How the devil is in the details of an agricultural warehouse receipt system

How the devil is in the details of an agricultural warehouse receipt system

Attempts to unlock the potential of  agriculture in Zimbabwe and other African countries have seen concepts like ‘agricultural commodity exchange’ and ‘warehouse receipt system’ coming into discussions by policy makers, financial institutions and development partners.  However, these concepts have proved easier said than done.  A commodity exchange may be easy to understand since it basically entails commodities of equal value being exchanged. More than a decade ago, Zimbabwe used to have the Zimbabwe Agricultural Commodity Exchange (ZIMACE) which focused on trading three crops only (maize, wheat and soya bean) from a few commercial farmers. Efforts to revive the commodity exchange have been on the drawing board for the past two years.  Given the new agricultural dynamics where more than 40 different agricultural commodities are produced by hundreds of farmers across the country, the new ZIMACE should have a new complexion.  This is a story for another day.  For now, let us move to the warehouse receipt system.

26 October 1

Unpacking the notion of a warehouse receipt system

A simple description of how a warehouse receipt system functions is this: A farmer delivers commodities (say, maize) to a central warehouse and s/he is given a collateral certificate (receipt) that s/he can present to a bank.  Since commodities (maize) delivered in the warehouse work as a bond, the bank is comfortable extending  a loan to the farmer so that the farmer can buy inputs as well as meet other needs. Once commodities are sold, the farmer’s loan is repaid directly to the bank by the warehouse receipt system management, with the farmer receiving some change.

Where things start getting complicated

Generally the notion of warehousing has to do with a fall-back position or a back- up food system.   After estimating the amount of food a household requires for a season, each farmer decides to store and warehouse surplus as a way of sustaining food availability over a long period of time.  In the case of businesses, warehousing is meant to sustain a certain level of stocks (commodities) so that the business is able to consistently meet customer needs. That is why each business takes re-order levels seriously.

In a properly organised marketing system backed by accurate production projections and assured availability of commodities when required, businesses and farmers or consumers have the luxury of keeping stocks in their warehouses very low. It takes resources to keep commodities in a warehouse.  If a farmer can easily access some food items all year round after selling three quarters of his/her maize just after harvesting, the farmer can rely on the market for future household consumption. Selling commodities soon after harvest allows a farmer to re-invest in other income-generating projects like poultry or piggery, resulting in more income.

However, because farmers are not certain whether they are going to get the same food items in the market and realize income, they tend to try and keep enough food to last six months.  This uncertainty, of getting commodities at the same price, leads to farmers remaining anxious about matching production and the market.  As long as the opportunity cost of selling is greater than warehousing, farmers will prefer warehousing at household level up to the next season instead of selling and later buying from the market.  For example a farmer who sells two tons of maize after harvest, can earn $400 plus an extra $200 earned from investing in an income generating project. If the same farmer later tries to repurchase the same two tons of maize from market at $700, it means the farmer has incurred an extra $100 cost to repossess the same two tons.

On the other hand, if a farmer presents his or her commodities as collateral to the warehouse receipt system at $250 a ton and goes on to get a loan of $500 from a bank at an interest of 10%, the farmer will repay a total of $600. If it happens that during the time his/her maize is in the central warehouse receipt system the price goes up by 10%, the farmer will realize $550, meaning s/he will need to top up another $50 to settle the loan.  This means a challenges for the warehouse receipt system is anticipating charges that may eat into expected price increases, worsening a farmer’s position upon repayment.

Another scenario relates to lost opportunity cost that comes with warehousing, where a farmer is locking expected income streams in warehoused commodity.  For example a farmer can sell two tons of maize on the open market upon harvest and earn $500, allowing him/her to engage in income generating projects that will earn him/her an extra $200 in six months.  If the farmer gets a loan from the warehouse receipt system at an interest of 10%, s/he repays $600.  This means during that period the farmer will have lost $100 that he would have earned by selling commodities on his own just after harvest and re-invested in other income-generating projects.

It is possible that if a farmer is allowed to sell two tons and re-invest in other income generating projects, s/he should be given an extra loan of $500 using other forms of collateral such as cattle. The income from the sale of maize and investing in other income generating projects will be used to repay the loan.  In six months the farmer’s income will be $700 and that of the loan to be repaid will be $600.  The farmer can repay the loan and remain with an extra $100 as well as commodities in the field still secured by the already repaid loan.

In the warehouse receipt system, who makes critical decisions?

Once s/he delivers to the warehouse, the farmer might continue speculating and anticipating favourable prices while the bank will be expecting its loan repayment.  The farmer will be forced to sell commodities when s/he is still expecting prices to rise. Since the warehouse receipt system has no control over the external market, will it make enough profit to be able to meet costs related to fumigation, storage, security, transport and others?  One commodity can be transported to a central warehouse only to be re-transported back to the same community as people buy back the same commodity.  Who will bear these costs?  Who will make decisions to sell and manage the system?  Who ensures quality remains the same in a warehouse?  The whole logistical and management system has costs that have to be fully understood.

There is a loss of ownership of commodities by the farmer once s/he delivers to the warehouse. In the event of a drought, farmers who will have used commodities as collateral will not be able to afford the same amount of commodities they will have put in the warehouse.  This means the burden of warehousing is shifted to the farmer.

Dealing with relationships between commodities

In most markets, agricultural commodities have unique relationships which have to be understood before introducing a warehouse receipt system or a commodity exchange. Some commodities move in pairs while others act as substitutes.  If you lock soya bean in a warehouse receipt system and influence its presence in the market, sunflowers and other oil seeds can take the place of soya bean as consumers adjust to what is available in the market.  If you lock sweet potatoes, some consumers can substitute sweet potatoes with pumpkins and butternuts.  The warehouse receipt system may not have sufficient control on consumer tastes and behaviour.

26 October 2

As complementarity commodities, leafy vegetables and tomatoes tend to go together.  In addition, most field crops move with vegetables as relish.  If you lock field crops like maize, farmers are left with horticulture (relish) and meat (beef, chicken), etc.  Since most commodities targeted for warehousing may be basic necessities and staples, locking these commodities in a warehouse may deprive communities of their staple and disrupt local food baskets. As an experiment, the warehouse receipt system may be introduced in cash crops like cotton and tobacco where farmers can be availed inputs while prices of these commodities firm up.  A lot of work still remains to be done on practical aspects of the warehouse receipt system. The system has failed in a number of African countries due to lack of thorough analysis and understanding of agricultural commodity dynamics.

Here is an alternative model

Since buyers and processors may not have enough cash all the time, it would be better to introduce a tripartite arrangement involving the farmer, the buyer and the bank.  Farmers can supply commodities to the processor or buyer at an agreed price.  The bank pays the farmer so that the farmer goes back to the farm while the processor gets busy processing while the buyer gets busy selling. The buyer and processor pays the bank as commodities and processed products are sold. This arrangement takes care of the usual problem where smallholder farmers do not want to wait 21 to 30 days for payment.  Banks and processors or buyers don’t mind waiting that long for payment.

Where we have 21 – 30 day repayment periods the farmer will be idle, waiting for payment while the buyer and processor will be the only ones active.  The tripartite arrangement enables bot the farmer and processor/buyer to be active simultaneously.  Once the system is fully functional, all the three actors will be active.  The processor/buyer will be busy repaying the bank, the bank will be busy disbursing to farmers while the farmers will be busy producing and supplying to the processor/buyer.  Besides locking money in the system, this arrangement has an in-built collateral mechanism tied with flowing commodities.  The arrangement can be extended to 3 – 6 months so that as the farmer produces according to a production calendar, the processor has time to process and be ready for commodities.  The facility can also vary with commodities depending on production calendar.

This model rides on margins in each business model not on the principal loan.  The process will be able to pay the loan and allow every actor to remain with some margin after value addition.  The bank should be able to pay farmers with a small mark up. If commodities are worth $1000, the bank pays the farmer $1100 so that the farmer makes a mark-up of $100. The processor/buyer sales at $1400 and goes on to repay $1200 to the bank. This means the buyer/processor gets $200 profit while the bank and farmer gets $100 each.  The processor/buyer gets slightly more to cushion against handling and uncertainties in the market.  This is a win-win situation.

Most of the maize in Zimbabwe’s informal market is wanted by processors but because the processors do not  have ready capital, the commodities are in the informal market where the price may be beyond what the processor can afford in order to stay in business. We have to re-discover our collective relationships if agriculture is to drive the economy. / /

Website: /

eMkambo Call Centre: 0771 859000-5/ 0716 331140-5 / 0739 866 343-6.

We need a decent conversation about the role of collateral in African Agriculture

We need a decent conversation about the role of collateral in African Agriculture

Lack of collateral in African agriculture has become a perennial problem. While the rest of the world is now recognizing intangible assets like knowledge as the highest form of capital and collateral, African financial institutions are still interested in tangible collateral such as immovable and to a lesser extent immovable property. This is in spite of the fact that most tangible forms of collateral are not directly linked to agribusiness. On the other hand, intangible assets such as experience in a specific line of agribusiness, knowledge, passion, skills and a whole range of personal attributes are directly linked to agriculture as a business.

At least, 70% of commodities sold in informal markets like Mbare in Harare are produced through intangible collateral.  With tangible collateral accounting for less than 30% of commodities in the market, there is need for financial institutions to revisit their notion of collateral. Perhaps it is now ideal to consider factors surrounding the success of a particular farming enterprise as opposed to looking at assets outside a farmer’s line of business. As shown in the graphics below, commodities worth US$9.8 million were supplied in Mbare Farmers Market from January to June. At least 70% of this value was produced without any tangible collateral.

Table 1: Revenue by Produce class

Revenue by produce class

Table 2: Revenue by Province

Revenue by Province

Chart 1:  Revenue by province

 Chart 1 : Revenue by province

The above graphics show the collective performance of Mbare farmers’ market during the first six months of 2015.  Breaking down this information to wards and districts where the commodities came from indicates that the form of collateral in most of the commodity sources were purely intangible.

How financial institutions and farmers can find each other around the collateral issue

While the 30% of commodities attributed to tangible collateral is quite significant, financial institutions have to think seriously about the wisdom of recognizing intangible assets which are feeding more people. The warehouse receipt system which the Bankers Association of Zimbabwe has been suggesting as a solution is not as powerful as understanding market dynamics in the people’s market.  The warehouse receipt system works where commodities are not moving fast. In the people’s market commodities are always in transit and there is not time you can find the market empty. Surely this convening power of the market should be considered collateral enough.  As part of recognizing commodity performance on the,  market banks can simply ask a farmer to provide demand projections from a particular market for a commodity the farmer is borrowing money to produce. Price elasticity can be a key determinant informing the bank in terms of how much a farmer should borrow. Real time trends on a fluid market are a more reliable collateral than contractual agreements with a buyer who may limited means of controlling the market.

Looking at factors surrounding the success of a particular farming business

Rather than touching assets outside agriculture, another option for banks is examining factors surrounding the success of a particular farming business. The bank can take into account a farmer’s production capacity, market participation and trends in the market.  Some farmers have been farming for generations but have no collateral due to macro-economic and policy issues outside their control.  Most farmers have knowledge but lack collateral while those with collateral (mostly urban dwellers) are not interested in agriculture. Because they lack title deeds, smallholder farmers and youth as well as graduates from agricultural colleges tend to be excluded from agricultural support although they may have tons of passion. Where banks are keen to control a farmer’s mind set, they can insist on a percentage of a loan going towards capacity building, mentorship or face to face hands-on skills transfer. This can be a precondition for accessing a loan.

Passion and appetite for risk as a form of collateral

Passion and risk taking should be considered important collateral indicators in agricultural financing.  Insisting on tangible collateral is an urban approach to agriculture since it is well known that only people in urban areas have title deeds while those in rural areas and growth points do not have title deeds. Banks should not hedge against natural risks such as drought but delinquency.  It is not wise to overburden a farmer with climate –related parameters that are beyond his or her control.  Farmers are not fortune tellers who can foretell the season ahead of them.  Let’s come up with other ways of collateral such as strong relationships and networks.  The network era in which we are living shows that networks are becoming important forms of collateral. While one may not mind losing tangible property, she or he would not want to be ejected from a network due to delinquency.

Within a network of farmers in a particular community, extension agents and agro-dealers can be engaged by financial institutions and other value chain actors to monitor use of inputs as well as outputs (harvests) from farmers.  This will be a sustainable path to loan repayment and trust building. Given that properties in urban areas are the only ones with title deeds accepted by banks, insisting on tangible collateral reinforces inequalities between urban and rural enterprises. Such inequalities erode trust between financial institutions and rural farmers who will always think financial institutions are biased towards urban businesses.

A farmer’s clientele base and relationships as collateral

How much a farmer has invested in building a clientele base either formal or informal is an important form of collateral. A clientele base and relationships constitute a ready market. Due to a strong clientele base and sound relationships, a farmer may not need to do much in terms of market research.  She or he already knows customer specifications, preferences, capacity, etc.  For example, farmers who frequent the market all year round know what to produce, when and for whom.  Unfortunately such information is not recognized as collateral by financial institutions.

The importance of risk sharing

There doesn’t seem to be plausible risk-sharing models when it comes to uncertainties around which factors a farmer or bank has no control.  While accepting business plans and cash flow projections is a way of slightly recognizing intangible collateral, insisting on tangible collateral without looking at other factors is like pushing all the risk to the farmer.  There are external factors like a sudden increase in input costs or shortage of Ammonium Nitrate.  These are external factors which banks don’t consider but affect a farmer who will have already pledged his or her tangible asset.  If uncertainties are taken into account, some forms of collateral become valueless. Banks should focus on those factors a farmer can control.  In most cases these are intangible.

The role of references and associations

From production right up to the market, working with references can be a smart way of collateral.  On the production side, extension  agents and local communities (local leaders) can write reference letters for farmers.  On the market side, instead of forcing the farmer to get future contracts, banks can consider a farmer’s previous relationships and supplies (market performance). Intermediaries working in the market or market committees can provide such a reference.  Although banks are still interested in future contracts, these are shunned by farmers because they bind a farmer to non-participation in other markets.  They can also suppress market forces that might lead to a win –win situation for a farmer, a bank or both.  Through commodity associations, farmers should access loans as a group. This arrangement can be more beneficial because farmers share knowledge from production all the way to collective marketing.  All this can be done without future contracts.  Farmers can be allowed to enjoy economies of scale by supplying either the formal or informal market.

Long term loan facility

Banks should seriously consider a long-term facility (2 – 5 years).  For most farmers, one season is too short to get a loan, repay and remain with enough capital to cover the same hectares in the coming season.  In such a situation, a long-term loan can be ideal and collateral should be lower in terms of the value of the loan. The loan has to be allowed to bear its own return during the loan tenure.  A smallholder farmer cannot guarantee a $1000 loan with 5 cattle within a season because if drought strikes the farmer losses everything.  However, the same farmer is comfortable guaranteeing a $1000 loan repaid in 2 – 5 years with one beast because within the same period, the beast will have produced three or four calves.  But if you take a house, within a short space of time it can’t appreciate in value within 12 months for a farmer to be able to sell it, cover the loan and buy the same house.  Again, the house is a tangible asset not linked to business performance.  Cattle can see a farmer using a beast as collateral while enjoy other benefits like milk, manure and draught power in the process.

Collective knowledge as collateral

In any given community there is access to information and knowledge on the micro-climate, information from research institutes, NGOs and other government departments like extension agents and the Met Office.  These can inform banks in terms of other external risk factors and opportunities in a particular community.  This knowledge system is important for decision making by banks.  In most cases banks do not pay for this knowledge which can accurately pinpoint chances of success when investing in a particular farming community. All this knowledge is part of intangible collateral that financial institutions should take into account.

Tripartite business models: farmer – banker – input supplier / agro-dealer.

These models can assist a financial institution in assessing a farmer’s capacity to produce and repay loans.  The bank can provide money to the input supplier who then extends inputs to the farmer.  When the farmer produces and sells, s/he repays the input supplier who pays back to the bank.

Revolving fund at community level and financial literacy

Banks can also engage in a revolving fund with a community where repayment is reinforced by peer pressure.  Farmers have a way of encouraging each other to repay so that they continue receiving loans. Ownership of the loan management and repayment process at community level can be very empowering for communities who will want to see the facility continue. Regarding financial literacy, banks should not just wait for loan repayments.  Farmers need back up services on how to manage loans before they receive the money. Intermediaries can facilitate this process.

Creating another facility to support the value chain

There is a danger of injecting US$1 billion into agricultural production when the market (demand-side) has no capital or purchasing power. Institutional buyers cannot be expected to offer buying contracts to farmers when they (buyers) don’t have capital. An environmental scan towards understanding the demand side is very important before dishing inputs to farmers.

Linking loan beneficiaries (farmers) to the market

Farmers can be linked so that they understand market trends, market-based production calendars, standards, specifications as well as creating relationships with the market/traders.  This is another form of intangible collateral.  Evidence from eMKambo shows that informal markets have their own informal contractual agreements with some traders providing inputs to farmers and then sharing proceeds after selling. Traders are knowledgeable about market performance and have also established their own niches.  This mechanism ensures farmers produce what is demanded by the market. A related model is where a farmer gives commodities to a trader for sale on commission. All these models are intangible collateral which cannot be turned into formal contracts.


For any agribusiness growth, 70% is attributable to intangible factors that represent a powerful form of collateral.  The remaining 30% is attributable to tangible factors like a house which, unfortunately, can be swallowed up when the 70% is missing.  If a farming business is worth $10 000 but a farmer wants to borrow $2000, he or she is saying: “ I will provide intangible collateral worth $8000”. By insisting on title deeds, banks are reinforcing the strangle-hold of agriculture by the middle and upper classes which have title deeds and other privileges.  Smallholder farmers, women and youth who do not have these assets are condemned to poverty. Their own forms of collateral, mainly intangible, should be taken seriously.  Non-performing loans have been caused by those with title deeds.  Perhaps it is time for serious introspection by the financial industry in African countries like Zimbabwe! / /

Website: /

eMkambo Call Centre: 0771 859000-5/ 0716 331140-5 / 0739 866 343-6

A case for promoting local small scale food processing enterprises

A case for promoting local small scale food processing enterprises

Every community has some level of knowledge on food processing and value addition going back many generations.  Age-old local value addition practices includes processing milk into amasi, vegetable drying, drying cooked maize and pumpkins and storing this for later use as well as brewing a wide range of beers or beverages from a collections of crops and wild fruits.  These practices have proved that local small scale processing is critical for meeting specific local tastes and demand.  If fully embraced in the modern world, local food processing does not only create employment but also reduces manufacturing costs since raw materials will not have to travel long distances to urban areas for processing.

Graphs below show a range of commodities supplied to Mbare wholesale market during the month of August 2015. The commodities travelled long distances to Harare yet they could have been processed at source, providing market options for farmers. While the commodities seem to have generated significant income in Harare, they could have earned more if value addition at source had been done.

Graph 1: produce supplied to Mbare wholesale market in tons (August 2015)

Tonnes Supplied

Graph2: Estimated revenue by produce type (August 2015)

Estimated revenue per produce

Chart 1:  Estimate Revenue share district (source)

 Estimate Revenue share district (source)

All the 19 sources of produce indicated in the above chart should have small scale processing centres where commodities are processed into diverse products rather than taking everything to Harare. The absence of processing centres in these areas affect women farmers who face enormous challenges when travelling long distances to market their commodities.  Some of the challenges faced by women around marketing include lack of accommodation and proper ablution services at the market.

Food processing as an extension of local knowledge systems

Processing and preservation at community level ensures income all-year round.  There are places where mangoes are sometimes more than the community can handle yet such communities become food insecure a greater part of the year. Different communities have different crop varieties and wild fruits adaptable to their environment – e.g. bananas, butternuts, mangoes, masawu, baobab fruit, etc.  Local people can be good judges for their products in terms of quality and taste.  They can tell when beer has reached the required quality in terms of taste, freshness, etc.  They are the first port of call of demand for their products before they supply other communities.

Farmers have been roasting groundnuts and brewing beer and perfecting taste for many years.  What is needed is technology that can transform this indigenous knowledge into proper industrial knowledge the way bread baking has been transformed from family businesses to industries.  Such a process has to happen slowly building on indigenous knowledge gathered over time. It can’t just be fast-tracked.  A lot can be learnt from the evolution of certain local technologies and practices but unfortunately most of them have not been documented.

More information: / /

Website: /

eMkambo Call Centre:

0771 859000-5/ 0716 331140-5 / 0739 866 343-6

A balancing act between saving and restocking in a fluid market

A balancing act between saving and restocking in a fluid market

For the majority of traders in agriculture markets, understanding the convening power of the market includes balancing a decision to save money or restock commodities. Since most of the commodities are perishable and always on demand, restocking happens on a daily basis.  This means a decision to save money in a bank has both opportunity costs and opportunity benefits.

Traders weigh a decision to save money in a bank against the opportunity cost incurred if one does not restock commodities that are high on demand.  For example, if one saves $100 in a bank over a week and earns an interest of $5, the question in the trader’s mind is how much return would the same $100 earn from restocking agriculture commodities on a daily basis and putting a mark -up?  On a low scale, $100 used to restock commodities would earn a return of 5% per day and if you multiply that by five days = $25 on top of $100 within five days.  This implies, a trader who saves $100 in a bank and earns $5 in five days has an opportunity cost of $20 if the trader had decided to restock and put a mark -up on a daily basis.

Fruit and vegetables

In a fast moving market, traders have to balance the benefits of saving money and restocking commodities

The above scenario applies where a trader is taking maximum risk by re-investing all the capital on a daily basis.  The worst scenario would come where $100 invested in agricultural commodities incurs  negative returns due to price suppression, resulting in the trader ending up with commodities worth  $75 by end of the week.  This means the trader was losing $5 worth of commodities/stocks per day.  It would have been better if the trader had saved $100 in a bank and earned $5 ( 5% interest).  Now with $75, the opportunity cost of not saving is $20. There is therefore need to strike a balance between saving and restocking – ensuring moderate risk is taken either side of saving opportunity costs and restocking opportunity costs.

How a financial institution and a trader can strike a balance 

Where a trader was looking forward to taking high risk and earn $25 per week or lose $25 within the same week, an option is for the trader to save and get $10 extra and, also for the bank to incentivise the trader to invest thus reversing the risk of losing $25 in worst case scenarios.  The bank should increase interest from 5 to 10%.  As a balanced equation, there is a trade-off of a trader not losing $25 in worst case scenarios and getting an assurance of $10 as interest from saving or the bank not receiving any savings as the trader is involved in high risk investment tied to restocking every day.  By giving 10% interest, the bank is assured of savings of $100.

There is a trade-off between a trader either saving or re-investing on a daily basis and earning $25 and the bank trying to attract savings.  The selling point for the bank is that the trader needs a fall – back position related to saving and getting $10 more instead of losing $25 in situations where the market performs badly.  Financial institutions should understand the opportunity cost of saving by traders especially in the food market.  Traders should also understand the risk of not saving and be without a fall-back position in the event of poor market performance.

Lack of a saving culture negatively affects business growth.   In most informal agriculture markets, there is always a trade-off between good and low prices, especially due to uncoordinated production and supply. Where prices are good, a trader should be able to save and be cushioned against a fall in prices.  Savings create a growth paths and a sense of progress.  If a trader saves 5% of his/her sales on a monthly basis, it means if the trader saves $100 on the first month, the interest is $5.  The next month if the saves $200, with the same percentage interest, the saving will be $10.  Percentage savings show a growth paths and pattern. A fall-back position provides a sense of business expansion.

Savings in other products

Financial institutions should come up with other products like housing stands and vehicle/truck loans as other ways traders can spread their savings into tangible assets which support their businesses.  Besides helping traders to expand their businesses, these options can be a strong fall-back position.  If something happens to his/her business, a trader can simply sell his/her truck to boost his/her business.  Savings should be one way of investing.  However, if one saves s/he needs advice on how to re-invest.  Traders can’t just accumulate savings without financial institutions articulating the advantages of saving.  Incentives should be clearly explained. During the saving period there should be some short-term investments that generate returns to top up changes in prices for targeted long-term investments such as housing stands.  There is also need for different interest rates for different clients, amounts and saving periods.  If one saves $100 per month s/he should  earn  a 5% interest while the one saving $200 should earn at least more interest (e.g.,7%). Differentiation in interest rates can be between the amount saved per given period or same amount saved over different periods.

Traders are aware of many loopholes in the formal banking system and spend significant amounts of time trying to understand these loopholes. Many bank employees spend more time controlling the movement of money outside the bank than cultivating relationships with traders.

Highfield – Lusaka Farmer’s Market as a small but fluid agriculture market

37 produce types were supplied to the market during January to June 2015 as shown below:

Table 1: commodities supplied to Highfield – Lusaka Market (Harare) Jan to June 2015


Commodities supplied consistently included tomatoes, leaf vegetables, onions and unshelled groundnuts. One of the reasons is that some of the crops are seasonal.

Graphic 1: Total estimated revenue share per produce class

Graphic 1: Total estimated revenue share per produce class

Graphic 2: Expected Revenue (ER) by month

Graphic 2: Expected Revenue (ER) by month

Table 2: Farmer visits by gender  – January to June 2015

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Total
Male 342 370 461 365 260 278 2076
Female 59 68 124 120 81 80 532
Total 401 438 585 485 341 358 2608


More information: / /

Website: /

eMkambo Call Centre:

0771 859000-5/ 0716 331140-5 / 0739 866 343-6