy animal breeds which will benefit

approximately 700 farming families in Choma, Monze and Mpika Districts. The project

interventions will also complement the AfDB financed activities under the already prepared

Livestock Infrastructure Support Project in Mpika District and the World Bank and IFAD

interventions in Monze and Choma Districts.

2.2.12. The intervention will include (i) use of Artificial Insemination (AI) technology targeting

smallholder dairy farmers (smallholder dairy cooperatives) who will be trained and provided

with AI kits for them to go and practice the skills on a cost recovery basis. The said training will

be outsourced to NGOs or relevant private sector companies through competitive process, (ii)

supporting pasture and rangeland management and utilisation by providing seeds and procuring

fencing materials for making paddocks for improved pasture management, (iii) promotion of

supplementary feeding among dairy farmers including on-farm establishment of fodder banks of

improved grass and legume species to break the seasonality of high productivity associated with

seasonal availability of rainfed good quality grazing; and (iv) promotion of use of simple fodder

processing equipment since traditional method of chopping fodder into smaller pieces using

hand held tools are labour intensive; and (v) animal health activities to prevent and control of

spread of diseases in target districts. Women and youth participation in livestock development

will be enhanced through livestock (cow) pass-on scheme within group members.

2.2.13. The project will also provide low cost solutions to increase income through the

improvement of health, productivity and off-take for local chicken. The demand for local

chicken has been rising in Zambia, in recent years, which is constrained by seasonal outbreaks

of Newcastle disease. This provides an opportunity for women to increase income and child

nutrition through availability of eggs. A total of 7,000 women groups will be provided with new

castle vaccine and trained in improving housing and fencing for local chicken. On average, each

household sells about 10 chickens per year. The project will support women groups to increase

productivity of local chicken by improving Newcastle vaccination and also training in improved

housing. Three rounds of vaccination with a heat stable vaccine will raise off-take to over 20

chickens per year per female headed household. This will raise the nutritional levels from eggs

and incomes from the chicken.

Component 2: Value Chain Development and Market Linkages

Sub-component 2.1: Agro-processing Infrastructure Development

2.2.14. Agro-processing Infrastructure Development: The project will facilitate installation of 3

processing plants through a matching grant (80/20) to District Cooperative Unions (DCUs) for

industrial milling and processing of maize and cassava. These will be placed as follows: (i)

maize milling plant Serenje, Gwembe and Kaoma Districts and (ii) cassava milling plant at

14

Serenje District for flour, starch and chips. The Cassava Taskforce has done pilot work on

integrating cassava into stock feed and human food value chains with promising results. The

DCU, guided by Zambia Cooperative Federation (ZCF) will establish a management entity

(Special Purpose Vehicle) to manage the processing plant independently and overseen by a

Board. Appropriate technical and management training will be provided to the management

entity and also the DCU by the Project. The processing plants will establish market linkages

with producers in the surrounding districts to buy raw materials for processing. The cassava

processing facility will cater for the marketing needs of over 50,000 smallholder cassava

producers in Muchinga, Northern, Luapula and Central Provinces, out of which 30,000 will be

FHH. In addition, the project will build capacity for smallholder farmers in using mini

processing equipment, grinding, cleaning, packaging, labelling, branding, storage, smoking and

drying. The project will facilitate and mediate loans between equipment suppliers and primary

cooperatives or individuals who wish to invest in such processing equipment.

2.2.15. Strengthening Agro-dealer Capacity: Community-based agro-dealers have a great role to

play in bringing agro-inputs and services to smallholder farmers in their local communities.

Various organizations like AGRA, Care (ADAPT), Musika and Nutri-Aid Trust (NAT) have

successfully trained private agro-dealers who are providing inputs to producers. As private

sector traders with shops in local communities, they form part of an effective approach to

developing and promoting affordable, reliable, and easily operated enterprises and other farm

based agribusiness and rural enterprise development. The provision of input services at

community level remains one of the challenges to the adoption of profitable value chains

including high value low input crops, hybrid maize and legume crops, especially women who

cannot travel to distant urban markets. The objective of supporting agro-dealers is to fill the gap

between main input supply firms and the end users of inputs being small scale farmers. This

increases access of small scale farmers to agricultural inputs by creating retail outlets in the rural

areas. It also enhances the adoption of seed and other technologies among the small holder

farmers through seed fairs and field days. The DADA would support the lobbying and advocacy

capacity of community input sellers. The project will also provide matching grant to enable

agro-dealers to leverage start-up or scale-up resources on a 1:1 ratio. The targeted agro-dealers

will inject the funds in shop upgrade and diversifying the range of inventory. The agro-dealer

network will directly develop 180 groups (30% women) which will directly provide services to

the impact group consisting of over 40,000 smallholder farmers.

Sub-component 2.2: Market Linkages

2.2.16. Agro-Market Centre Development: The project will empower ZNFU to set up Agro-

Market Centres at Serenje, Kapiri-Mposhi, Sinazongwe, Gwembe, Mpika and Masaiti Districts.

These agro-centres will be one-stop shops for agricultural inputs and will include warehouse

facility for produce storage of products. ZNFU has successfully developed and made operational

FARMARAMA shops in Choma, Mpongwe and Mkushi Districts.

2.2.17. Market Linkages: There is the apparent delink between the raw material and service

needs of industrial processors and the market requirement of smallholder producers. The project

will seek to strengthen outgrower and market linkages between farmers and existing processors

for maize, soya beans, sorghum and cassava (processors and millers). The project will also seek

to establish and facilitate outgrower linkages between the agri-business companies and

smallholder farmer groups by providing training in contract farming which will involve about

30,000 farming households.

2.2.18. Rural Feeder Roads: Rehabilitation of rural feeder roads will be carried out in each of the

participating Districts (30 km per District) totalling 300 km in order to connect smallholder

15

farmers to markets and also existing major road networks. The feeder roads will be contracted

out to private firms and companies. The feeder roads will also help to facilitate movement of

agricultural inputs and outputs, thereby enhancing agro-business activities within the Districts

while at the same time addressing the communities’ access to the social services such as health,

education and other recreational activities.

2.2.19. Road-side Markets: The project area is scattered with various roadside markets where

farmers sell their agricultural products to motorists and assemblers. These roadside markets,

while handling a significant volume of informally traded agriculture products, are poorly

equipped with lay-by (parking-bay along the road), shelter, storage, and sanitation facilities.

This increases the risk of traders and farmers. The project will identify 20 farmer-initiated

roadside market centres and improve them for better trade. The project will provide parking-bay

along the road for motorists, shelter with stands and sanitation facilities. This will directly and

indirectly benefit 9,000 and 20,000 farming households/traders respectively.

Component 3: Institutional Strengthening

Sub-component 3.1: Capacity Building

2.2.20. The project will train 100 District extension staff as trainers of trainers in all the 10

targeted districts who will also train 150 front line extension staff in various technologies. In

order to enhance dissemination of the improved technologies to a wider farming community, a

total of 750 lead farmers will be trained and each lead farmer will disseminate the technologies

to 100 farmers thereby achieving a total of 75,000 households being trained. There will be a

deliberate targeting of more than 50% of female headed households. The training will cover all

the different types of food processing and preservation as well as recipes using crops and

livestock (eggs, fish, milk and chicken) being promoted under the project but with special

emphasis on the orange sweet potato known to provide 100% of daily vitamin needs of children

and women, has low input requirements and mature early to address the deficiency of vitamin A

which affects 54% among children aged 0.5 - 5 years of age. The staff will also be trained in

crop husbandry practices, irrigation agronomy, animal husbandry and animal health, fish

farming and all principles of conservation farming. Silva Catering limited has done pioneering

work on linking women farmers to markets for locally processed crop products of high

nutritional value. The project will build on these initiatives.

2.2.21. Community Nutrition Education: The project will support training for the extension staff

from MAL and other relevant Ministries such as Health and Education using the existing

facilities at farmer training centre or farm institute. At least 18 District extension staff and 36

frontline extension staff will be trained as trainers. Each farmer training centre will target 10

farmer groups especially women groups each comprising of about 30 members bringing a total

of about 300 farmers per participating district. The training will cover all the different types of

recipes using crops being promoted under the project. The nutrition education on the benefits of

vitamin A will be carried out in collaboration with the Ministry of Education and Health

particularly in schools and clinics located near the farm institutes/farmer training centres. The

project will also provide training materials. The training will involve conducting practical

demonstrations on processing and utilization of orange sweet potatoes including recipes on

complementary feeding and those for people living with HIV/AIDS so as to contribute towards

their nutritional status and generation of income.

2.2.22. Support to Farmer Institutions: The project will support the strengthening of the existing

6 primary cooperatives/associations in the target districts which will have the overall

responsibility of managing all the targeted crops throughout the value chain including nutrition

16

education. The primary cooperatives will be trained in group dynamics, financial management,

production technologies, nutrition, agro-processing, agribusiness and environmental

management. The MAL extension staff will provide relevant training based on needs assessment

through establishment of various demonstrations including conservation farming, training lead

farmers, facilitating field days, nutrition displays and farmer tours. The project will also train

field extension workers on seed quality standards and field inspections to ensure high quality

seed is made available to farmers. However, where capacity gaps are identified, the project will

enhance capacity in such areas by outsourcing the services of NGOs such as ZCF, ZNFU,

MUSIKA, and CFU in extension service delivery.

2.2.23. Gender: Zambian women comprise about 51% of the population. The major constraints

faced by women include poor access to extension services and credit. The interventions will

deliberately facilitate women’s access to services, information, training and empowerment

programmes in order to improve their economic status. Women will comprise at least 50% of

the beneficiaries in all planned projects activities except under livestock pass-on scheme and

poultry management where the target will be 100%.

Sub-component 3.2: Project Management

2.2.24. This sub-component is cross-cutting in nature and will be setup to implement programs

to address institutional and capacity constraints with focus on building the capacity gaps of

existing staff in the MAL and other related Ministries including the Ministry of Education and

Health. The Project will also support the MAL through outsourcing extension services from

NGOs and private companies to provide services in conservation farming where gaps have been

identified. The Project will be implemented under the multi-disciplinary Project Coordination

Unit (PCU) using the existing MAL structures. The PCU will be established for day to day

management of the Project, comprising Project Coordinator (PC), Procurement Specialist, M&E

Specialist, Project Accountant, Civil Engineer, Focal Point (from each participating Province),

Gender Specialist (from each participating Province), and Accountant (from each participating

Province). The PC, Procurement Specialist, Project Accountant and M&E Specialist will be

national experts recruited competitively. The Government will appoint, within the existing

structures, the rest of the PCU members who will be attached to the Project. Ministry of Works

will supervise the construction of infrastructures. The Provincial Focal Points will submit

progress reports to the PC. At the Provincial and District levels, the responsibility for delivery

rests with the existing institutional structures of MAL under coordination of the Provincial

Agriculture Coordinator and District Agriculture Coordinator respectively. The Project will also

procure office equipment and vehicles.

Sub-component 3.3: Monitoring and Evaluation

2.2.25. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E): The Project M&E system will be established to

enable the PCU, MAL and key stakeholders track project implementation using results-based

logical framework indicators and targets. The PCU’s M&E specialist will be responsible for

establishment and management of the M&E system using a participatory approach in data

collection, analysis and dissemination that will provide intermittent methodological

backstopping at the design, implementation and completion phases. The M&E system will

monitor physical and financial implementation progress while providing insights on Project

impact on beneficiaries.

2.2.26. The Project M&E system will be integrated into the NAIP M&E system which will be

used for monitoring and evaluation of the project performance. The gender monitoring, results

and impact tracking system will be included in the M&E system. In all cases, emphasis will be

17

placed on generating gender disaggregated data, measuring food security and nutrition

outcomes, evaluation of social and environmental impacts and the measures taken to mitigate

them as well as socio-economic impacts on participating farming families. The Project will

provide financial resources to facilitate the required training, data gathering and processing. The

Project will provide funds for baseline survey during Year 1, mid-term review (MTR) during

Year 3, beneficiary impact assessment (end of Year 4), project completion report (PCR-end

Year 5), annual financial and environmental audits. The gender audit will be part of the

beneficiary impact assessment to access the progress made in achieving gender equity. The

MTR and PCR will monitor the Project effect and impacts on the target groups by constituting

cross-section samples of beneficiaries in order to assess the performance and impact of the

project on the basis of the various indicators identified. The PCU will produce quarterly

progress reports covering both physical and financial activities.

2.2.27. Environmental and Social Management: The Project is anticipated to generate site-

specific and short-term negative environmental impacts which will mainly occur during the

construction phase. These might include soil erosion particularly in degraded lands, increased

turbidity in irrigation water sources from soil run-off, limited reduced vegetation cover due to

cleared land to pave way for construction activities, increased localized noise and dust emission

due to earthmoving equipment and machinery. A comprehensive environmental and social

assessment will be carried out during the project preparation and appraisal phases which will

lead to categorisation of the Project and also production of Strategic Environmental and Social

Assessment (SESA) report describing measures to mitigate the negative impacts. Adequate

financial resources will be provided under this sub-component to cover the cost of

environmental monitoring and mitigation measures. Climate Change: The Project activities will

promote climate change adaptation and foster livelihoods diversification which will enhance the

climate change adaptive capacity through support to conservation agriculture and sustainable

management of rangeland and pasture. Social: the social impact of the Project is expected to be

positive since it will provide income and better livelihoods to participating communities through

diversification and intensification of agricultural output. There will also be improvement in

nutritional and food safety status of the beneficiaries. Rehabilitated rural feeder roads will

facilitate smooth transportation of agricultural produce and related agro-products. The Project

will also mitigate the risk posed by HIV/AIDS and malnutrition through awareness campaigns.

2.3 Implementation Arrangements

2.3.1 Similar to NAIP implementation (Part 1), the overall implementation responsibility of

the Project will be under the MAL whose major focus will be the creation of an enabling

environment for a private-sector led agricultural development and economic growth. MAL will

ensure linkages and synergies with other relevant Government ministries and institutions for

effective Project implementation. MAL will use the AgSAG to engage other stakeholders on

key issues affecting the sector as well as report progress on the project implementation. At sub-

national level, the PAES of the PDCC, the DAES of the DDCC and the CAC will be

strengthened to promote stakeholder participation and coordination in order to enhance effective

implementation performance. These will be supported by M&E units established at all levels. In

implementing the planned activities, a deliberate policy will be followed to promote

participation of women and youth.

2.3.2 Sustainability: The participatory approach adopted during the proposal development in

the Project design is an important step towards ensuring the relevance of the investments made

and laying of an institutional capacity at community level for sustainability of planned activities.

To address critical issue of poor maintenance services, the beneficiaries will be mobilized,

organised into groups, trained and empowered to fully operate and maintain community

18

structures which will be developed by the Project. Mechanisms will be put in place to collect

fees from use of infrastructures in order to generate revenue for use during operation and

maintenance. Public infrastructures, like rural feeder roads, will be managed by District

Councils which will include them in their respective annual budgets.

2.4 Amount of Financing Requested

2.4.1 The GAFSP proposal’s budget is Forty One Million Four Hundred and Sixty Thousand

United States Dollars (US$ 41.46 million), as indicated in Table 6. The said amount will fill

about 6.37% of the financing gaps in the NAIP. The proposed budget is based on the current

market rates for similar activities, from actual on-going infrastructure project and also planned

investments whose feasibility studies and designs have already been completed.

Table 6: Activities to be Financed and their Amounts (US$)

Component/Activities Cost (US$) Percentage

Component 1: Agriculture Production and Productivity 22,630,000.00 55%

Sub-component 1.1: Irrigation Development 9,210,000.00

1.1.1 Construction of Irrigation Schemes 7,610,000.00

1.1.2 Aquaculture including Fish Ponds and Cage-culture 1,600,000.00

Sub-component 1.2: Crop Diversification and Intensification 11,000,000.00

1.2.1 Rainfed Agriculture and Good Agricultural Practices 7,000,000.00

1.2.2 Crop Diversification 3,000,000.00

1.2.3 Crop Intensification 1,000,000.00

Sub-component 1.3: Livestock Development 2,420,000.00

1.3.1 Livestock Pass-on Scheme (Women/Youth Groups) 1,470,000.00

1.3.2 Livestock Feed-Improvement 700,000.00

1.3.3 Poultry Management/Vaccination Campaign for Women Groups 250,000.00

Component 2: Value Chain Development and Market Linkages 12,900,000.00 31%

Sub-component 2.1: Agro-processing Infrastructure Development 7,000,000.00

2.1.1 Maize Mill Establishment and Agro-dealer Support 2,000,000.00

2.1.2 Cassava Mill Establishment and Agro-dealer Support 3,000,000.00

2.1.3 Community-level Value Addition 2,000,000.00

Sub-component 2.2: Market Linkages 5,900,000.00

2.2.1 Agro-Market Centres Development and Market Linkages 3,000,000.00

2.2.2 Rural Feeder Roads Rehabilitation 1,700,000.00

2.2.3 Roadside Markets 1,200,000.00

Component 3: Institutional Strengthening 5,930,000.00 14%

Sub-component 3.1: Capacity Building 2,420,000.00

3.1.1 Community Nutrition Education 960,000.00

3.1.2 Support to Farmer Institutions and Gender Issues 1,460,000.00

Sub-component 3.2: Project Management 2,200,000.00

Sub-component 3.3: Monitoring and Evaluation 1,320,000.00

3.2.1 Project Monitoring and Evaluation 980,000.00

3.2.2 Environmental and Social Management 330,000.00

Total 41,460,000.00 100%

19

2.5 Preferred Supervising Entity and Government Team

2.5.1. The African Development Bank (AfDB) has been selected by the Government of

Zambia to be the Supervising Entity (SE) for this proposal. AfDB has the comparative

advantage because (i) it is a multinational Development Bank with proven experience in

supporting African countries in rural development, the development of the agricultural and

water sectors, (ii) it has been continuously involved in Zambia agricultural development since

the 1970s, making it the longest DPs in the sector; (iii) the AfDB Ten-year Strategy (2013-

2022) and the Agriculture Sector Strategy (2010-2014) have infrastructure development as their

main pillar for agricultural development and poverty reduction. The key thematic areas of

inclusiveness and transitioning to greening economy also directly address the needs of the

Government. AfDB is one of the key DPs with the Government and chaired the Cooperating

Partners Agricultural Sector Advisory Group in 2012.

2.5.2. The AfDB has accumulated a lot of experience over the years, which is valuable to this

proposal, especially from the implementation of projects such as the Smallholder Irrigation

Project (SIP), Agriculture Infrastructure Support Project, Climate Change Project, Fisheries

Project and recently appraised Livestock Infrastructure Support Project (LISP). The Bank

applies safe guard polices on environmental, social, governance and gender aspects to ensure

best practices are used and attain sustainability of interventions.

2.5.3. The full time Government Technical Team members (Table 7) were appointed by the

PS-MAL to draft and finalize the GAFSP proposal. The members were drawn from the NAIP

Technical Working Group in order to ensure strong linkage with the NAIP implementation since

they (i) support line Departments on technical issues and methodologies for implementation of

activities, (ii) advise the Permanent Secretary (MAL) on broad policy issues; and (iii) reflect

informal feedback from stakeholders. Representatives of the private sector were also involved

as members of the various NAIP Technical working Groups.

Table 7: Government Technical Team Members

No. Name Job Title and Department Current role

1 Emma Malawo Acting Director, MAL Policy and planning

2 Mr. Chikwenya Deputy Director, MAL Policy and planning

3 Derrick Sikonde Chief Agricultural Economist, MAL CAADP Focal Point

4 Justin Chuunka Sociologist, MAL Extension services delivery

5 Paul Lupunga Chief Economist, MAL Project planning and preparation;

monitoring and evaluation

6 Hilda Lumbwe Senior Veterinary officer, MAL Livestock production and productivity

7 Young Vibbeti Chief Livestock Research Officer,

MAL Livestock Research

8 Nathan Phiri Acting Chief Seeds Officer, MAL Crop production and diversification

9 Malumo Nawa Chief Field Agronomist, MAL Crop production and diversification

10 Priscilla Mali Executive Officer, MAL Project Management

11 Charm Kalimbika Acting Assistant Director-HRDT Human Resource development

12 Dawambi Daka Deputy Registrar of Cooperative

Development, MAL Cooperative development

2.6 Time Frame of Proposed Support

2.6.1 The GAFSP project will be implemented over a period of five years (2014-2018). This is

within the GAFSP implementation period of up to 2019.

20

2.7 Risks and Risk Management

2.7.1 NAIP implementation arrangements generally provide an enabling environment that

would support the effective implementation of the project. However, risks and their mitigation

measures are outlined in Table 8.

Table 8: Project Risks and Mitigating Measures

Project Risk Description Rating

of Risk

Mitigation Measures Rating of

Risk after

Mitigation

Ownership challenge: Inadequate

ownership of NAIP by MAL & other

stakeholders may negatively affect

implementation performance

L NAIP has identified and specified

implementation roles and responsibilities of

various actors roles & stakeholders

L

Low capacity: NAIP capacity assessment

found that MAL had low capacity L NAIP has prioritized capacity enhancement of

various stakeholders and systems. This includes

training and procurement of equipment

L

Donor/Implementation fatigue: A

number of interventions have been

designed in the past to boost agriculture

sector and this may create

donor/implementation fatigue

M NAIP emphasis is that this is not a stand-alone

entity rather NAIP under CAADP is there to

animate already existing strategies and policies

L

Funding flow: There may be a failure to

mobilize adequate resources and/or

committed funds not being disbursed

M The computation of NAIP budget is based on

planned expenditure figures by MoF. L

Extreme climatic conditions such as

droughts and floods M-H Development of irrigation infrastructures

Emphasis on climate smart agriculture. L

Trans-boundary Animal Diseases M Adequate disease surveillance especially in the

border areas. This is further being reinforced by

the TAD Project under NEPAD

L

Note: L=Low Risk; M=Medium Risk; H= High Risk

2.8 Consultation with Local Stakeholders and Development Partners

2.8.1. The Proposal development has been informed by the NAIP. MAL, in April 2013,

developed a Concept Note to seek financial resources from the GAFSP to help minimize the

financial gap of US$ 651.19 million. As Supervising Entity, the African Development Bank

fielded a Proposal Formulation Mission to work with the MAL (30th

April to 23rd

May, 2013).

The Mission comprising AfDB and MAL staff held the first meeting with the MAL Permanent

Secretary who provided guidance on the priority areas to be considered in the proposal and then

the Ministry of Finance to discuss its role in the proposal submission to GAFSP. The Mission

invited experts from the priority areas identified which included crops, livestock, agribusiness

and planning to develop the profile of the Proposal.

2.8.2. The Mission visited selected Districts, in Central and Southern Provinces, where

discussions were held with Government Staff, beneficiaries, NGOs, and Monze Dairy Farmers

Cooperative to get their inputs into the Proposal. The Mission also held stakeholders workshop

on 22nd

May, 2013 which included the DPs, Private Sector, NGOs, ZNFU, CFU, District,

Provincial and beneficiaries representatives. The consultations added value through suggestions

made such as: need to focus and cluster the project area, need to consider strengthening the

farmer groups on value addition and marketing, identification of areas for complementarity,

need for livestock breed and feed improvement and nutrition. Areas of collaboration between

the MAL, the private sector and NGOs were also identified.

21

Appendix 1: NAIP Results Indicators (May 2013)

Programme Component Outcome Indicator Means of verification Outcome Indicator Values

Unit Baseline Target

Sustainable Natural

Resources

Management

Land-use Planning,

Administration and

Management

Area targeted under detailed land use planning Land use surveys Ha 0 10,000

Improved land quality (% of soil organic matter) Soil surveys % 1 2

% of small-scale farmers that have adopted conservation

agriculture

Post-harvest surveys % 10 25

Ensure efficient water-

use & irrigation

% of farmers with access to irrigation for high value crops

Area brought under irrigation

Post-harvest surveys %

Ha

10

170,000

20

188,000

Forestry Management Area lost to deforestation (ha/year) Land use surveys Ha 250,000

Capture fisheries

management

% of established fisheries management committees that

enforce fisheries regulations

Catch Assessment surveys % 20 70

Number of established Village Management Committees Fisheries Annual Reports # 200 600

Fish capture data (MT) Catch Assessment surveys MT 70,000 90,000

Agricultural

production and

productivity

Animal Health and

Disease Control

Cattle population LIMS. Million 3.5 -

Goat population LIMS Million 1.1 -

Pig population LIMS Million 0.7 -

Animals vaccinated for FMD LIMS ‘000 animals 500 -

Animals vaccinated for CBPP LIMS ‘000 animals 400 -

Animals vaccinated for ECF LIMS ‘000 animals 33 -

Livestock productivity

and Production

Quantity of beef produced LIMS ‘000 MT 60 -

Quantity of milk produced LIMS ‘000 litres 90 -

Quantity of village chicken produced LIMS Million 50 -

Quantity of broiler chicken produced LIMS Million - -

Quantity of eggs produced LIMS ‘ 000 MT 225

Livestock Infrastructure Percent of livestock herders that have access to functioning

dip tanks

LIMS % - -

Percent livestock producers that have access to LPCs LIMS % - -

Percent livestock producers that have access to veterinary

services, by type (public, private)

LIMS % TBD -

Applied Livestock

Research

Number of strains characterized, and conserved LIMS # 10 40

Number of technologies developed LIMS # 5 30

Improved crop

productivity

Legume production CFS & PHS ‘000 MT 230 900

Area under crop production by smallholders CFS & PHS 106 Ha 1.8 -

Average cereals yield increased CFS & PHS MT/ha 1 2.5

Percentage farmers adopting new varieties CFS & PHS % - -

22

Programme Component Outcome Indicator Means of verification Outcome Indicator Values

Unit Baseline Target

Access to and efficient

use of inputs

Percentage of farmers, by type (according to land holding

size), using fertilizer

CFS & PHS % - -

Percentage of farmers using improved seed CFS & PHS % - -

Quantity of fertilizer being applied by smallholders in crops

other than maize

CFS & PHS Kg/ha 2 -

Good agriculture

practices

Percentage of farmers that practice GAP CFS & PHS % - -

Mechanization of crop

systems

Area under mechanized agriculture CFS & PHS ‘000 Ha 375 3000

Aquaculture Production

and Productivity

Fresh-water aquaculture production Agric. Census & PHS MT/ yr 20,000 60,000

The per-capita fish consumption Agric. Census & PHS Kg/pp/year 6.2

12

Increased quantity of improved quality fingerlings Agric. Census & PHS # million 20 90

Feed conversion ratio (kg of feed to Kg of fish) Agric. Census & PHS # 2 1.3

% of fish farmers adopting improved seed and feed Agric. Census & PHS % 30 75

Increased pond and cage fish farming productivity Agric. Census & PHS MT /ha/yr

2 (pond)

10 (cage)

8 (pond)

20 (cage)

Ensure Enabling

Environment for

Aquaculture

Development

Percentage of farmers adopting Aquaculture regulations Agric. Census & PHS % 30 70

Adoption rate of climate change or variability mitigation

strategies

Agric. Census & PHS % 0 75

Market access &

services

development

Support Institutional

Market Arrangement

Performance

Percentage of Cooperatives that are deemed sustainable MAL Annual Reports % - -

Percent of farmers and traders that have access to price and

market information

MAL Annual Reports %

- -

Percentage of commodities that is rejected by buyer/trader MAL Annual Reports % - -

Volume of agricultural produce traded on ZAMACE MAL Annual Reports

Increase Access to Rural

and Market

Infrastructure

private sector storage capacity ZNFU Reports ‘000 MT 200 350

Value of agricultural exports ZNFU Reports Billion

USD/Yr

1.8 -

Percentage of farmers having access to local, national

markets

ZNFU Reports %

- -

Access to rural finance Percentage farmers having access to agricultural finance ZNFU Reports % - -

Number of beneficiaries of matching grants ZNFU Reports # 0 -

Value Chain Integration No of farmers involved in primary processing at farm level ZNFU Reports # (‘000) 28 32

23

Programme Component Outcome Indicator Means of verification Outcome Indicator Values

Unit Baseline Target

Farmers accessing agricultural commodity exchange ZNFU Reports # (‘000) - -

Volume sold through a warehouse receipt system ZNFU Reports ‘000 MT 60 -

Food & Nutrition

Security & Disaster

and Risk

Management

Food Security Number of months food insecure HHs have inadequate food LCMS, FBS, VAC # 3.2 1.0

Number of months import in Food Reserve Agency LCMS, FBS, VAC # 3 3

% losses cereals per annum LCMS, FBS, VAC % 30 15

Nutrition % of targeted households with nutrition knowledge and

methods improved

LCMS, FBS, VAC % - -

Diet diversity score (in collaboration with Food Nutrition

Commission)

LCMS, FBS, VAC # ? -

Risk management and

Disaster Mitigation

capability

Number of smallholder farmers having access to a crop

insurance scheme

LCMS, FBS, VAC # 0 100,000

% of smallholder farmers having access to an early warning

system

LCMS, FBS, VAC % 30%? 66%?

Knowledge

Support Systems

Research system Percentage of funds from other sources (non-GRZ) MAL Annual Reports % 20 33

Percentage funds from GRZ MAL Annual Reports % 5 10

Number of phytosanitary certificates issued MAL Annual Reports # (‘000) 18 -

Number of nursery registration certificate MAL Annual Reports # (’000) 10 -

Extension system Percentage of farmers that have access to extension services,

by gender

MAL Annual Reports % - -

Ratio extension worker-farmer/livestock herder/fisher MAL Annual Reports # 1:1000 1:500

Seed system Quantity of maize seed certified for sale MAL Annual Reports 106 MT 50 -

Quantity of wheat seed certified for sale MAL Annual Reports 106 MT 3 -

Quantity of cotton seed certified for sale MAL Annual Reports 106 MT 4 -

Agricultural Education

and Training system

Percentage of students that are satisfied with their

course/teacher

MAL Annual Reports % - -

Institutional

Strengthening

Policy Dialogue and

Analysis

Number of Policy-related studies undertaken per year MAL Annual Reports # 0 10

% of donor funds that are aligned visibly to NAIP IFMIS % 0 100

24

Programme Component Outcome Indicator Means of verification Outcome Indicator Values

Unit Baseline Target

Number of joint Annual Sector Reviews held MAL Annual Reports # 0 4

Financial Management Percentage of budget spent by type of financing (GRZ, CP) IFMIS % TBC

TBC

95%

90%

Number of Public Expenditure Tracking System

implemented

IFMIS # 0 2

Human Resources

Management

% vacancy for established posts MAL Annual Reports % ? 20

% of staff that complete their APAS MAL Annual Reports % ? 100

Planning, M&E Number of coordination meetings held at District level

(CAS/DAS and DDCC)

MAL Annual Reports #

100 Dist.

100 400

Number of quarterly reports at district, province and central

level produced on time

MAL Annual Reports # 20 600

Number of consolidated Annual Report prepared by MAL MAL Annual Reports # (cumul) 0 5

25

Appendix 2: Resource Gap Analysis (US$)

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND LIVESTOCK - National Agriculture Investment Plan 2014-2018

1 USD = 5 ZMW

SUMMARY OF COSTS US$

No Programme Component 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total ('000 USD)

Increase Production and Productivity - Crops Crops 180,300,000 180,387,500 180,535,000 155,442,500 156,010,000 852,675

1 Increase Production and Productivity - Livestock Livestock 68,509,200 75,166,600 81,451,100 69,962,700 59,161,700 354,251

Increase Production and Productivity -

AquacultureAquaculture 12,889,000 11,574,000 10,794,000 10,214,000 6,094,000 51,565

261,698,200 267,128,100 272,780,100 235,619,200 221,265,700 1,258,491

2 Market access and services developmentAgricultural marketing; Market Spport Services;

and Producer organisations/farm 19,619,500 55,818,300 99,697,050 23,276,050 58,795,050 257,206

3Food and Nutrition security and disaster

management

Smart Subsidies for vulnerable groups; National

Strategic Reserves; and Education Awareness

System in Information Delivery

110,128,000 137,271,200 137,801,200 137,485,200 137,173,200 659,859

4 Sustainable natural resources managementLand-use planning and administration; Land and

Water Management; and Forestry Management 39,146,000 62,433,000 66,766,500 62,235,500 50,221,500 280,803

KSS1 Knowledge Support Systems

Agricultural Education and Technical institutions,

Research and Development, Seed systems,

Extension

49,912,458 68,995,528 50,380,638 41,794,728 43,393,098 254,476

KSS2 Institutional Strengthening

MAL financial management (including procurement

and internal audit); M&E, Planning and Budgeting;

Market Information Systems; and Human Resource

Management Systems.

7,862,680 5,089,880 2,598,880 2,025,380 2,280,380 19,857

488,366,838 596,736,008 630,024,368 502,436,058 513,128,928 2,730,692

5 1.110895341 1.091080508 1.1 1.1

MAL ZMW (non PE) 1,185,660,086 1,317,144,266 1,437,110,435 1,580,821,479 1,738,903,626

MLNREP ZMW (non PE) 63170199 73849675 92605638 101866201.8 112052822

MLNREP - 5% ZMW (non PE) 3158510 3692484 4630282 5093310 5602641

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 TOTAL (USD)

TOTAL NAIP requirement 0.05 488,366,838 596,736,008 630,024,368 502,436,058 513,128,928 2,730,692,200

GRZ contribution MAL USD (non PE) 237,132,017 263,428,853 287,422,087 316,164,296 347,780,725 1,451,927,978

MLNREP USD (non PE) - 5% 15,792,550 18,462,419 23,151,410 25,466,550 28,013,205 110,886,134

Cooperating Partners 1 137,091,348 116,082,045 82,183,045 76,397,205 46,000,000 457,753,643

Private Sector (10% assumed available) 0.1 3,953,990 3,953,990 3,953,990 3,953,990 3,953,990 197,699,500

Beneficiaries (10% asssumed available) 0.1 7,833,350 7,833,350 7,833,350 7,833,350 7,833,350 391,667,500

Total available funds 401,803,255 409,760,657 404,543,882 429,815,391 433,581,271 2,079,504,455

Gap 86,563,583 186,975,351 225,480,487 72,620,667 79,547,657 651,187,745

Sub-Total

Total NAIP requirement

26

Appendix 3: Summary of Development Partners Commitment (US$ million) to NAIP

NAIP

Program

Donor financed

project Donor 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

Sustainable natural resources management

Decentralised Forest

and Other Natural

Resources

Management

Programme

Finland 1950 2950 3250

8150

Integrated Land use

Assessment II Finland 1000

1000

Better Life Alliance

Global Development

Alliance (GDA)

USAID 438 438

876

Peace Corps

expansion to support

sustainable

landscapes-New

Activity

USAID 75 75 75

225

Community-based

Forest Management

Program (CFP) -

New activity

USAID 2500 2500 2500

7500

Small grants

program to local

organizations to

support sustainable

landscapes

(VIGOR) - New

Activity

USAID 500 500 500

1500

Direct Government

support to Districts

in Eastern Province

to support

sustainable

landscapes - New

Activity

USAID 200 200 200

600

Strengthening

Climate Resilience

in the Kafue Basin

AfDB 3,000 10,000 10,000 15,000

38,000

Pillar 1 sub-total 57,851

Agricultural production and productivity improvement

Smallholder

Productivity

Promotion Prog

Finland 1,362 1,362 1,362

4,086

Crops

Smallholder

Productivity

Promotion Prog

IFAD 2,241 3,718 3,632 3,596 1,954 15,131

Small Scale

Irrigation Project

(SIP)

Finland 2,000

2,000

Conservation

Agricultural

Program Phase II

Norway 6,000 6,000

12,000

Expanded Food

Security Pack Norway 5,000 5,000

10,000

27

NAIP

Program

Donor financed

project Donor 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

Climate smart

production systems Norway 394 394

788

Conservation

Agriculture Scaling

Up Project (CASU),

implemented by

FAO

EU 2,812 2,904 2,812 536

9,064

Program for

Luapula Agriculture

and Rural

Development

Finland 702

702

Strengthening Rice

Seed Production and

Enhancing

Extension Services

to Increase Rice

Production in

Zambia

FAO 220 180

400

Technical

Cooperation Project

for Community

based Smallholder

Irrigation (T-

COBSI)

JICA 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000

Horticulture Global

Development

Alliance

USAID 600 600

1,200

Better Life Alliance

Global Development

Alliance (GDA)

USAID 438 438

876

Zambia Economic

Resilience for

Improved Food

Security (ZERS)

USAID 1,000 1,000 850

2,850

Production, Finance

& Technology

(PROFIT +)-New

Activity

USAID 3,600 3,600 3,600

10,800

USADF expansion

to support

groundnut value

chain -New Activity

USAID 120 100 100

320

Agriuclture

Development

Support Program

World

Bank 5,000

5,000

Irrigation

development and

Support project

World

Bank 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000

Agricultural

productivity

Program for

Southern Africa

World

Bank 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 30,000

Project 1: Increased

agric productivitiy

and production

WFP 810

Youth employment

program (ILO) SIDA 1,381 2,310 1,930 905

6,526

28

NAIP

Program

Donor financed

project Donor 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

MUSIKA - Making

Agricultural

Markets Work for

Zambia, 2011-2013

SIDA 900 900

1,800

Support to Musika -

Making Agricultural

Markets Work for

Zambia

DFID 600 600 600

1,800

Livestock

Smallholder

Livestock

Investment Project

IFAD 960

960

Project 1:

Empowerment of

women through

provision of Animal

Draft Power

WFP 100

100

Livestock

Infrastructure

Support Project

AfDB 2,750 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 22,750

Livestock

Development and

Animal health

project

World

Bank 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 40,000

Aquaculture

Program for

Luapula Agriculture

and Rural

Development

Finland 118

118

Peace Corps

Aquaculture project

- New Activity

USAID 75 75 75

225

Sustainable

Restocking Of

Lakes Through Pen

And Cage

Aquaculture And

Strengthened

Community

Participation

FAO 150 150 50

350

Pillar 2 sub-total 259,846

Market access and services development

Smallholder

Agribusiness

Promotion

Programme

IFAD 2,738 2,678 1,035

6,451

MUSIKA - Making

Agricultural

Markets Work for

Zambia, 2011-2013

SIDA 900 900 900 900

3,600

Access to finance SIDA 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

6,000

Agribusiness

Extension Program SIDA 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

10,000

Production, Finance

& Technology

(PROFIT +)-New

Activity

USAID 2,400 2,400 2,400

7,200

29

NAIP

Program

Donor financed

project Donor 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

Horticulture Global

Development

Alliance

USAID 600 600

1,200

Development Credit

Authority (DCA)

Agreement

USAID/

SIDA 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,840

7,360

Better Life Alliance

Global Development

Alliance (GDA)

USAID 438 438

876

USADF to support

value added

groundnut oil

processing -New

Activity

USAID 120 100 100

320

Southern African

Trade-hub USAID 500 500 500

1,500

Promotion of agro-

food processing

among small scale

farmers

FAO 100

100

Support to Musika -

Making Agricultural

Markets Work for

Zambia

DFID 600 600 600

1,800

Access to Finance

(this portion shows

estimate of funding

dedicated to ag.

Finance

DFID 2,280 2,280 2,280 2,280

9,120

ZNFU core support

programme phase II Finland 3,200 3,000 1,700 1,700

9,600

Program for

Luapula Agriculture

and Rural

Development

Finland 1,048

1,048

Project 1: Promoting

group marketing WFP 45

45

Project 2: Support to

market development WFP 20

20

Pillar 3 sub-total 56,189

Food and nutrition security and disaster risk management

Better Life Alliance

Global Development

Alliance (GDA)

USAID 438 438

876

Zambia Economic

Resilience for

Improved Food

Security (ZERS)

(new program)

USAID 1,000 1,000 850

2,850

Famine Early

Warning Systems

Network

(FEWSNET)

USAID 50 50 50

150

30

NAIP

Program

Donor financed

project Donor 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

Zambia Integrated

Health Systems

Strengthening

(ZISSP)

USAID 2,700 2,700

5,400

Zambia Nutrition

Assessment,

Counseling and

Support(ZAMNAC

S) - New Activity

USAID 2,250 2,250 2,250

6,750

Communications

Support for Health

(CSH)

USAID 600 600

1,200

Nutrition Activity to

be Designed - New USAID

3,000 3,000 3,000 9,000

Home grown school

feeding programme WFP 6,000 6,000

12,000

Food Security for

vulnerable groups WFP 3,000 3,000

6,000

Disaster Risk

Management WFP 140 140

280

Pillar 4 sub-total 44,506

Knowledge Support Systems

Extension

Food Crop

Diversification

Suport Project

Focusing on Rice

(FoDiS-R)

JICA 600 200

800

Rural Extension

Service Capacity

Advancement

Project (RESCAP)

JICA 12,000

12,000

Smallholder

Productivity

Promotion Prog

IFAD 1,782 1,933 2,126 1,856 1,813 9,510

Research

Smallholder

Productivity

Promotion Prog

IFAD 1,099 1,323 1,339 1,453 1,414 6,628

Detection,

Monitoring and

Eradication of the

Asian Fruit fly,

Bactrocera

invadens,

(Diptera:Tephritidae

) in Western and

Southern provinces

of Zambia in

districts bordering

Botswana,

Zimbabwe and

Namibia

FAO 100

100

Food Crop

Diversification

Suport Project

Focusing on Rice

(FoDiS-R)

JICA 600 200

800

31

NAIP

Program

Donor financed

project Donor 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

Policy analysis and

Research -IAPRI SIDA 750 750 750 750

3,000

Michigan State

University (MSU),

Indaba Agricultural

Policy Research

Institute (IAPRI)

USAID 1,125 1,125

2,250

Zambia Agriculture

Research and

Development

Project

USAID 4,200 4,200

8,400

Pillar 5 Sub-total 43,488

Institutional Strengthening

Smallholder

Productivity

Promotion Prog

IFAD 503 555 484 481 499 2,522

Climate Smart

Agriculture:Capturi

ng The Synergies

Between Mitigation,

Adaptation And

Food Security

FAO 300 300

600

Capacity building to

the ministry of

agriculture in results

based monitoring

and evaluation

(M&E)

Finland 197

197

Agricultural Sector

Performance

Enhancement

Programme

EU 3,667 155

3,822

Consolidating

lessons learnt,

identifying best

practices and

updating the

national aquaculture

strategy and plan

FAO 50

50

Rural and

Agriculture

Development

Advisor

JICA 300 150

450

Policy analysis and

Research -IAPRI SIDA 750 750 750 750

3,000

Michigan State

University (MSU),

Indaba Agricultural

Policy Research

Institute (IAPRI)

USAID 1,125 1,125

2,250

Direct Funding to

IAPRI - New

Activity

USAID 750 700 750

2,200

32

NAIP

Program

Donor financed

project Donor 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

Program for

Luapula Agriculture

and Rural

Development

Finland 596

596

Project 1: Support to

agro policy reform

and development

WFP 30

30

Project 2:

Strengthening

FRA's quality

assurance unit and

practices

WFP 200

200

Project 3:

Developing a

commodity tracking

information system

WFP 200

200

Smallholder

Agribusiness

Promotion

Programme

IFAD 78 79 117

274

Agricultural Sector

Performance

Enhancement

Programme (PEP)

EU 4,455 1,627

6,082

Climate Smart

Agriculture:Capturi

ng The Synergies

Between Mitigation,

Adaptation And

Food Security

EU 392

392

Pillar 6 Sub-total 22,865

Total

484,745

33

Appendix 4: NAIP Management Structure

MINISTER

Permanent Secretary Agriculture Division

Permanent Secretary Cooperatives & Marketing Development Division

COMMON USER DEPARTMENTS/UNITS FRA/CMA

Veterinary & Livestock Dev.Dept.

Department of Agriculture

Agriculture Research Institute

Department of Fisheries

Seed Control & Certification Institute

Department of Cooperatives Development

Department of Agribusiness and Marketing

Department of Policy, and Planning (To include NAIS)

Department of HRA (To include FMS, Procurement & Maintenance and Coordination of Colleges

Provincial & District Coordinating Offices

34

Appendix 5: Target Crop Yields and Outputs

(MAL 2012 Crop Forecasting Survey and 2010 Farm Management Guide)

Crop District Area planted

(Ha)

Expected

production (MT)

Yield

(MT/ha)

Potential

Yield (Mt/Ha)

Maize

Kapiri-Mposhi 45,744 117,360 2.57 9.00

Serenje 14,965 44,267 2.96 9.00

Masaiti 18,484 42,985 2.33 9.00

Gwembe 8,598 10,360 1.21 6.00

Sinazongwe 12,037 12,337 1.02 6.00

Choma 50,457 88,100 1.75 9.00

Monze 44,411 57,942 1.30 9.00

Chongwe 25,111 54,263 2.16 9.00

Mpika 14,742 48,010 3.26 9.00

Kaoma 24,551 46,584 1.90 9.00

Sorghum

Serenje 509 590 1.16 3.0

Masaiti 120 119 0.99 3.0

Gwembe 1,035 459 0.44 3.0

Sinazongwe 1,818 591 0.32 3.0

Choma 189 6 0.03 3.0

Monze 92 34 0.37 3.0

Chongwe 83 56 0.67 3.0

Mpika 9 8 0.82 3.0

Kaoma 514 257 0.50 3.0

Groundnuts

Kapiri-Mposhi 6,100 4,300 0.70 4.0

Serenje 3,226 2,879 0.89 4.0

Masaiti 1,019 574 0.56 4.0

Gwembe 460 117 0.25 4.0

Sinazongwe 166 33 0.20 4.0

Choma 5063 1892 0.37 4.0

Monze 7010 2138 0.30 4.0

Chongwe 2082 1122 0.54 4.0

Mpika 4549 3027 0.67 4.0

Kaoma 2456 1369 0.56 4.0

Soya beans

Kapiri-Mposhi 5,816 7,655 1.32 4.0

Serenje 1,589 1,514 0.95 4.0

Masaiti 228 278 1.22 4.0

Gwembe 29 12 0.43 4.0

Sinazongwe 1,846 6,167 3.34 4.0

Choma 1862 3220 1.73 4.0

Monze 1590 1704 1.07 4.0

Chongwe 7587 18791 2.48 4.0

Mpika 1234 951 0.77 4.0

Kaoma 209 207 0.99 4.0

Mixed Beans

Kapiri-Mposhi 401 322 0.80 3.0

Serenje 4,699 4,487 0.95 3.0

Masaiti 835 447 0.54 2.0

Sinazongwe 4 1 0.14 2.0

35

Crop District Area planted

(Ha)

Expected

production (MT)

Yield

(MT/ha)

Potential

Yield (Mt/Ha)

Cowpeas

Kapiri-Mposhi 440 239 0.54 4.0

Serenje 21 27 1.28 4.0

Masaiti 3 1 0.33 4.0

Gwembe 19 82 4.33 4.0

Cassava

Kapiri-Mposhi 94 2436 25.91 30

Serenje 5487 128,728 23.46 30

Masaiti 190 5239 27.57 30

Sinazongwe 7 82 11.71 30

Choma 12 142 11.83 30

Monze 19 223 11.74 30

Chongwe 98 2832 28.90 30

Mpika 4149 117,515 28.32 30

Kaoma 7173 138,238 19.27 30

36

Appendix 6: Selection of Target Districts

6.1 Rural Poverty and Social Conditions: The project will be implemented in three

districts of Central Province, namely Serenje, Mkushi and Kapiri-Mposhi. It will also cover

Masaiti in Copperbelt province, Mpika in Muchinga Province, Chongwe in Lusaka province

and in Southern Province, Choma, Monze and the valley districts of Gwembe and

Sinazongwe. Poverty and food insecurity in Zambia are deeply entrenched. Some 70% of

rural households live below the poverty line i.e. population living below US$ 1 a day per

person, compared to 43% in the urban areas. The selected districts have high concentrations

of people living below the poverty line. Income disparities are very high with local people

especially those in the valley areas seriously affected. The targeted districts have very high

levels of under-five malnutrition. Most rural people have no access to agribusiness and social

services. Women farmers’ needs in particular are not adequately recognized. The need for

development and financial support in parts of Gwembe Valley stems from Government’s

resettlement program of the Tonga Community during the construction of Kariba Dam in the

1950s. Gwembe-Tonga farmers, living near the construction site were displaced to upland

Gwembe Valley ended up engaging in rain-fed subsistence farming often on marginal lands,

thus increasing the incidence of food insecurity and poverty. The District basic data is

provided below:

No District Province Rural

Pop Total Pop Male Female

Total

H/holds

Farm

HH

Project

Target

Female

HH

1 Serenje Central 148,987 166,741 82,370 84,371 29,011 25,922 6,481 3,241

2 Kapiri Mposhi Central 209,003 253,786 126,154 127,632 45,977 37,864 9,466 4,733

3 Masaiti Copperbelt 101,763 103,857 52,017 51,840 20,511 20,097 5,024 2,512

4 Gwembe Southern 50,355 53,117 25,908 27,209 9,846 9,334 2,334 1,167

5 Sinazongwe Southern 87,295 101,617 49,209 52,408 19,721 16,942 4,236 2,118

6 Choma Southern 181,630 238,348 115,528 122,820 44,483 40,034 10,009 5,005

7 Monze Southern 143,832 183,817 89,502 94,315 32,849 29,564 7,391 3,696

8 Chongwe Lusaka 169,973 181,816 90,829 90,987 36,319 32,687 8,172 4,086

9 Mpika Muchinga 154,199 191,329 93,064 98,265 39,956 35,960 8,990 4,495

10 Kaoma Western 154,206 172,927 82,629 90,296 36,068 32,461 8,115 4,058

Source: 2010 Census of Population and Housing (June 2012)

6.2 Kapiri-Mposhi District: Covers a landmass of 10,483 km2 and lies 1,300 metres above

sea level (masl). It is drained by the Kafue and Luangwa rivers. The main hydrological

features are the Kafue, Mulungushi and Lunsemfwa rivers. It also has the Lukanga swamps.

Agriculture and fishing are key economic activities for 240,841 population. Harvesting of

forest and wildlife products is also common. Kapiri-Mposhi is highly deforested. The main

soils are acrisols, luvisols-phaeozen, lithosols, cambisols, fluvisols and vertisols. The soils

have low water holding capacity, shallow rooting depth and poor workability. They are high

in acidity and low nutrient holding capacity. Kapiri-Mposhi lies in agro-ecological zone IIa.

It receives 800-1,000 mm of rainfall per year. The average growing season is 125 days.

Maximum temperatures are about 26 degrees Celsius. Kapiri-Mposhi is a junction town

linking the northern Zambia to Copper-belt and Southern part through the TAZARA Railway

line, Zambia Railways and Great North Road, 200km from Lusaka.

6.3 Serenje District: lies 400km from Lusaka on the Great North Road, on the central

plateau. It has a population of 149,000. The district lies 900-1,200 masl. The Luangwa valley

on the east is difficult to access and the population is vulnerable and isolated, though rich with

37

wildlife and minerals. The Lusiwasi and Luangwa rivers drain the district. Serenje is

moderated deforested. The main soils are acrisols, lithosols, cambisols and fluvisols. The soils

are characterised by good physical features, though with limited chemical properties. Serenje

lies in agro-ecological zone IIa and I (Luangwa Valley). It receives 1,000-1,400mm of

rainfall per year and is the official border with the high rainfall region III. The average

growing season is 140 days. Maximum temperature is about 26 degrees Celsius. Serenje is an

emerging area for commercial farming in the various settlement schemes and Nansanga Farm

Block though the local population is not necessarily integrated.

6.4 Mpika District: lies 635 km from Lusaka on the Great North Road, on the Muchinga

plateau. The District lies 1,200 masl. The Luangwa valley on the east is difficult to access and

the population is vulnerable and isolated, though rich with wildlife and minerals. The

Luangwa river and Lake Bangweulu on the west drain the district. The main soils are acrisols,

lithosols, cambisols and fluvisols. The soils are characterised by good physical features,

though with limited chemical properties. Mpika lies in agro-ecological zone III and I

(Luangwa Valley). It receives 1,200-1,600mm of rainfall per year. The average growing

season is 140 days. Maximum temperature is about 28 degrees Celsius. Mpika is an emerging

area for commercial farming in the various farm blocks though the local population is not

necessarily integrated.

6.5 Masaiti District: This is one of the three rural districts of Copper-belt province with a

population of 101,763. It is 4,880 km2 in size and lies 1,218 to 1,524 masl on the north-west

plateau. The population is engaged in agricultural livelihoods, including wetland use.

Deforestation is high due to charcoal burning. The district watershed drain in the Kafue river,

with Kafulafuta and Kafubu as main rivers. Masaiti lies 100 km from Ndola on the Great

North Road. The main soil groups are cambisols, ferrasols and acrisols. These have poor soil

structure. Masaiti lies in agro-ecological region III with annual rainfall of 1,400 mm and 150

days of growing season.

6.6 Sinazongwe District: Lies in the Gwembe Valley that hosts the Tonga ethnic group

who were resettled during the 1950s to pave way for the construction of the Kariba Dam and

Lake. The whole rural population of 87,000 is considered vulnerable and considered poor to

very poor. Government has tried to develop the lakeside area with various irrigation schemes

to avert the frequent drought and floods that affects the people. The average rainfall in this

region I enclave is 600 mm. Maximum temperature can rise to 35-40 degrees Celsius.

Farmers cultivate sorghum, maize and legumes. They harvest fish from Lake Kariba and keep

cattle and goats for a living. Farming is done on riverbeds ad lake shores, practicing recession

farming locally called zilili. The soils are rocky and sloppy. Sinazongwe lies 300 km south of

Lusaka at the end of Lake Kariba.

6.7 Gwembe District: is very similar to Sinazongwe in historical, physical and economic

characteristics. The whole rural population of 50,000 is considered vulnerable and considered

poor to very poor. Frequent drought and floods that affects the people. The average rainfall in

this region is 600 mm. Maximum temperature can rise to 35-40 degrees Celsius. Farmers

cultivate sorghum, maize and legumes. They harvest fish from Lake Kariba and keep cattle

and goats for a living. Farming is done on riverbeds ad lake shores, practicing recession

farming locally called zilili. The soils are rocky and sloppy. Gwembe lies 300 km south of

Lusaka on the shores of Lake Kariba.

6.8 Choma and Monze Districts: lies 300 km and 200 km south of Lusaka on the southern

38

plateau along the rail line to Livingstone, respectively, at 1,100 to 1,400 masl. It is relatively

densely populated. It receives between 800-900 mm of annual rainfall. Rainfall distribution is

erratic. Frost is common and temperature ranges from 4 to 26.8 degrees Celsius. Soil

classification is quite varied and complex. Sandy loam and acrisols predominate and are the

one used by smallholder farmers. Shallow gravelly soils are common near the escarpment

edge. Soils are generally well drained. Some luvisols are found in Monze. The Kafue and

Zambezi rivers drain the two districts. The Kafue flats provide a source livelihood for cattle

grazing, hunting and fishing. Maize and cotton are the main crops.

6.9 Chongwe District: lies 50 km east of Lusaka on the central plateau, at 1,400 masl. It is

relatively densely populated. It receives between 900-1,200 mm of annual rainfall. Rainfall

distribution is erratic. Temperature average 26.8 degrees Celsius. Soil classification is

predominantly sandy loam and shallow gravelly soils near the Muchinga escarpment edge on

the east. Soils are generally well drained. The Kafue, Chongwe and Zambezi rivers drain the

district. The main source livelihood is cattle grazing, hunting and fishing. Maize and cotton

are the main crops.

6.10 Kaoma District: lies 300km west of Lusaka on the western plateau and lies 1,100 to

1,400 masl. It receives between 800-900 mm of annual rainfall. Rainfall distribution is erratic.

Temperature ranges from 4 to 26.8 degrees Celsius. Soil classification is quite varied and

complex but sandy loams and karahari sands predominate and are the one used by smallholder

farmers. Soils are generally well drained. The Kafue and Zambezi rivers drain the district. The

Kafue flats provide a source livelihood for cattle grazing, hunting and fishing. Maize and

cotton and cassava are the main crops.

No District Province

HIV/AIDS

Prevalence

(2004)

Per capita

income

(US$)

Life

Expectancy

with AIDS

% Food

Insecure

HH (2003)

%

Extremely

poor

(1998)

% moderate

and severely

underweight

children

Under-5

Mortality

per 100

births

%

under-5

stunted

1 Serenje Central 11.6 234 51.10 86 75 25.3 14.8 2.5

2 Kapiri Mposhi Central 18.6 273 53.10 49 55 17.3 13.9 6.0

3 Masaiti Copperbelt 11.6 278 51.70 83 73 21.3 14.8 65.1

4 Gwembe Southern 7.5 269 59.50 84 81 22.4 18.8 39.2

5 Sinazongwe Southern 7.5 330 57.00 67 55 15.2 16.5 44.2

6 Choma Southern 19.2 439 53.00 78 56 25.3 14.9 50.4

7 Monze Southern 19.2 330 53.00 70 58 11.7 14.3 41.0

8 Chongwe Lusaka 19.0 342 51.70 62 56 15.2 11.0 36.9

9 Mpika Muchinga 12.6 277 55.00 72 53 20.8 17.2 49.9

10 Kaoma Western 10.0 329 52.5 72 76 31.0 24.2 47.6

7 National

Average 16.0 347 52.4 67 58 20.1 18.3 49.8

8 Livingstone

(highest) Southern 30.9 687 53.00 72 41 19.7 23.5 36.9

9. Shangombo

(lowest) Western 10.0 158 47.6 84 90 20.1 18.3 42.9

Source: 2007 Zambia Human Development Report: HFnS is 2003 ZHDR

39

Appendix 7a: Proposed List of Irrigation Sites/Schemes

No

Name of

Irrigation

scheme

District

Number of

Beneficiaries Gross

Area

(Ha)

Scope of

works and

activities

Dev. Cost

(KR)

Dev. Cost

(USD)

Cost

(USD)

per ha Male Female Total

A. New Schemes

1 Twashuka

Cooperative Masaiti 120 37 157 60

Weir and

irrigation

scheme on

perennial

stream

1,583,600

296,000

4,933

2 Mushimbili Kapiri

Mposhi 380 98 478 200

Canals, Dam

available

4,173,000

780,000

3,900

3 Mita Hills

Dam

Kapiri

Mposhi 190 45 235 100

Canals, Dam

available

off-take and

canals

needed

1,979,500

370,000

3,700

4

Nansanga

Farm Block

A, B and C

Serenje 210 70 280 100

Irrigation

System. 3

Dams

already

constructed

2,568,000

480,000

4,800

5 Buleya

Malima B Sinazongwe 284 69 353 275

Pumping

unit &

irrigation

network

19,971,550

3,733,000

13,575

6 Kafue -

Nutrition Kafue 160 46 206 152

Irrigation

network

4,242,550

793,000

5,217

Sub-total (New schemes) 1,344 365 1,709 887

34,518,200 6,452,000 7,274

B. Scheme Expansion

7 Buleya

Malima A Sinazongwe 96 28 124 98

Additional

night storage

reservoir &

irrigation

network

4,344,200

812,000

8,286

8 Siatwinda Gwembe 78 34 112 60

Additional

irrigation

system

1,851,100 346,000 5,767

Sub-total (Scheme Expansion) 174 62 236 158 6,195,300 1,158,000 7,329

Total 1,518 427 1,945 1,045

40,713,500 7,610,000 7,282

40

Appendix 7b: Sample Engineer’s Cost Breakdown – New Irrigation Scheme Development

(Pump-based Irrigation System)

Item

Name of Irrigation Scheme and Development Cost (US$)

Nega-Nega Sinazongwe Nzenga Simupande Buleya Malima

(595-ha) (90-ha) (98-ha) (150-ha) (275-ha)

A. PART - 1: CIVIL WORKS

(i) Preliminary and General 15,500.00 3,875.00 3,875.00 3,875.00 3,875.00

(ii) Main Canals/Earthworks 1,169,227.75 21,919 52,419.00 32,061 194,755.00

(iii) Drainage Canals 60,241.50 10,569.00 15,329.00 12,314.00 35,089.10

(iv) Flow control Structures 121,089.69 34,201.71 27,628.85 28,522.73 73,916.79

(v) Scheme Roads 46,040.00 14,756.25 14,756.25 14,756.25 14,756.25

(vi) Dayworks 1,880.00 1,880.00 1,880.00 1,880.00 1,880.00

(vi) Provisional Sums 1,954.00 1,957.00 1,957.00 1,957.00 1,957.00

Sub-Total 1,415,932.9 89,158.0 117,845.1 95,366.0 326,229.1

Price and Physical

Contingencies (10%) 141,593.29 8,915.80 11,784.51 9,536.60 32,622.91

B. PART - 2: ELECTROMECHANICAL

(i) Raw Water Pumping and

Storage System 2,199,104.59 536,485.29 1,214,787.86 889,096.74 2,932,245.19

(ii) Supply, Construct and

Install Electromechanical

Equipment

1,972,000.00 215,650.00 324,500.00 324,500.00 441,300.00

Sub-Total 4,171,104.59 752,135.29 1,539,287.86 1,213,596.74 3,373,545.19

Total (US$) 5,728,630.82 850,209.05 1,668,917.47 1,318,499.32 3,732,397.24

Gross Scheme Area (ha) 595 90 98 150 275

Scheme Development Cost

(US$) per ha 9,627.95 9,446.77 17,029.77 8,790.00 13,572.35

Average Scheme

Development Cost (US$)

per ha

11,693.37

41

Appendix 8: NAIP Formulation Process

NAIP formulation methodology and approach involved four major stages, namely:

A. Situation analysis/mapping involved a critical review of the agriculture sector over the

past 20 years which included identification of factors that positively contributed to the

achievement of the positive results recorded, analysis of the strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities and threats relating to the agriculture sector, and identification of the key

challenges as well as gaps. Literature review and stakeholder consultations were the key

methods used for the situation analysis;

B. Synthesis was concerned with detailed analysis of identified successes, challenges, gaps

and issues which included identification of root causes of both successes and challenges;

C. Strategic focus/direction or programmes were proposed based on the synthesized

successes, gaps, challenges and issues. Effort was made to ensure the existing initiatives,

programmes and interventions were the starting point for the identification of

programming. Where existing initiatives were relevant, focus was on their re-orientation

with the view to maximizing benefits. Appropriate strategies and specific interventions

were developed based on five components or focal areas, namely: (1) Sustainable

natural resources management; (2) Agricultural production and productivity

improvement; (3) Market access and services development; (4) Food and nutrition

security and disaster risk management; and (5) Key Support Services; and

D. Implementation framework ensured that the necessary environment critical for

effective implementation performance of NAIP existed which included consideration of

the policy, legal, institutional and resource mobilization. Monitoring and evaluation

framework was developed to facilitate measurement of performance against major

objectives as well as to facilitate the computation of results based cost estimates.