Evaluation of the Zimbabwe agricultural sector assistance program

Special evaluation covers the period 9/82-3/84 and is based on site visits, document review, and interviews with members of the Government of Zimbabwe (GOZ) interministerial ZASA working group (WG) and with farmers' union, University of Zimbabwe (UZ), and other project personnel. Impressive progress has been made in implementing ZASA subprojects (SP's). With a major emphasis on small farm problems in communal areas, ZASA activities planned or underway include: research (e.g., on more efficient communal cropping systems); extension (e.g., housing and transportation improvements to facilitate access, inservice and overseas extension agent training, introduction of cotton/tobacco technology packages); credit (e.g., provided to 54,000 small farms); marketing/input supply (e.g., development of a network of small farm cooperative societies, 36 warehouses and 165 local facilites built); land/water use SP's; agricultural education (e.g., doubling student intake at certificate, diploma, and degree institutions and revising syllabi); and policy planning (e.g., with a priority focus on communal areas where 900,000 small farmers operate). Although evaluation of ZASA success is difficult as Zimbabwe had a bumper crop in 1980-81 followed by three drought years, positive production impact is indicated by: a 250% increase (from 1975-82) in fertilizer consumption in communal areas (up from 8-23% of total consumption); an increase in the communal contribution to the cotton crop to 35% (tobacco has also done well); and an increase in business for cooperatives serving smallholders from Z$3.3 to Z$23.7 million (from 1978-82). Also, GOZ elimination of consumer/producer subsidies has greatly reduced costs in 1983-84, although this policy has been set back by the drought and the need to offset higher imported food costs. ZASA has been hampered by: a 6-12 month startup delay due to slow initiation of the WG, a shortage of local currency (until Commodity Import Program proceeds became available), and the late arrival of TA staff; a shortage of GOZ staff; and inadequate coordination with other donors. Recommendations include to continue the project unchanged.