SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY, 2016
1
(Program Period: October 1, 2014 September 30, 2017)
BASELINE SURVEY REPORT
(FINAL)
Prepared By:
AFRICAN RESEARCH AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (AFREDEC)
General Mathenge Drive, Off Parklands Ring Road
P.O Box 32499- 00600, Nairobi
afredecconsultants@gmail.com; info@afredec.com
www.afredec.com
FEBRUARY, 2016
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY, 2016
i
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CEED Center for Entrepreneurship and Executive Development 
DQA Data Quality Assurance
FAD Food Assistance Division
FAIS Food Aid Information System
FAS Foreign Agricultural Service
FFPr Food for Progress
FTF Feed the Future
GOT Government of Tanzania
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MT Metric Tones
PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
PMP Performance Monitoring Plan
PTT Performance Tracking Table
RF Results Framework
SEAF Small Enterprise Assistance Funds
SMEs Small and Medium Enterprises
SO Strategic Objective
TA Technical Assistance
TAHA Tanzania Horticulture Association
TOR Terms of Reference
TOR Terms of Reference
USD United States Dollar
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY, 2016
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................ i
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................ vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................ vii
1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1-1
1.1 About the KASI Agriventures Program..................................................................................1-1
1.2 Objectives of the KASI Agriventures Program .....................................................................1-1
1.3 Program Activities and Outcomes...........................................................................................1-2
1.4 Target Value Chains....................................................................................................................1-2
1.5 Target Beneficiaries and Partners.............................................................................................1-2
2 METHODOLOGIES AND APPROACHES FOR THE BASELINE SURVEY....2-1
2.1 Background....................................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Objectives of the Baseline Survey ............................................................................................2-1
2.3 Baseline Survey Design ...............................................................................................................2-1
2.3.1 Baseline Survey Team.........................................................................................................2-1
2.3.2 Sampling and Sample size ...................................................................................................2-2
2.3.3 Training and Pre-testing .....................................................................................................2-4
2.3.4 Data Collection Approaches.............................................................................................2-4
2.3.5 Data Entry and Analysis......................................................................................................2-6
2.3.6 Reporting ...............................................................................................................................2-6
2.4 Limitations for the Baseline Survey..........................................................................................2-6
3 RESULTS AND FINDINGS....................................................................................3-1
3.1 Findings on Agricultural Production and Processing............................................................3-1
3.1.1 Agricultural Production by Primary Producers.............................................................3-1
3.1.2 Quantity and Value of Products Marketed by Producers...........................................3-8
3.1.3 Post Production Processing by SMEs............................................................................3-13
3.1.4 Marketing amongst SMEs.................................................................................................3-18
3.2 Supply and Demand of Financial Services.............................................................................3-22
3.2.1 Supply of Financial Services .............................................................................................3-22
3.2.2 Demand for Financial Services amongst Producers...................................................3-26
3.2.3 Demand for Financial Services amongst SMEs............................................................3-30
3.3 Access to Training and Capacity Building.............................................................................3-35
3.3.1 Access to Trainings amongst Producers ......................................................................3-35
3.3.2 Access to Capacity Building amongst SMEs.................................................................3-38
3.3.3 Capacity Building for Financial Institutions ..................................................................3-41
3.4 Baseline Values for Program Indicators................................................................................3-42
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................4-1
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY, 2016
iii
4.1 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Conclusions on Agricultural Production and Marketing.............................................4-1
4.1.2 Conclusions on Post-Production Processing and Marketing .....................................4-1
4.1.3 Conclusions of Financial Services.....................................................................................4-2
4.1.4 Conclusions on Capacity Building Services....................................................................4-3
4.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................4-4
5 ANNEXES ................................................................................................................5-1
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY, 2016
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Baseline Survey Team Composition .....................................................................................2-1
Table 2-2: Sample Size .................................................................................................................................2-3
Table 2-3: Adjusted and Achieved Sample Sizes....................................................................................2-4
Table 2-4: Team Organization and Sample Allocations.......................................................................2-5
Table 3-1: Major Produced Fruits Vegetables and Spices....................................................................3-1
Table 3-2: Average Volumes of Major Produced Fruits, Vegetables and Spices............................3-2
Table 3-3: Average Number of Poultry Stocks......................................................................................3-3
Table 3-4: Frequency of Purchasing Poultry Feeds...............................................................................3-4
Table 3-5: Average Monthly Quantity and Value of Poultry Feeds Purchased...............................3-5
Table 3-6: Main Feed Bought/Produced by Farmers.............................................................................3-5
Table 3-7: Average Monthly/Annual Quantities and Value of Feed Purchased by Type ..............3-6
Table 3-8: Monthly Labor Size and Cost Amongst Producers...........................................................3-7
Table 3-9: Average Value of Commodities Marketed by Fruit, Vegetables and Spices producers
......................................................................................................................................................3-8
Table 3-10: Average Annual Incomes for Fruits, Vegetables and Spices Producers......................3-8
Table 3-11: Annual Average Revenue from Poultry Product Sales by Product Type ...................3-9
Table 3-12: Average Annual Incomes for Poultry Producers...........................................................3-10
Table 3-13: Number of Producers with Formal Or Informal Contracts by Product..................3-11
Table 3-14: Volumes and Values of Fruits and Vegetables Sold on Contract...............................3-12
Table 3-15: Number of Farmers with Formal or Informal Contracts Per Poultry Products....3-12
Table 3-16: Commodities Sold on Contracts by Poultry Producers..............................................3-12
Table 3-17: Average Monthly Quantities and Value of Raw Materials Purchased by Fruits, 
Vegetables and Spices Processors......................................................................................3-14
Table 3-18: Annual Average Quantities and Values for Raw Materials Purchased by Processors3-
14
Table 3-19: Major Fruits, Vegetables and Spices Products Processed............................................3-16
Table 3-20: Average Monthly Quantities and Value of Raw Materials Used by Poultry Feed 
Manufacturers.........................................................................................................................3-17
Table 3-21: Average Monthly Poultry Raw Materials Used in Poultry Feeds Manufacturing ....3-17
Table 3-22: Average Poultry Feed Production Capacities.................................................................3-18
Table 3-23: Annual Quantity and Value of Commodities Sold by SMEs Involved in Fruits, 
Vegetables and Spice Processing.........................................................................................3-19
Table 3-24: Average Monthly Quantities and Value of Poultry Feeds Sold by Poultry Feed 
Manufacturers.........................................................................................................................3-19
Table 3-25: Annual Quantities and Value of Feeds Sold by SMEs Involved in Poultry Feed 
Manufacturing..........................................................................................................................3-20
Table 3-26: Category of Financial Institutions Sampled .....................................................................3-22
Table 3-27: Percentage and Value of Agricultural Portfolios............................................................3-23
Table 3-28: Major Agribusiness Loan Clients, Loan Products and Value of Loans in the Last One 
Year for Financial Institutions..............................................................................................3-24
Table 3-29: Lease financing to Agribusiness clients ............................................................................3-25
Table 3-30: Loan terms and conditions for vegetable and fruits producers.................................3-30
Table 3-31: Value of Start-up Capital in USD ......................................................................................3-30
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY, 2016
v
Table 3-32: Average Loan Sizes Borrowed by SMEs..........................................................................3-32
Table 3-33: Trainings Demanded and Offered to Producers...........................................................3-36
Table 3-34: Main Challenges in Accessing Training for Producers..................................................3-38
Table 3-35: Trainings Preferred and Offered to SMEs.......................................................................3-39
Table 3-36: Current Training offered to Financial Institutions Employees and Preferred Training 
Needs by Financial Institutions............................................................................................3-42
Table 3-37: Baseline Values for Program Indicators.............................................................................3-1
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY, 2016
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Data collecting approach........................................................................................................2-5
Figure 3-1: Category of poultry reared ...................................................................................................3-3
Figure 3-2: Sources of Poultry Feeds .......................................................................................................3-4
Figure 3-3: Challenges Faced by Poultry Farmers in Accessing Poultry Feeds...............................3-6
Figure 3-4: Challenges with Labor amongst Producers .......................................................................3-7
Figure 3-5: Poultry Products Sold by Sampled Poultry Farmers........................................................3-9
Figure 3-6: Market Outlets for Fruits, Vegetables and Spices Producers......................................3-10
Figure 3-7: Market Outlets for Poultry Products................................................................................3-11
Figure 3-8: Type of Processors................................................................................................................3-13
Figure 3-9: Major Raw Materials Procured by Fruits, Vegetables/Spices Processors..................3-15
Figure 3-10: Sources of Raw Materials for Fruits, Vegetables and Spices Processors................3-15
Figure 3-11: Average Daily Poultry Feed Processing Production Capacities and Capacity 
Utilization (MT) ......................................................................................................................3-16
Figure 3-13: Major Market Outlets for Fruits, Vegetables and Spices Processors......................3-20
Figure 3-14: Major Market Outlets for Poultry Feed Manufactures...............................................3-21
Figure 3-15: Marketing Challenges for SMEs........................................................................................3-22
Figure 3-16: Major Agricultural Financing Products............................................................................3-23
Figure 3-17: Average Agricultural Portfolio at Risk............................................................................3-24
Figure 3-18: Major Agricultural Value Chains Financed by Non-bank Financial Institutions.....3-25
Figure 3-19: Challenges/Risks in Providing Agribusiness Financing .................................................3-26
Figure 3-20: Sources of Start-up Capital for Agricultural Producers..............................................3-27
Figure 3-21: Major Financial needs for Fruits, Vegetables and Spices Producers.........................3-27
Figure 3-22: Major Financial Needs for Poultry Producers...............................................................3-28
Figure 3-23: Rates of Borrowing amongst Producers........................................................................3-29
Figure 3-24: Sources of Loans for Poultry Farmers and Fruits & vegetables/Spices Farmers...3-29
Figure 3-25: Sources of Start-up Capital amongst SMEs....................................................................3-31
Figure 3-26: Access to Loans amongst SMEs........................................................................................3-31
Figure 3-27: Sources of Loans for SMEs................................................................................................3-32
Figure 3-28: Financial Needs for SMEs...................................................................................................3-33
Figure 3-29: Usage of Loans/Borrowed Funds amongst SMEs.........................................................3-34
Figure 3-30: Access to Leasing Services................................................................................................3-34
Figure 3-31: Challenges in Accessing Finances by SMEs ....................................................................3-35
Figure 3-32: Access to Training amongst Producers..........................................................................3-36
Figure 3-33: Major Providers of Training and Extension Services to Producers .........................3-37
Figure 3-34: Frequency of contact with Training and Extension Service Providers Amongst 
Producers.................................................................................................................................3-37
Figure 3-35: Access to Training amongst SME Employees................................................................3-38
Figure 3-36: Major Providers of Training Services to SMEs..............................................................3-40
Figure 3-37: Frequency of Training amongst SMEs.............................................................................3-40
Figure 3-38: Main Challenges in Accessing Training for Fruits & Vegetables/Spices and Poultry 
Feed Manufacturers...............................................................................................................3-41
Figure 3-39: Access to Training amongst Financial Institutions Employees...................................3-41
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY, 2016
vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document comprises a baseline survey report for the KASI Agriventures program in 
Tanzania. The three year program is being implemented by Small Enterprises Assistance Funds 
(SEAF) and is funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 
Overall, the KASI Agriventures program will contribute towards achievement of USDA’s
Strategic Objective 1 which is Increased Agricultural Productivity and Strategic Objective 2 which is 
Expanded Trade of Agricultural Products (into Domestic, Regional, and International Markets). The 
major goal of the KASI Agriventures program is therefore to strengthen the agricultural sector 
in Tanzania by adding value to agribusiness investees and their supply chain of small holder 
farmers in order to increase agricultural productivity and expand the trade of agricultural 
products.
The objectives of this baseline survey were; (1) to establish the baseline values for the program 
indicators. The baseline was designed to collect the data needed to track indicators in the 
program’s Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) over the life of the program. (2) To collect the 
necessary data for establishing or validating the indicator targets described in the PMP; and (3) 
to capture any additional data that should be tracked during the course of the program period. 
Respondents for the baseline survey were selected using stratified and proportionate random 
sampling methods. The strata (and sub-strata) were based on the categories (and sub￾categories) of key KASI Agriventures target beneficiaries and partners. A total of 323 
respondents were interviewed including 134 individual poultry keepers, 137 fruits, vegetables or 
spices producers, 26 SMEs involved in manufacturing poultry feeds and 10 SMEs involved in 
processing fruits as well as 12 non-bank financial institutions. This was despite a number of 
limitations which meant that some target respondents were not achieved.
Total annual volumes of fruits, vegetables and spices sold by sampled respondents in the last 
one year averaged 10.3 MT for fruits, 25.6 MT for vegetables and 1.3 MT of spices. Fruits, 
vegetables and spice producers marketed approximately sold approximately 10.3 tons of fruits, 
25.6 tons of vegetables and 1.3 tons of spices. Within the last one year, poultry producers 
purchased an average of 23.3 tons of feeds valued at USD.11,486. In return, poultry producers 
earned an average of USD.13,148. 
Producers were however, not organized for marketing purposes and are therefore unable to 
access high end markets. This is indicated by the choice of local market outlets as well as the 
low quantities marketed through contractual arrangements with buyers. With better organized 
marketing, producers are more likely to access more formalized (and often more lucrative) 
markets. This may be a strategy that the KASI Agriventures can use to improve access to new 
markets; which is one of the program indicators. 
SMEs procured raw materials from among others small-scale producers, aggregators and 
middlemen. On average, each SME involved in processing of fruits purchased an average of 
1,404 tons of raw materials per year valued at USD.72,336 annually. Fruits, vegetables and 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY, 2016
viii
spices processors converted fruits into juices, pulp, canned or dried products; vegetables into 
pastes and canned products while spices were dried and ground into powders. Within the last 
year, each of the fruits, vegetables and spice processors sold an average of 481 tons of fruits 
and fruit products valued at USD 342,594, 268 tons of vegetable products valued at USD 
246,900 and 1.4 tons of spices valued at approximately USD 30,080. On the other hand, each 
SME involved in poultry feed manufacturing procured 236 tons of raw materials mainly from 
aggregators, wholesalers and middlemen. These were used to produce an average of 85.7 tons 
of assorted feeds per month. Each poultry feed manufacturer sold an average of 1,008 tons of 
feed valued at USD. 434, 316. SMEs mainly sold their products in the domestic market (100% 
for poultry feed manufactures and 79% for fruits, vegetables and spices processors).
Distributors were a major outlet for the SMEs products. These can be used by the KASI 
Agriventures program to improve targeting and linkages. For example ensuring that they 
distribute only high quality poultry feeds or to specific target consumers; particularly since SMEs 
involved in poultry feed manufacturing noted that competition with low quality feeds is a major 
challenge. 
Non- bank financial institutions (MFIs, Community banks and leasing companies) in Tanzania, 
offered various products including those targeted by the KASI Agriventures program i.e term 
loans and leasing. While term loans were common, leasing products were limited to a few 
organizations. On average, agricultural portfolios as a percentage of the total portfolios were 
approximately 22.3% which is comparable to the average of 25% I Tanzania. However, suppliers 
still considered agricultural lending to be relatively risky with a total of 16% of the agricultural 
portfolio being at risk.
Out of an average of 743 loan clients per institution, non-bank financial institutions, offered a 
higher number of loans to associations/co-operatives or groups (477) within the last year and 
lowest number to corporate clients (6). The high number of group based loans is consistent 
with the group based lending approaches which are preferred by non-bank financial institutions. 
While the low number of corporate clients may indicate a low preference to lend to corporate 
clients, it may also suggest that non-bank financial institutions do not have enough funds to lend 
to corporate clients; who ordinarily require more funding compared to individuals or groups. 
KASI Agriventures program targets fruits, vegetables and spices as well as poultry value chains. 
But as expected, the baseline survey noted that non-bank financial institutions mostly financed 
cereals, vegetables and pulses in that order. This is because cereals and pulses are also the 
major categories of value chains that are produced by majority of Tanzanians. However, fruits 
and vegetables/spices as well as poultry provide major opportunities for financing as they are 
considered commercial products. 
Despite producers having a number of financial needs, demand for borrowings was low as only 
31% of the poultry keepers and 14% of the fruits, vegetables and spices producers had ever 
borrowed loans. These low rates of borrowing were however, associated with unfavorable 
terms of conditions set by financial institutions. Demand for loans amongst SMEs was higher 
with majority borrowing to fund raw materials supplies/stocks as well as product distribution 
and marketing costs. On average, SMEs involved in fruits, vegetables and spices borrowed loans 
valued at USD. 10,230 while those involved in manufacturing of poultry feeds borrowed an 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY, 2016
ix
average of USD. 19,210. Rates of borrowing for fruits, vegetables and spices processors was 
however lower at only 30% compared to 77% for SMEs engaging in poultry feed manufacturing. 
Supply and demand of lease financing products was very low for both producers and SMEs as 
on average sampled organizations had offered 10 leases within the last one year. Only 10% of 
fruits, vegetables and spices processors and 12% of poultry feed manufacturers had ever 
accessed leasing products. The major assets financed included plant and machinery, industrial
and farm equipments as well as vehicles. This presents a gap which the KASI Agriventures 
program can fill in by facilitating increased access to leasing services. 
With regard to capacity building, access to training and extension services amongst producers 
was low. Only 27 % and 32% of fruits, vegetables and spices producers and poultry producers 
respectively, had accessed training and extension services in the last one year. This was mainly 
associated with inadequate supply of providers. The major training and extension providers to 
producers were government extension staff, private extension staff and NGOs but contact with 
the trainings and extension service providers was rather infrequent with majority of the 
producers interacting with providers on monthly basis or longer intervals. 
In comparison, access to capacity building amongst SMEs within the last one year was relatively 
high at 80% for fruits, vegetables and spices processors and 63% for poultry feed manufacturers. 
Improved processing technologies, product quality standards and marketing were the main 
training offered to staff of vegetables, fruits and spices processors. For poultry feed 
manufacturers, feed manufacturing technologies and product quality standards management 
were the main training modules offered. major training service providers to SMEs were private 
companies/individuals and NGOs/donor programs. This findings suggests that it will be 
important for CEED to liaise with companies, individual experts and NGOs and donor 
programs that are involved in provide training to SMEs.
The baseline survey makes a number of recommendations key amongst them the following: (1) 
re-looking into the target value chains as some target value chains were not common amongst 
producers. this will ensure that the program is able to meet its targets. In absence of this, the 
program will have to review its targets on the production volumes and values for target value 
chains; (2) working with program partners such as TAHA and TAFMA to organize target 
producers into groups. This will ease the processes of linkages as well as facilitate contractual 
arrangements and trainings; (3) With regard to provision of financial services the program may 
need to consider inclusion of commercial banks since they have a wider outreach and were 
used as preferred sources of borrowing by both producers and SMEs. Alternatively, the KASI 
Agriventures program will need to increase the number of non-bank financial institutions 
involved in the program with special considerations to outreach within the target regions; (4) 
With regard to program performance indicators, the baseline survey recommends that some of 
the program targets may need to be revised or redistributed. Recommendations for each of the 
indicators are contained in Table 3.31
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 About the KASI Agriventures Program
This document comprises a baseline survey report for KASI Agriventures, a three-year program
in Tanzania implemented by the Small Enterprise Assistance Funds (SEAF). Through KASI 
Agriventures, SEAF will provide financing to small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) in the 
agricultural sector of Tanzania. The program will invest in agribusinesses in three key sectors 
including (i) Poultry Feed Production, (ii) Fruit/Vegetable/Spice Processing, and (iii) SME 
Lending. The program will also establish a Center for Entrepreneurship and Executive 
Development (CEED), through which SEAF will provide technical assistance and training to 
agribusiness SMEs, including investees. For the Fruit/Vegetable/Spice processor(s), SEAF will 
establish a mentorship program with international partners to support investees in accessing 
international markets. SEAF will also provide specific technical assistance as needed to the 
suppliers and/or customers of these agribusiness SMEs.
The project is being funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) through its 
Food for Progress Program. This baseline survey was conducted as per the Terms of Reference 
(TOR) attached as Annex 1.
1.2 Objectives of the KASI Agriventures Program
Overall, the KASI Agriventures program will contribute towards achievement of USDA’s
Strategic Objective 1 which is Increased Agricultural Productivity and Strategic Objective 
2 which is Expanded Trade of Agricultural Products (into Domestic, Regional, and 
International Markets).
The major goal of the KASI Agriventures program is therefore "to strengthen the agricultural 
sector in Tanzania by adding value to agribusiness investees and their supply chain of small 
holder farmers in order to increase agricultural productivity and expand the trade of 
agricultural products".
The specific objectives of the KASI Agriventures program are as follows:
• To help investees’ (agricultural SMEs) access new markets and increase revenues, which 
in turn will create jobs in their communities;
• To help smallholder farmers providing raw inputs to fruit/vegetable/spice processing 
investee(s) to benefit from increased incomes as well as knowledge transfer and 
technological improvements through SEAF and its partners; and 
• To help smallholder and medium-sized farmers (customers of the investee(s) producing 
animal feeds) to benefit from access to higher quality feed products, thereby making a 
significant impact on the value chain in Tanzania.
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
1-2
1.3 Program Activities and Outcomes 
Specifically, KASI Agriventures will be involved in the following activities:
i. Develop poultry feed processing capacity through an investment into small and 
medium-sized poultry feed producer;
ii. Develop horticultural processing capacity through an investment into a small and 
medium-sized fruit, vegetable, and/or spice processing facility;
iii. Enhance agricultural finance using a lease-to-own lending mechanism through an 
investment in a finance company that provides equipment leasing finance or working 
capital to agribusiness SMEs, to increase affordability of farm equipment and to 
increase availability of working capital loans to farmers;
iv. Establish a Center for Entrepreneurship and Executive Development (CEED) to 
provide technical assistance to poultry feed producers, fruit/vegetable/spice 
processors, and other agribusiness SMEs as well as their suppliers and/or customers; 
v. Expand trade of agricultural products through a mentorship program between 
international corporations and fruit/vegetable/spice processor(s), aimed at bringing 
the fruit/vegetable/spice processor(s) products up to international standards; and 
thus increase access to international markets.
The program outcomes include:
• Increased agricultural productivity;
• Increased leverage of private sector resources in agricultural production and post￾harvest processing;
• Increased capacity and knowledge of smallholder farmers involved in agricultural 
production;
• Increased use of improved agricultural technologies and techniques;
• Increased availability of improved inputs;
• Increased use of financial services;
• Increased quality of post-production agricultural products; and
• Expanded trade of agricultural products. 
1.4 Target Value Chains
The KASI Agriventures program will target fruits, vegetables and spices value chains as well as 
the poultry value chain. Further, through an investment in an SME lending vehicle, KASI 
Agriventures may also be able to support farmers and agribusiness entrepreneurs in other 
agricultural value chains. 
1.5 Target Beneficiaries and Partners
KASI Agriventures program will directly benefit an estimated 40 agribusiness SMEs, 18,040 
smallholder farmers, and indirectly benefit 90,200 members of farming families in Tanzania1
.
1 These numbers are subject to change based upon baseline findings. Indirect beneficiaries are based on the 
assumption that each household has an average membership of 5. 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
1-3
The target beneficiaries for the KASI Agriventures program will include already existing SMEs 
engaged in poultry feed manufacturing as well as those engaging in processing of fruits, 
vegetables and/or spices for export. Beneficiaries of the program will also include poultry 
producers (customers of feed manufacturers) as well as fruits, vegetables and spice producers 
(suppliers to fruit, vegetables/spices processors). In order to offer equipment leasing finance, 
short-term working capital, and short term loans to agribusiness SMEs, KASI will target non￾bank financial institutions (NBFIs), community banks and leasing companies.
The program's key partners will include the Tanzanian Horticultural Association (TAHA), 
Tanzania Feed Manufacturers Association (TAFMA), Cargill Animal Nutrition and Tesco PLC.
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
2-1
2 METHODOLOGIES AND APPROACHES FOR THE BASELINE 
SURVEY
2.1 Background
The baseline survey for the KASI Agriventures program was conducted in the months of 
November and December, 2015. This chapter outlines the approach and methodologies that 
were used in conducting the baseline survey for the KASI Agriventures program in Tanzania. 
2.2 Objectives of the Baseline Survey
The objectives of the baseline survey were as follows:
• To establish the baseline values for the program indicators. The baseline was designed 
to collect the data needed to track indicators in the program’s Performance Monitoring 
Plan (PMP) over the life of the program;
• To collect the necessary data for establishing or validating the indicator targets 
described in the PMP; and
• To capture any additional data that should be tracked during the course of the program 
period.
2.3 Baseline Survey Design
The survey design involved use of semi-structured questionnaires to collect data from a sample 
of target respondents. These included SMEs involved in manufacturing poultry feeds, SMEs 
involved in processing fruits/vegetables/spices; smallholder farmers involved in 
fruits/vegetables/spices production; smallholder farmers involved in poultry keeping; and target 
financial institutions. Data was also collected from potential program partners using key 
informant interview guides.
2.3.1 Baseline Survey Team
The baseline survey team comprised of 5 key experts and 17 researchers. The following key 
AFREDEC team members executed the baseline survey (Table 2-1).
Table 2-1: Baseline Survey Team Composition
No Team Name Nationality Position
1 Key 
Experts/ 
Field Team 
Leaders
Joel Maina Kenyan Project Director/Agricultural 
Economist
2 Samuel Kibuchi Kenyan Socio-Economist
3 Timothy Waweru Kenyan Overall team leader/ M&E Expert
4 Basili Liheta Tanzanian Agricultural Economist/Team 
leader Kilimanjaro & Arusha
5 Deo Seimu Tanzanian M& E Expert/Team Leader Dar es 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
2-2
No Team Name Nationality Position
Salaam
6 Morogoro 
& Pwani
Grace M. Thomas Tanzanian Researcher
7 Godwin Majahasi Tanzanian Researcher
8 Hamisi Suleiman Tanzanian Researcher
9 Iringa & 
Mbeya
Joanita Jonathan Tanzanian Researcher
10 Albert Godson Tanzanian Researcher
11 Amos Kashaija Tanzanian Researcher
12 Kilimanjaro 
& Arusha
Gaudence Kapinga Tanzanian Researcher
13 Pius Kirenga Tanzanian Researcher
14 Nelson Kileo Tanzanian Researcher
15 Brown Mamaya Tanzanian Researcher
16 Dar Es 
Salaam
Consensa Mauki Tanzanian Researcher
17 Edward Chapa Tanzanian Researcher
18 Rugazia Nyombi Tanzanian Researcher
19 Frank Cyprian Tanzanian Researcher
20 Pelesia Lyimo Tanzanian Researcher
21 Angel Mwanya Tanzanian Researcher
22 Nelson Lema Tanzanian Researcher
2.3.2 Sampling and Sample size
Respondents for the baseline survey were selected using stratified and proportionate random 
sampling methods. The strata (and sub-strata) were based on the categories (and sub￾categories) of key KASI Agriventures target beneficiaries and partners. First, a sampling frame 
was developed following mapping and listing of key program target beneficiaries operating in the 
target regions in Tanzania2
. This was based on the information obtained from document 
reviews and engaging with key stakeholders such as the Tanzania Horticultural Association 
(TAHA) and Tanzania Feed Manufacturers Association (TAFMA). The illustrative sampling 
frame is attached in Annex 2. Target respondents in each strata (and sub-strata) were then 
selected randomly from the sampling frame. 
A total sample size of 252 respondents was initially targeted3
. The initial targeted respondents 
included 50% of sampling frame for non-banking financial institutions and 30% of poultry feed 
manufacturers, and fruits, vegetables, spices processors (SMEs). The sample size for the 
individual poultry farmers and individual fruit, vegetable and spices farmers (producers) was 
determined using Cochran (1963:75) formula for calculating a representative sample for 
proportions where the population is large. The formula yielded a sample of 100 respondents in 
each category of producers. In each of the organizations/institutions selected, the key decision 
makers were targeted for interviews. 
2 Target regions for the KASI Agriventures program include, Dar es Salaam, Pwani, Morogoro, the Southern 
Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT) as well as Arusha and Kilimanjaro regions. 3 As per the program M&E plan
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
2-3
Table 2-2 below illustrates the initially proposed sample sizes for the various categories of 
respondents. 
Table 2-2: Sample Size
Category of 
respondents 
(Strata)
Sub-categories(Sub￾strata)
Data 
collection 
tools
Proposed 
sampling 
frame
Total 
targeted 
sample size
Non- Bank Financial institutions involved in 
agribusiness SME lending, equipment leasing, working 
capital and term loans
Semi-structured 
questionnaires
23 11
SMEs involved in poultry feed production Semi-structured 
questionnaires
33 11
SMEs involved in fruit, vegetable and spices processing Semi-structured 
questionnaires
67 22
Individual poultry farmers (producers) Semi-structured 
questionnaires
8,0004 100*
Individual fruit, vegetable and spices farmers 
(producers)
Semi-structured 
questionnaires
10,0005 100*
Other 
stakeholders 
agreed upon with 
SEAF such as 
Government 
officials, other 
relevant USG 
funded program 
s/projects (e.g. 
TAPP), Apex 
organizations (e.g. 
TAHA) -Key 
Tanzania Horticultural 
Association (TAHA)
Key informant 
interview (KII) 
guides/checklists 
(Qualitative 
research 
method).
1 1
Tanzania Agriculture Productivity 
Program (TAPP) 
1 1
Tanzania Private Sector 
Foundation (TPSF) Cluster 
Competitiveness Program
1 1
Tanzania Animal Feeds 
Manufacturers Association 
(TAFMA)
1 1
Southern Agricultural Growth 
Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT)
1 1
Ministry of Trade and Industry 1 1
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and 
Co-operatives
1 1
Ministry of Livestock and 
Fisheries
1 1
Total 18,131 252
*Determined by Cochran (1963:75) formula
However, before the actual data collection exercise, the sampling frame was adjusted after 
confirming location of the organizations to be within the target regions. Additionally, a 30% 
margin of the target respondents was added to the sample size for each stratum to compensate 
for any non-responses. The resultant sample size and the actual responses is presented in Table 
2-3 below. 
4 Based on program individual beneficiaries in the poultry value chain 5 Based on the program individual beneficiaries involved in fruits, vegetables and spices value chains
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
2-4
Table 2-3: Adjusted and Achieved Sample Sizes
Category Adjusted 
Sampling 
frame
Adjusted 
sample 
Size
Achieved 
sample 
size
Percent 
Achieved
Individual poultry producers 8,000 130 134 103%
Individual fruits/vegetables/spices 
producers
10,000 130 137 105%
SMEs involved in poultry feed 
manufacturing
64 21 26 124%
SMEs involved in 
fruits/vegetables/spices processing
31 13 10 77%
Financial institutions (NBFIs, 
community banks and leasing 
companies)
20 13 12 92%
Other program partners 8 8 4 50%
Total 18,123 315 323 103%
A total of 323 respondents were interviewed against an adjusted target of 313 respondents 
resulting to an overall achievement of 103% of the adjusted sample. However, the targeted 
sample size was not achieved for some categories especially, other program partners, SMEs 
involved in fruits, vegetables and /or spices processing as well as non-bank financial institutions.
Some of the key limitations are outlined in section 2.4 below.
2.3.3 Training and Pre-testing
A two-day training for the research team was conducted on 26th and 27th November, 2015. The 
training exercise was meant to acquaint the researchers with the data collection tools as well as 
equip the researchers with the necessary data collection skills. Researchers were also given 
background data on the client (SEAF), and the KASI Agriventures program.
Training was followed by a one day pre-testing exercise on November 28, 2015. Pre-testing 
was conducted in four different areas neighboring Dar Es Salaam. These were Bagamoyo, 
Chanika, Mlandizi and Mkuranga. The sites were selected based on proximity to Dar es Salaam, 
the fact that they were major producer zones for poultry as well as fruits, spices and 
vegetables. A total of 17 respondents were interviewed during the pre-test. Pre-testing was 
designed to check on the logic flow of the data collection tools, approximate the time required 
to conduct an interview, check the understanding of the researchers and check for any 
ambiguous questions. After the training and pre-test exercise, the data collection tools were 
amended (questions changed, deleted, added, re-arranged or rephrased) as was found 
appropriate. The final data collection tools that were used are attached as Annex 3.
2.3.4 Data Collection Approaches
During data collection, researchers were split into four teams, each supervised by a key expert. 
Each team was allocated a proportion of target sample based on the prominence of the target 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
2-5
value chains in their respective areas. The eventual teams organization and the sample sizes are 
summarized in Table 2-4. 
Table 2-4: Team Organization and Sample Allocations
# Team Category Allocated Sample size
1 Dar Es Salaam 
and Coast
Financial institutions 12
Individual poultry farmers 40
Fruit/spice processors 13
Poultry feed manufacturers 15
2 Iringa Mbeya 
Team
Financial institutions 2
Individual poultry farmers 20
Fruit/spice processors 3
Individual fruit/spice farmer 55
Poultry feed manufacturers 2
3 Arusha and 
Kilimanjaro
Financial institutions 6
Individual poultry farmers 20
Fruit/spice processors 10
Individual fruit/spice farmer 45
Poultry feed manufacturers 12
4 Morogoro and 
Coast
Individual poultry farmers 60
Fruit/spice processors 3
Individual fruit/spice farmer 30
Poultry feed manufacturers 4
Total 352
NB: The allocated sample size is much higher compared to the target adjusted sample size of 315 
respondents
For each of the teams, data collection was pre-defined in three steps as shown in figure 2-1 
below.
Figure 2-1: Data collecting approach
The first step was to identify location of the target respondents as well as categorizing them as 
either individuals or organizations. In the case of organizations, the research team identified the 
contact person particularly the decision makers in the organization. The second step was to 
send out appointment requests. In cases where the respondents agreed to be interviewed on 
the spot, the interviews were conducted immediately but where interviewees preferred a later 
date, the researchers followed up as agreed. Team leaders were responsible for guiding the 
researchers as well as quality control of the data collected. 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
2-6
2.3.5 Data Entry and Analysis
Collected data was entered into Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) software by 
qualified data entry clerks6
. Separate data entry templates were developed for each group of 
respondents. The data was then cleaned to check for missing values, incorrectly entered data, 
inconsistent data and outliers. Data was analyzed using the SPSS software but for some cases 
data was exported to STATA software and analyzed to generate the required statistics. 
Different methods such as frequencies, descriptive statistics, cross tabulations and multiple 
responses analysis were used. Where necessary, data was re-coded and new variables 
generated, split or merged to arrive at the required results. To improve the quality (validity and 
reliability) of data, triangulation (comparison of data with other sources), was applied where
necessary.
2.3.6 Reporting
Results of the data analysis are presented in this baseline survey report. The report 
concentrates on information necessary to describe or generate baseline values for the program 
indicators. 
2.4 Limitations for the Baseline Survey
While the achievement of the overall target sample was exceeded, major limitations for the 
baseline survey included:
• Reluctance of some of the targeted organizations and institutions to grant interviews.
This was common for more formalized financial organizations and SMEs who cited 
confidentiality of information. Other organizations and institutions needed authorization 
to respond, delaying the interview process;
• Reluctance to provide some data, especially financial data, that was considered 
confidential, resulting in incomplete questionnaires and therefore incomplete data;
• Unavailability of key contact persons in the targeted organizations and institutions. In 
some cases, researchers were unable to secure appointments with key decision makers 
in the organizations and opted not to interview employees who were not involved in 
management; and
• Time limitations. Given that the data collection exercise was time bound, not all the 
responses were received within the set deadlines;
To address some of these limitations the consultant used the following approaches:
• Additional sample to cater for non-responses. As noted an additional 30% of the sample 
size was added so as to cater for any non-response that might occur during data 
collection
• Replacement of unavailable or unwilling respondents. Replacement was done by 
randomly selecting other organizations in the sampling frame or as encountered during 
the survey exercise; and 
6 All data entry and analysis was carried out at a central place to ensure homogeneity.
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
2-7
• Data triangulation. This included getting information from secondary sources such as 
relevant reports and literature to verify reliability and credibility of the survey data. 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-1
3 RESULTS AND FINDINGS
3.1 Findings on Agricultural Production and Processing
To generate baseline values for primary production, a total of 134 individual poultry keepers 
and 137 fruits, vegetables or spices producers were interviewed. In addition, 26 SMEs involved 
in manufacturing poultry feeds and 10 SMEs involved in processing fruits, vegetables and/or 
spices were interviewed to generate baseline values for post-production processing. The results 
are presented in the sub-sections that follow.
3.1.1 Agricultural Production by Primary Producers
3.1.1.1 Fruits, Vegetables and Spices Production
The KASI Agriventures program targets key fruits, vegetables and spices value chains in 
Tanzania. On average, sampled farmers have been producing fruits, vegetables or spices for 
about six and half years (6.5 years). Average land holding for sampled farmers was 3.4 acres (1.4 
hectares) out of which 2.6 acres (approximately 1 hectare) was dedicated to crop production; 
amongst them fruits, vegetables and spices. Amongst fruit value chains, pineapples were the 
most commonly produced followed by mangoes and lastly bananas. For vegetables, tomatoes 
were the most commonly produced, followed by onions, green pepper and carrots in that 
order. Only a few respondents produced spices with chilies being the most common. Other 
spices included paprika and vanilla. 
Table 3-1: Major Produced Fruits Vegetables and Spices 
Category Value chain N Percent
Fruits Pineapple 21 48.8%
Mango 10 23.3%
Oranges 4 9.3%
Watermelon 3 7.0%
Pawpaw 2 4.7%
Passion 2 4.7%
Banana 1 2.3%
Total fruits 43 100%
Vegetables Tomatoes7 85 49.7%
Onion 33 19.3%
Green Pepper(Capsicum) 31 18.1%
Carrots 13 7.6%
Okra 4 2.3%
Eggplant 3 1.8%
Butternut 1 0.6%
Cabbage 1 0.6%
7 While tomatoes are technically (botanically) classified as fruits, this report has classified tomatoes as vegetables 
based on their uses and understanding within the region. 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-2
Category Value chain N Percent
Total vegetables 171 100%
Spices Chili 4 50.0%
Paprika 3 37.5%
Vanilla 1 12.5%
Cinnamon 0 0.00%
Total Spices 8 100%
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
Within the last 1 year, sampled respondents produced 10.3 tons of various fruits, 25.6 tons of
vegetables and 1.3 tons of spices. Quantities produced for various categorizes are as shown in 
Table 3-2 below.
Table 3-2: Average Volumes of Major Produced Fruits, Vegetables and Spices
Produce Category Commodity Total Annual Production 
(Kgs)
Fruits Pineapple 4,255
Passion 08
Mango 5,402
Watermelon 0
Pawpaw 600
Total fruits 10,257
Vegetables Carrots 5,268
Tomatoes 14,063
Onion 4,097
Green pepper 2,049
Cucumber 105
Total Vegetables 25,582
Spices Vanilla 12
Cinnamon 0
Paprika 48
Chili 1,200
Total Spices 1,260
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
3.1.1.2 Poultry Production
On average, sampled farmers had been rearing poultry for eight and a half years (8.5 years). The 
percentage of farmers with less than 50 birds has decreased from 11.7% at the start (8.5 years 
ago) to 3% at the time of the baseline survey. Meanwhile, the number of respondents (poultry 
farmers) that were keeping more than 200 birds had increased from 34% to 57% during the 
past 8.5 years (Table 3-3). This implies that poultry stocks have been increasing over time. 
8 Despite water melons and passion being produced, none of the respondents indicated to have harvested within the 
last 1 year.
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-3
Table 3-3: Average Number of Poultry Stocks
# Number Starting Point9 At the Baseline
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
1 <10 6 4.5% 0 0%
2 10-50 11 8.2% 4 3%
3 51-100 38 28% 39 29%
4 101-200 33 25% 15 11%
5 >200 46 34% 76 57%
Total 134 100% 134 100%
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
Of the sampled farmers, majority (76%) mostly reared improved breeds of chicken. A total of 
21% of the sampled farmers kept indigenous chicken while 13% kept both indigenous and 
improved breeds (Figure 3-1).
21%
76%
13%
Category of Poultry Reared
Category of Poultry Reared
Indigenous (n=28) Improved breed (n=102) Mixed indigenous and Impr 
Figure 3-1: Category of poultry reared
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
The KASI Agriventures program targets to increase production of poultry by improving access 
to quality and affordable poultry feeds for poultry producers. From the baseline survey, poultry 
producers purchased feeds frequently, with majority of the respondents (44%) having to 
purchase at least on a weekly basis, and another 24% purchasing feeds every 2 weeks. The 
survey also found that 15% of respondents purchased feeds on a monthly basis. This implies 
that there is high demand for poultry feeds but may also point to the fact that producers 
purchase feeds in smaller quantities but do so more frequently.
9 Starting point is on average eight and a half years before the baseline period.
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-4
Table 3-4: Frequency of Purchasing Poultry Feeds
Frequency of Purchasing Feeds N Percent
Weekly 58 44%
Every 2 weeks 32 24%
Monthly 20 15%
Daily 9 6%
Three times per Month 4 3%
Three times per Week 2 2%
Twice a Week 2 2%
Quarterly (every 3 Months) 2 2%
Irregularly 2 2%
Total 131 100%
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
The major sources of poultry feeds for majority of the respondents were feed manufacturers 
(37%), feed retailers (31%) and feed wholesalers/distributors at 15.7%. It was also noted that 
approximately 22% of the respondents manufactured poultry feeds on-farm as a way of 
minimizing the costs of production. 
22%
37%
16%
3
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
 
Sources of Manufactured Feeds
Own production (n=29) Feed manufacturer (n
Feed wholesalers (n=21) Feed retailers (n=42)
Figure 3-2: Sources of Poultry Feeds
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
Results also indicate that feed manufacturers played a major role not only in supplying feeds to 
producers but also in providing other services. Of the 61% of respondents that received other 
services from feed manufacturers, 67% received drugs and vaccines, 13% received day old 
chicks, 11% received poultry equipment and tools, and 9% received extension services from 
feed manufacturers. This creates an avenue for KASI Agriventures to use manufacturers for 
improving access to other poultry production inputs needed by poultry producers in addition 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-5
to poultry feeds. On average, poultry producers purchased approximately 1.9 tons of different 
types of poultry feeds valued at USD 957 per month. This would translate to an average of 23.3 
tons valued at USD 11,486 per year10.
Table 3-5: Average Monthly Quantity and Value of Poultry Feeds Purchased
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Quantity of Feed Purchased (Kgs) 134 200 27,500 1,938
Value of Feed Purchased (USD) 133 7 13,302 957
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
The major types of poultry feeds used by poultry producers (whether purchased or prepared 
on the farm) included chick mash, broilers mash and growers mash as mentioned in 60%, 49% 
and 42% of the cases. Other types included layers mash and maize bran. While these results 
suggest that farmers may be producing more broilers than layers, it should also be noted that 
broilers are heavy feeders compared to layers.
Table 3-6: Main Feed Bought/Produced by Farmers
Feed type Percentage of farmers buying/producing N
Chick mash 60% 80
Growers mash 42% 56
Layers mash 37% 50
Broilers mash and pellets 49 % 66
Maize bran/swam 10% 14
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
Although majority (60%) of the poultry producers purchased chick mash, farmers bought higher 
quantities of broilers and layers mash. These two feed types also comprised the highest costs. 
Table 3-7 shows the average monthly and annual quantities as well as value of purchases. 
10 Average quantities and values was calculated the regardless of the type of feed purchased. This was done by 
creating two new variables from the data set which was a summation of all quantities and value of feeds purchased 
for each of the respondents. This was then analyzed to give a minimum, maximum and an average. 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-6
Table 3-7: Average Monthly/Annual Quantities and Value of Feed Purchased by Type
Feed type N Average 
Quantity 
Purchased per 
Month (Kgs)
Average 
Cost per 
Month 
(USD)
Average 
Quantity 
Purchased per 
Year (Kgs)
Average 
Annual 
Cost (USD)
Chick mash 80 492 373 5,906 4,476
Growers mash 56 1,162 734 13,946 8,808
Layers mash 50 1,128 887 13,531 10,643
Broilers mash 61 1,290 844 15,475 10,128
Broilers pellets 5 480 270 5,760 3,240
Maize bran/swam 14 268 96 3,214 1,152
Homemade 
ration
25 823 77 9,880 924
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
The major challenge regarding access to poultry feed was the high cost of feed as mentioned by 
90% of the respondents. Other challenges included poor quality of feeds as well as unavailability 
of poultry feeds. These responses validate the rationale for the KASI Agriventures program’s
interventions focused on lowering the cost of feeds as well as improving the quality of poultry 
feeds supplied to poultry farmers by manufacturers. 
31%
16%
Type of 
challenge
Challenges Faced by Poultry Farmers in Accessing 
Feeds 
Feed unavailability (n=21) Poor quality feeds (n=41) Hig 
Figure 3-3: Challenges Faced by Poultry Farmers in Accessing Poultry Feeds
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
3.1.1.3 Access and Use of Farm Labor amongst Producers
Fruits, vegetables and spice producers employed an average of four permanent laborers and five
casual laborers in addition to two of the household members for a total of 11 laborers. The 
total monthly cost of labor was estimated at USD 490. Approximately 67% of the poultry 
producers employed labor, on either casual or permanent terms, in addition to two family 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-7
members. On average, poultry keepers incurred approximately USD 361 per month on labor, 
with casual labor having the highest share of costs. The average number of family, permanent 
and casual labor was two, making a total of six laborers per month (Table 3.8). 
Table 3-8: Monthly Labor Size and Cost Amongst Producers
Labor source Fruit, Vegetables and Spices Producers Poultry Producers
Average 
Number of 
Employees
Total Monthly Labor 
Cost (USD)
Average 
Number of 
employees
Total Monthly 
labor cost
(USD)
Family labor 2 100 2 100
Permanent labor 4 265 2 122
Casual labor 5 128 2 139
Total 11 490 6 361
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
Despite the fact that producers employed labor, they faced a number of challenges, key 
amongst them being the lack of experienced labor, high cost of labor and unavailability of labor 
especially during the peak seasons11 (Figure 3-4).
18.2%
6.9%
31.3%
44.3%
38.6% 39.7%
7.4% 4.6%
 
Challenges with Labor among Producers
Unavailability of labour during peak seasons (n=41)
Lack of experienced labour (n=113)
High Cost of Labour(n=120)
Dishonest labourers (n=19)
Figure 3-4: Challenges with Labor amongst Producers
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
11 Unavailability of labor during the peak season was not a major challenge for poultry producers as it was 
mentioned by only 6.9% of the respondents.
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-8
3.1.2 Quantity and Value of Products Marketed by Producers
Within the last year, fruits, vegetables and spice producers that were surveyed sold 
approximately 3.4 tons of fruits, 8.5 tons of vegetables and 0.6 tons of spices on average. Most 
of these were marketed as raw materials (Table 3-9).
Table 3-9: Average Value of Commodities Marketed by Fruit, Vegetables and Spices 
producers
Produce 
Category
Commodity Quantity Marketed 
per Year (Kgs)
Weight weighted 
quantity 
(kgs)
Fruits Pineapple 4,255 49% 2,076
Passion 0 5% 0
Mango 5,402 23% 1,259
Pawpaw 600 5% 28.2
Total Fruits 3,363
Vegetables Carrots 5,268 8% 400
Tomatoes 14,063 50% 6,989
Onion 4,097 19% 791
Green pepper 2,049 18% 371
Cucumber 105 1% 1
Total Vegetables 8,552
Spices Vanilla 12 12.50% 1.5
Paprika 48 38% 18
Chili 1,200 50% 600
Total Spices 1,260 620
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
Within the last year, fruits, vegetables and spices producers earned an average of USD12,348 
per producer with a minimum of USD 450 and a maximum of USD 361,860 (Table 3-10)
12. 
Table 3-10: Average Annual Incomes for Fruits, Vegetables and Spices Producers
Annual Incomes N Minimum Maximum Mean
Annual Incomes - TZS 115 967,500 778,000,000 26,548,995
Annual Incomes - USD 115 450 361,860 12,348
In comparison, poultry producers marketed various products including mature birds, eggs and 
manure as reported by 68%, 49% and 37% of the poultry producers respectively. Only 19% of 
the sampled producers were selling chicks (Figure 3-5).
12 Calculated using similar approach as Table 3-5
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-9
68%
19%
49%
37%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Products Sold by Poultry Farmers
Ma 
Chi 
Egg 
Ma 
Figure 3-5: Poultry Products Sold by Sampled Poultry Farmers
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
While majority of the respondents sold live hen and eggs, the average annual revenues were 
higher for those who sold chicks (13% of the respondents), with an average revenue of 
approximately USD11,500. On average, those who sold live hen (60% of the respondents), 
earned USD 9,861 annually, while those who sold live cocks (28% of the respondents) earned 
an average of USD 8,175 annually. Those who sold eggs (46%) earned an average of USD 6,645. 
Table 3-11 shows the average quantities and value of chicken products sold by poultry 
producers. 
Table 3-11: Annual Average Revenue from Poultry Product Sales by Product Type
Type of Product N Minimum Maximum Mean
Total Revenue per year- Live bird cock 37 56 139,535 8,175
Total Revenue per year-Live bird hen 81 56 184,186 9,861
Total Revenue per year- Eggs 62 45 55,174 6,645
Total Revenue per year- Chicks 18 56 77,395 11,497
Total Revenue per year- Manure 40 4 10,047 831
Total Revenue per year- Hatching of 
Eggs
1 8,372 8,372 8,372
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
Since respondents sold one or more of the poultry products, poultry producers earned an 
average of USD13,148 annually as shown in Table 3-12 below.
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-10
Table 3-12: Average Annual Incomes for Poultry Producers13
Annual Incomes N Minimum Maximum Mean
Annual Incomes - TZs 134 406,000 396,000,000 28,267,717
Annual Incomes - USD 134 189 184,186 13,148
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
3.1.2.1 Marketing Outlets for Producers
Approximately 40% of respondents identified retailers at local markets as their primary buyers, 
followed by 27% of respondents who indicated individuals at the household level as their major 
market outlet. Approximately 13% sold to wholesalers and larger aggregators with an additional 
10% selling to middlemen and brokers. The survey also found that only 8% of the sampled 
respondents were able to access higher-end markets such as exporters (5%) and processors
(3%). This may be attributed to the fact that processors expect a certain level of uniformity and 
quality, which smallholder farmers may find difficult to meet.
27%
40%
13% 10%
5% 3% 1%
Outlet
Market Outlets for Fruits, Vegetables & Spices Producers
Individual customers/households (n=71) Retailers at the local markets (n=99)
Wholesalers/aggregators at the local markets (n=33) Middlemen/brokers (n=25)
Exportersor their agents (n=12) Processors or their agents (n=5)
Shops/supermarkets (n=3)
Figure 3-6: Market Outlets for Fruits, Vegetables and Spices Producers
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
The major market outlets for poultry products are as shown in Figure 3.7 below. Survey results 
indicate that a majority of the producers sold their products within their localities either to 
individual customers or retailers at the local markets. Similar to fruits, vegetables and spice
producers, fewer poultry producers accessed higher-end markets including wholesalers and 
large off-takers as well as supermarkets and hotels. 
13 Calculated using similar approach as Table 3-5, 3-10
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-11
48.5%
34.2%
5.4%
10.4%
1.5%
Market Outlets for Poultry Products
Individual 
customers/households/far 
Retailers at the local mar 
Wholesalers/large off-tak 
Shops/supermarkets (n=2
R t t /h t l ( =3)
Figure 3-7: Market Outlets for Poultry Products
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
Such a disparity may be as a result of lack of organized marketing. Majority of the poultry 
producers sold their products as individuals and only 15.7% were members of a producer and 
marketing group. Out of those who belonged to a group, only 30% noted that they benefited 
from group marketing. With better organized marketing, producers are more likely to access 
more formalized (and often more lucrative) markets. 
3.1.2.2 Contractual Marketing amongst Producers
Marketing under contract was used as a proxy for stable and reliable markets. Only 7.6% of the 
sampled fruits, vegetables and spice producers sold their products through formal or informal 
contractual arrangements, with most of the arrangements being under informal (non-written) 
contracts14. Major buyers on contract terms were retailers and processors while major value 
chains purchased on contractual arrangements being vegetables. 
Table 3-13: Number of Producers with Formal Or Informal Contracts by Product
Commodity Type of contract Buyers
Formal Informal Retailers Middlemen Institutions Processors
Green pepper 0 2 1 1 0 0
Tomatoes15 1 4 2 0 1 2
Pineapples 0 1 0 0 0 1
Onions 0 1 1 0 0 0
Total 1 8 4 1 1 3
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
14 This mainly involved simple supply orders.
15 Again, tomatoes have been treated as vegetables here as opposed to fruits.
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-12
Within the last year, fruits, vegetables and spice producers that had contractual arrangements 
(7.6% of all producers surveyed) had sold a total of 17 tons of produce valued at USD 1,355 on 
contract basis. 
Table 3-14: Volumes and Values of Fruits and Vegetables Sold on Contract
Commodity Annual Volume sold
(MT)
Annual Value of sale 
in USD
Green pepper 3 590
Tomatoes 1 100
Pineapples 2 200
Onions 11 465
Total 17 1,355
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
In comparison to fruits and vegetables producers, 2.8% of poultry producers (or 33 
respondents) had contractual arrangements with buyers for various products with majority of 
them (28 respondents) having informal contracts (Table 3-15). Eggs and live birds were the 
major products sold under contract.
Table 3-15: Number of Farmers with Formal or Informal Contracts Per Poultry Products
Commodity Type of contract Total
Number of poultry producers 
with a formal contract
Number of poultry producers 
with informal contracts
Eggs 3 13 16
Live birds 2 13 15
Manure 0 2 2
Total 5 28 33
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
Within the last year, all poultry keepers surveyed with a contractual arrangement sold products 
worth a total of USD 32,216 on contract basis, with live birds having the largest contribution at 
USD 18,766 (Table 3-16). 
Table 3-16: Commodities Sold on Contracts by Poultry Producers
Poultry product Annual value of sale (USD) N
Eggs 8,422 15
Live birds 18,766 13
Manure 5,073 2
Total 32,261 30
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-13
3.1.3 Post Production Processing by SMEs
3.1.3.1 Fruits, Vegetables, and Spice Processors
Sampled fruits, vegetables and spice processors were relatively large compared to poultry feed 
manufacturers. Approximately 50% of the sampled processors were incorporated as sole 
proprietorship, 40% as limited companies and 10% as partnerships. On average, these 
organizations had been in operation for approximately ten and a half years (10.5 years) with the 
oldest being 36 years and the most recent having been established two years ago (2013). The 
processors employed up to 63 permanent laborers as well as an average of 11 casual employees 
during the normal production periods. During peak seasons, the average number of casual 
employees increased to 25. The majority (43.7%) of the organizations were involved in 
processing fruits, 31.3% were vegetable processors while 25% were involved in spice 
processing. 
43.7%
31.3%
Type of Processor (n=10)
Figure 3-8: Type of Processors
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
On average, SMEs involved in processing fruits, vegetables and spices benefited an average of 
1,541 smallholder farmers. However, the relatively larger SMEs served up to an average of 
3,225 smallholder farmers while the relatively smaller ones served an average of 194 
smallholder farmers. According to the baseline study, The average installed capacities are: 
fruits- 2.5MT/day; Vegetables - 3.1MT/day; and spices -0.02 MT/day. Utilized capacities as 
measured by daily output is as follows: for fruits s 2.14 MT/day, for vegetables is 2.83 MT/day 
and for spices is 0.01MT/day. Given these values, the utilization rates are therefore, 85% for 
fruits, 90% for vegetables and 44% for spices. On average, each SME involved in processing of 
fruits purchased an average of 117 tons of various raw materials per month valued at USD 
6,028. This translates to averages of 1,404 tons of raw materials per year valued at USD 72,336. 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-14
Table 3-17: Average Monthly Quantities and Value of Raw Materials Purchased by 
Fruits, Vegetables and Spices Processors16
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Quantity of Raw Materials (Tons) 7 0.6 370 117
Value of Raw Materials (USD) 7 24.42 19,535 6,028
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
The average monthly quantities and values of raw materials purchased by processors are as 
shown in Table 3-18 below.
Table 3-18: Annual Average Quantities and Values for Raw Materials Purchased by 
Processors
Category Raw Material 
Bought
Quantity 
Bought 
(Tons)
Weight Weighted 
Quantity 
Bought 
(Tons)/SME
Average 
Price 
per Ton 
(USD)
Value of 
Raw 
Material 
(USD)
Fruits Banana 480 20% 96 326 31,296
Mango 276 30% 82.8 271 22,439
Passion 504 20% 100.8 260 26,208
Pineapple 720 30% 216 335 72,360
Sub-total 495.6 152,303
Vegetables Carrots 204 10% 20.4 465 9,486
Fine Beans 96 10% 9.6 512 4,915
Snow peas 144 10% 14.4 791 11,390
Sugar Snaps 144 10% 14.4 837 12,053
Tomatoes 888 30% 266.4 521 138,794
Sub-total 325.2 176,639
Spices Black Pepper 1.2 10% 0.12 70 8
Cardamom 1.2 10% 0.12 140 17
Cinnamon 0.72 20% 0.14 2,209 318
Garlic 0.24 20% 0.05 2,326 112
Ginger 0.36 10% 0.04 2,326 84
Vanilla 14.04 20% 2.81 5,157 14,481
Sub-total 3.28 15,020
The major raw materials purchased by fruits, vegetables and spices processors included 
pineapples, tomatoes, mangoes and cinnamon (Figure 3-9). 
16 Calculated using similar approach as Table 3-5, 3-10, 312
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-15
27.3%
22.7%
13.6% 13.6%
9.1%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
Typeof Raw Materials Procured
Major Raw Materials Procured by Fruits 
Vegetables/Spices SMEs
Figure 3-9: Major Raw Materials Procured by Fruits, Vegetables/Spices Processors
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
While the source of raw material depended mostly on the type of raw material purchased, 
major sources include direct purchases from smallholder farmers or using a network of 
smallholder farmer groups as noted by 38.5% and 28.2% of the processors respectively (Figure 
3-10). These findings indicate that processors preferred procuring directly from producers and 
therefore with better organization, producers will most likely have better access to markets. 
38.5%
28.2%
2.6%
17.9%
2 6%
10.3%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3-10: Sources of Raw Materials for Fruits, Vegetables and Spices Processors
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
Major processed outputs varied by type of commodity processed. Fruits were mainly processed 
into juices and pulp while vegetables were mainly processed into dried vegetables, sauces and 
canned vegetables. Spices were mainly dried and ground into powders. 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-16
Table 3-19: Major Fruits, Vegetables and Spices Products Processed
Produce Category Type of processed output Number of firms producing
Fruits Juices 1
Pulp 1
Vegetables Pastes 1
Sauces 2
Canned vegetables 2
Dried vegetables 3
Fresh vegetables 1
Spices Ground spices/powders 3
Liquid spices 1
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
3.1.3.2 Poultry Feed Manufacturers
Sampled feed manufacturers were mainly sole proprietorships (96%) who had been involved in 
the business for an average of nine years. These businesses had an average of two branches, 
employed an average of 10 permanent employees (eight male and two female), and an average 
of 10 casual laborers (seven male and three female). The survey found that on average, feed 
manufacturers have an installed production capacity of 13.7MT/day with 77.5% of the capacity 
(8.2 MT/day) being utilized.
13.7 
8.2 
77.50
Installed capacity Utilized capacity Percent utilizat 
Installed Versus Utilized Capacities- Poultry Manufacturer
Figure 3-11: Average Daily Poultry Feed Processing Production Capacities and Capacity 
Utilization (MT)
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
Poultry feed manufacturers combine various raw materials to produce poultry feeds. The 
volumes and values of raw materials procured by feed manufacturers are as shown in Table
below 3-19. Dry maize was the major purchased raw material. Others raw materials include 
barley, sunflower, maize bran, wheat and rice. Major protein sources included soy beans, fish 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-17
and fish meal, cotton cake, bone meal and blood meal. Manufacturers also procured minerals 
such as salts, limestone and other additives.
SMEs involved in poultry feed manufacturing procured various types of raw materials. Maize, 
additives and minerals, soy beans/soy bean cakes as well as fish/fish meal were the most 
commonly purchased raw materials. On average, each SME purchased 105 tons of raw 
materials valued at USD 38,525 per month. This translates to an average of 1,263 tons per year 
valued at USD 462,300 annually.
Table 3-20: Average Monthly Quantities and Value of Raw Materials Used by Poultry 
Feed Manufacturers
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Quantity of Raw Materials (Tons) 26 12 480 105
Value of Raw Materials (USD) 26 4,767 169,070 38,525
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
Monthly average quantities and value of raw materials for each of the raw materials is as shown 
in Table 3-20 below. 
Table 3-21: Average Monthly Poultry Raw Materials Used in Poultry Feeds 
Manufacturing
Type of Raw material Monthly Purchased Quantities 
(Tons)
Average Monthly cost 
USD
Soya bean 12 6,822
Feed Maize 36.9 9,135
Barley 35 1,860
Sorghum 3.8 883
Millet 6.8 1,348
Groundnuts 6.4 2,342
Sunflower 16.7 3,082
Oats 11.2 6,162
Oil cake 12.2 3,084
Rice 15.5 1,959
Fish 8.1 7,492
Cotton 11.2 2,581
Wheat 16.8 1,003
Pollard 7 845
Minerals 3.1 312
Bone meal 6.5 1,162
Maize bran 13 1,460
Blood meal 5.4 2,093
Maize swarm 8.6 1,114
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-18
The major sources of raw materials for poultry feed manufacturers included traders and 
aggregators as well as small scale farmers (Figure 3-12).
67% 63%
37%
19% 15%
 
Sources of Raw Materials for Poultry Feed Manufacturers
Traders/Aggregators (n=18) Small scale farmers/farmer groups 
Own Agents (n=10) Imports from other countries (n=5
Millers (n=4)
Figure 3-12: Sources of Raw Materials for Poultry Feed Manufacturers
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
According to the survey findings, SMEs involved in poultry feed manufacturing produces a 
monthly average of 23.1 MT of chick mash, 24.4 tones of broilers mash, 22.2 tons of growers 
mash and 22.1 tones of layers mash (Table 3-22).
Table 3-22: Average Poultry Feed Production Capacities
Feed Type of Poultry 
Feed
Monthly Production (Metric 
Tons)
Annual Production 
(Metric Tons)
Chicken 
feed
Chick Mash 23.1 277.2
Broiler mash 24.4 292.4
Growers mash 22.2 265.9
Layers mash 22.1 265.2
Pellet 3.0 36
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
3.1.4 Marketing amongst SMEs
Daily processing capacities averaged 2.4 tones of fruits, 1.3 tones of vegetables and 0.01 tones 
of spices. This translated to approximately 577.4 tones of fruits(and fruit products), 321.4 tones 
of vegetables (vegetable products) and 1.7 tones of spices per year. Within the last year, each 
SME involved in fruit, vegetables and spice processing sold an average of 481 tons of fruits and 
fruit products valued at USD 342,594, 267.8 tons of vegetable products valued at USD 246,898
and 1.4 tons of spices valued at approximately USD 30,081 (Table 3-22). 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-19
Table 3-23: Annual Quantity and Value of Commodities Sold by SMEs Involved in Fruits, 
Vegetables and Spice Processing
Category Output 
Sold
N Average 
Quantity 
Sold 
(Tons)
Weight Average 
Quantity 
Sold 
(Tons)/ 
SME
Average 
Price per 
Ton 
(USD)
Annual 
Value of 
Output sold 
(USD)/ SME
Fruits Mango 2 1,080 20% 216.00 665 143,640
Passion 1 996 10% 99.60 837 83,365
Pineapple 1 1,656 10% 165.60 698 115,589
Sub-total 481.2 342,594
Vegetables Carrots 1 204 10% 20.40 698 14,239
Fine beans 1 122.4 10% 12.24 2,621 32,081
snow peas 1 144 10% 14.40 2,698 38,851
Sugar Snap 1 144 10% 14.40 2,674 38,506
Tomatoes 3 688 30% 206.40 597 123,221
Sub-total 267.8 246,898
Spices Black pepper 1 0.12 10% 0.01 1,628 20
Cardamom 1 0.12 10% 0.01 2,093 25
Cinnamon 2 0.12 20% 0.02 23,256 558
Garlic 1 0.36 10% 0.04 2,791 100
Ginger 1 0.54 10% 0.05 1,395 75
Vanilla 2 6.3 20% 1.26 23,256 29,303
Sub-total 1.4 30,081
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
On the other hand, each poultry feed manufacturer sold an average of 84 tons of animal feeds 
per month earning and average value of USD 36,19317. This translates to an annual average of 
1,008 tons of feed valued at USD 434, 316. 
Table 3-24: Average Monthly Quantities and Value of Poultry Feeds Sold by Poultry 
Feed Manufacturers
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Quantity sold per Month (Tons) 26 3 385 84
Value of sales per month (USD) 26 1,381 169,256 36,139
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
17 While this figure may insinuate that poultry feed processors are making losses (since the value of raw materials is 
higher than the monthly revenues), it should be noted that processors did not sell all their products in one month. . 
Further, some processors used the same raw materials to manufacture feeds for other types of livestock. This 
baseline survey was limited in determining the quantities that are used for other animal feeds apart from poultry.
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-20
Within the last year, each processor who manufactured chick mash sold an average of 292 tons 
valued at USD134,263 while those manufacturing pellets sold an average of 36 tons valued at 
USD10,884 (Table 3-24). 
Table 3-25: Annual Quantities and Value of Feeds Sold by SMEs Involved in Poultry 
Feed Manufacturing
Output Sold No. of SMEs 
selling
Quantity Sold 
(Tons), per SME
Average 
Price per 
Ton (USD)
Value of 
Output Sold 
(USD)
Broilers Mash (Starter & 
Finisher)
26 277 484 134,263
Chick Mash 22 292 471 137,776
Growers Mash 24 266 407 108,200
Layers Mash 26 265 421 111,564
Pellets 1 36 302 10,884
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
Sampled SMEs mainly sold their products in the domestic market (100% for poultry feed 
manufactures and 79% for fruits, vegetables and spice processors). This implies that 21% of 
fruits, vegetables and spices products were exported. Key exported products included 
vegetables (snow peas, sugar snaps, fine beans) and spices (vanilla) particularly to the European 
Union (EU) markets. Market outlets used by sampled SMEs included their own distribution 
networks. The survey found that 40% of the fruits, vegetables and spices processors and 36% of 
the poultry feed manufacturers each had an average of 2 branches. Major market outlets for 
fruits, vegetables and spice processors were distributors, supermarkets, wholesalers and 
retailers (Figure 3-13).
11%
21%
15% 15% 15%
2%
11%
9.4%
Outlet
Market Outlets for Fruits,Veges & Spices Processors
Other manufacturers/processors
Distributors
Supermarkets
Wholesalers
Retailers
Institutions(Hotels,schools,hospitals)
Individual Consumers buying directly from the company
European Market (Belgium,North Ireland)
Figure 3-13: Major Market Outlets for Fruits, Vegetables and Spices Processors
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-21
Although only 36% of the poultry producers had branches (an average of 2 branches), the vast 
majority (96%) of all those sampled had plans to set up new branches. Major market outlets for 
feed manufacturers included the use of distributors, selling directly to small scale producers as 
well as direct sales to large scale producers.
40.6%
17.2%
6.3%
29.7%
6.3%
Outlet
Market Outlets for SMEs Involved in Poultry Feed Manufacturing
Sell to distributors/retailers
Sell directly to large scale poultry 
farmers
Farmer groups/Cooperative societies
Sell directly to small scale poultry 
farmers
Institutions
Figure 3-14: Major Market Outlets for Poultry Feed Manufactures
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
SMEs are faced with number of challenges in marketing their products. For poultry feed 
manufacturers, competition with low-quality feeds is a major challenge as mentioned by 74% of 
the cases. Other obstacles reported were inconsistency in demand and high distribution costs. 
Fruits, vegetables and spice processors were mainly challenged by inconsistency of demand as 
mentioned by 60% of the respondents. They also faced a unique challenge associated with lack 
of the necessary infrastructure (air cargo flights) for export and therefore limited access to 
foreign markets.
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-22
59% 60%
74%
52% 50% 50%
20%
Poultry Feed Manufacturers (n=26) Fruits, Vegetables & Spices Processors (n=10)
SMEs Challenges in Marketing
Inconsistent demand Competition with low quality products
High distribution cost Limited flight options for export
Figure 3-15: Marketing Challenges for SMEs
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
These challenges presents key gaps that the KASI Agriventures program is designed to address, 
particularly the issue of competition from low quality feeds in the market. 
3.2 Supply and Demand of Financial Services
3.2.1 Supply of Financial Services
A total of 12 financial institutions were sampled. Case summaries for the sampled institutions 
are provided under Annex 4. These included five microfinance banks, six community banks and 
one leasing company (Table 3-25).
Table 3-26: Category of Financial Institutions Sampled
Category Number of institutions 
Micro finance banks 5
Community banks 6
Leasing company 1
Total 12
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
Majority of the sampled institutions (50%) offered long and short term agricultural lending 
products while 28% offered agricultural asset financing and 17% offered agricultural leasing
products. The major financial products supplied are as shown in Figure 3-16 below.
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-23
50%
28%
5%
Agricultural Financing Products Offered by Financial 
Institutions
Agricultural lending 
Agricultural leasing 
Agricultural assets f 
 
Figure 3-16: Major Agricultural Financing Products
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey 2015
On average, agricultural portfolios as a percentage of the total portfolios for the sampled 
organizations were approximately 22.3% valued at USD 1.45 million with a minimum of USD 
0.14 million (5% of total portfolio) and a maximum of USD 4.65 million (60% of total portfolio).
Table 3-27: Percentage and Value of Agricultural Portfolios
Agricultural Portfolio N Minimum Maximum Mean
Percentage of the total agricultural/ 
agribusiness financing portfolio
11 5 60 22.25
Value of Portfolio in USD 10 139,535 4,651,163 1,449,019
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
Generally, agricultural lending was observed to be relatively risky with a total of 16% of the 
agricultural portfolio (USD 231,843 on average) being past the due date. A total of 9.1% of the 
total agricultural loans were within 90 days past the due date. As shown in Figure 3-17 below, , 
portfolios at risk (PAR) was highest for loans that were within 30 days past the due date at 4%
and loans that were between 181 and 360 days past the due date18 at 3.8%. 
18 Implying that they could be under consideration for writing off.
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-24
4.0%
3.3%
1.8% 1.8%
1.3%
3.8%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
1-30 days (n=8) 31-60 days 
(n=7)
61-90 days 
(n=4)
91-120 days 
(n=4)
121-180 days 
(n=3)
181-365 days 
(n=2)
Average Portfolio At Risk (PAR)
Figure 3-17: Average Agricultural Portfolio at Risk
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey 2015
On average, each of the sampled financial institutions had offered loans to 743 clients within the 
past year. Majority of these were either associations/co-operatives or groups. The numbers of 
corporate clients were the least (six on average). The high number of group based loans is
consistent with the group based lending approach, which is preferred by non-bank or 
community-based financial institutions. While the low number of corporate clients may indicate 
a low preference to lend to corporate clients, it may also be indicative of the financial 
institution’s product offerings and loan sizes, which may not meet the needs of large corporate 
clients. 
Table 3-28: Major Agribusiness Loan Clients, Loan Products and Value of Loans in the 
Last One Year for Financial Institutions
Client type Number of 
Loan Clients
Product Mean Number 
of loans 
advanced
Mean Value of 
loans in USD
Individuals 230 Agricultural lending 259 652
Asset financing 25 24,186
Corporate 6 Agricultural lending 10 232,558
Asset financing 2 93,023
SMEs 19 Agricultural lending 19 114,729
Large Groups/ 
Cooperatives/ 
Associations
476 Agricultural lending 477 742,640
Asset financing 12 66,977
SACCOs 12 Agricultural lending 6 26,745
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-25
With regard to leasing, the major assets financed include plant and machinery, industrial and 
farm equipment as well as vehicles. On average, sampled organizations had offered 10 leases 
within the last year.
Table 3-29: Lease financing to Agribusiness clients 
Product financed Average Number of Leases Offered
Plants and machineries 4
Industrial farm equipment 3
Vehicles 3
Total 10
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey 2015
Within the agriculture sector, the baseline survey noted that financial institutions mostly 
financed cereals (67%) while vegetables came in second at 50%, followed by pulses at 42% 
(Figure 3.18). These results are however, expected because cereals and pulses are also the 
major categories of value chains that are produced by majority of Tanzanians. Fruits, vegetables
and spices provide major opportunities for financing as they are considered high value 
commercial products. 
67%
42%
50%
25% 25% 25% 25%
8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Percentage of Institutions financing
Main Agribusiness Value Chains Financed
Cereals (n=8) Pulses (n=5) Vegetables (n=6)
Fruits (n=3) Root tubers (n=3) Poultry (n=3)
Dairy (n=3) Spices (n=3)
Figure 3-18: Major Agricultural Value Chains Financed by Non-bank Financial 
Institutions
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey 2015
Major challenges faced by sampled financial institutions while financing agribusinesses include
slow repayment of loans, implying risk of default as well as high PARs as noted by 38% and 19% 
of the sampled institutions respectively. 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-26
38%
19% 19% 19%
6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Slow repayment by 
members (n=6)
High portifolio at 
Risk(PAR) (n=3)
High costs of loan 
recovery (n=3)
Unpredictable 
Climate (n=3)
Poor Government 
Policy(n=1)
Challenges/Risks in Providing Agribusiness Financing
Figure 3-19: Challenges/Risks in Providing Agribusiness Financing
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey 2015
3.2.2 Demand for Financial Services amongst Producers
3.2.2.1 Sources of Start-up Capital for Producers
Sources of start-up capital for agribusiness producers dealing with fruits, vegetables and spices 
as well as poultry keepers were mainly from informal sources. Indeed, personal savings was the 
major source of start-up capital for 75% of the poultry producers and 92% of the fruits, 
vegetables and spice producers. Other sources were borrowings from friends and family with 
the only semi-formal source being borrowing from Savings and Cooperative Societies 
(SACCOs) for only 1% of fruits, vegetable and spice producers and 7% of the poultry 
producers. 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-27
92%
75%
7%
18%
1%
7
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Fruits & Vegetable/Spices Producers 
(n=137)
Poultry Producers (n=13
Sources of Start-up Capital for Producers
 Figure 3-20: Sources of Start-up Capital for Agricultural Producers
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
3.2.2.2 Financial Needs for Producers
Fruits, vegetables and spice producers required financing mainly to purchase inputs and 
production supplies such as seeds, fertilizers and agro-chemicals. Other needs included paying 
for farm labor as well as hiring or leasing of land (Figure 3-21.)
18.7%
50.4%
5.7%
6.5%
3.3%
0.8%
13.8%
0.8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
To pay for farm labour and mechanized 
services
To purchase inputs and supplies
To pay for transport of produce to market
To purchase machineries and equipments
To build farm structures
To pay for extension services and trainings
To pay hiring/lease land
For on-farm processing/value addition
Major Financial Needs Fruits & Vegetables/Spices Farmers (n=123)
Figure 3-21: Major Financial needs for Fruits, Vegetables and Spices Producers
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-28
Similar to fruits, vegetables and spice producers, the major financial need for poultry producers 
was for purchase of feeds, drugs and other production supplies. Other needs included 
construction of farm structures and payment for labor (Figure 3-22). 
10%
62%
6%
5%
13%
1%
3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Farm labour and mechanized services
Purchase drugs, feeds,materials and supplies
Transport of produce to market
Purchase machineries and equipments
To build farm structures(housing etc)
Extension services and trainings
Add stock
Major Financial Needs for Poultry Farmers (n=117)
Figure 3-22: Major Financial Needs for Poultry Producers
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
3.2.2.3 Rates of Borrowing amongst Producers
Other than borrowing for start-up capital, the rate of borrowing among producers was very 
low. Only 31% of the poultry keepers and 14% of the fruits, vegetables and spice producers
have ever had a loan (Figure 3-23).
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-29
31%
14%
69%
86%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Poultry Farmers (n=117) Fruits & Vegetables/Spices 
(n=123)
Ever Taken Loan for Financial Needs OtherThan Start-up Capital
Figure 3-23: Rates of Borrowing amongst Producers
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
Of those producers who have had a loan, the majority (45%) of the fruit, vegetables and spice 
producers had borrowed from commercial banks while the majority of the poultry farmers 
(32%) had borrowed from savings groups. Only 18% of the fruit, vegetables and spice producers 
and 21% of the poultry producers had borrowed from non-bank financial institutions or 
community banks. 
29%
21% 18%
32%
45%
18% 18%
18%
Commercial MFI SACCOs Savings group
Sources of Loans for Poultry Farmers and Fruits & 
vegetables/Spices Farmers
Fruits & 
Vegetables/s 
farmers (n=
Poultry Far 
(n=28)
Figure 3-24: Sources of Loans for Poultry Farmers and Fruits & vegetables/Spices Farmers 
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
3.2.2.4 Loan Terms and Conditions versus Preferences
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-30
Producers generally perceived the terms and conditions of loans to be unfavorable. As 
expected, producers would have preferred lower interest rates ranging from 5.6% to 7.7% 
against the current rates, which range from 10.9% to 15.3%. Producers would also prefer longer 
grace periods of between 2.6 and 3.3 months as well as longer repayment periods of between 
4.1 and 11.4 years. This is as opposed to the current grace periods of between 1.2 to 2.6 
months and repayment periods of between 3.3 and 5.9 years. The current and the preferred 
loan terms for producers who had accessed loans are as summarized in Table 3-29 below. 
Table 3-30: Loan terms and conditions for vegetable and fruits producers
Terms/Condition
s
Range Current Preferred
Fruits, 
Vegetables &
Spice 
Producers
Poultry 
Producers
Fruits, 
Vegetables &
Spice 
Producers
Poultry 
Producers
Interest rate (%) Min 14.9% 10.9% 5.6% 5.8%
Max 15.3% 11.6% 8.3% 7.7%
Grace period 
(months)
Min 1.2 Months 2.6 Months 3.3 Months 2.6 Months
Max 1.2 Months 2.5 Months 4.6 Months 5.3 Months
Repayment period 
(Years)
Min 3.3 Years 4.6 Years 4.1 Years 10.7 Years
Max 5.2 Years 5.9 Years 7.7 Years 11.4 Years
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
3.2.3 Demand for Financial Services amongst SMEs
3.2.3.1 Sources of Start-up Capital
On average, sampled fruits, vegetables and spice processors had already invested USD 134,765 
on average as start-up capital while SMEs involved in manufacturing poultry feeds invested an 
average of USD 34,244.
Table 3-31: Value of Start-up Capital in USD
Type of SME Amount in USD
Min Max Mean
Poultry Feed Manufacturers 465 325,581 34,244
Fruits & Vegetables/Spices 279 474,419 134,765
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
Unlike individual producers, major sources of start-up capital for SMEs were investments by 
shareholders or owner’s equity and borrowing from formal sources such as commercial banks, 
MFIs and SACCOs. 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-31
91%
33%
3%
59%
3% 3% 4% 3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Fruits & Vegetable/Spices Processors (n=10) Poultry Feed Manufacturers (n=26)
Sources of Start-up Capital for SMEs
Shareholders/Owners equity Commercial banks MFI SACCO
Figure 3-25: Sources of Start-up Capital amongst SMEs
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
In addition, 3 of the sampled SMEs involved in fruits and vegetables processing and 1 of the 
poultry feed manufacturers had received equity funding from an external investor. SMEs 
received between USD 13,953 and USD 93,023 in exchange for 40% to 60% shareholding. 
Rates of borrowing amongst SMEs was lower for fruits, vegetables and spice processors at only 
30% compared to 77% for SMEs engaged in poultry feed manufacturing. 
30%
77% 70%
2
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Fruits & Vegetable/Spices Processors 
(n=10)
Poultry Feed Manufactur 
Ever Acquired a Loan in the Last 12 Months
Figure 3-26: Access to Loans amongst SMEs
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
For those who had taken out loans within the last year, the main source of loans was 
commercial banks. Preference by SMEs to borrow from MFIs was low at only 5% for poultry 
feed manufacturers and 0% for fruits, vegetables and spice processors.
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-32
67%
90%
0%
5%
33%
5%
Fruits & Vegetable/Spices Processors (n=3) Poultry Feed Manufacturers (n=22)
Sources of Loans
Commercial Bank MFI SACCO
Figure 3-27: Sources of Loans for SMEs
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
On average, SMEs involved in fruits, vegetables and spices borrowed loans valued at USD 
10,230, while those involved in manufacturing of poultry feeds borrowed an average of USD 
19,210. 
Table 3-32: Average Loan Sizes Borrowed by SMEs
Type of SME N Minimum Maximum Mean
Fruits & Vegetables/Spices 
(USD)
3 465 23,256 10,233
Poultry Feed Manufacturers
(USD)
22 2,326 93,023 19,209
These values are however, below the average amount of loans provided to SMEs as reported by 
financial institutions, which averaged USD 114,729. 
For fruits, vegetables and spice processors, key financial needs were capital for investments and 
business expansion as well as working capital to buy raw materials and other supplies. For 
poultry feed manufacturers, working capital to buy raw materials and other supplies comprised 
the key financing need followed by working capital for labor. It was noted that fruits, vegetables 
and spices processors did not borrow to fund labor costs. This is despite the fact that labor
requirements for the fruits, vegetables and spice processors were much higher than for poultry 
feed manufacturers. 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-33
33%
11%
0%
14%
19%
46%
14%
8% 10%
3%
Fruits & Vegetable/Spices Processors 
(n=10)
Poultry Feed Manufacturers (n=26)
Financial Needs for SMEs
Other capital investment for 
business expansion
Working Capital for labour 
Working capital to buy raw 
materials and other supplies
Marketing/distribution of products
Leasing finance
Figure 3-28: Financial Needs for SMEs
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
Loans borrowed by fruits, vegetables and spice processors were used primarily to finance 
purchase of raw materials and distribution (marketing) of the processed products. For poultry 
feed manufacturers, borrowings were mainly used to finance purchase of raw materials, finance 
acquisition of equipment, machinery and other assets as well as finance other capital 
investments for business expansion19.
19 This included setting up of new branches, distribution points, storage and warehousing facilities.
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-34
17% 17%
0%
33% 33%
24% 22%
18%
29%
8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Finance for 
equipment, machinery 
and othe assets
Other capital 
investment for business 
expansion
Working capital for 
labour 
Working capital to buy 
raw materials and 
other supplies
marketing/distibution 
of products
Usage of Loans
Poultry Feed Manufacturers (n=22) Fruits & Vegetable/Spices Processors (n=3)
Figure 3-29: Usage of Loans/Borrowed Funds amongst SMEs
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
Unlike the case of loans, access and use of leasing services was very low. Majority (90%) of the 
fruits, vegetables and spice processors and 88% of the poultry feed manufacturers had never 
accessed leasing services. 
10% 12%
90% 88%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Fruits & Vegetable/Spices 
Processors (n=10)
Poultry Feed Manufacturers 
(n=26)
Ever Accessed Leasing Services
Yes No
Figure 3-30: Access to Leasing Services
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-35
These results corroborate findings from the financial institutions and may imply that there is 
both low supply but also low demand for leasing services amongst SMEs. 
SMEs are also faced with similar challenges to those facing producers20 with regard to accessing 
finance. Major challenges for fruits, vegetables and spice processors were lack of sufficient loan 
collateral as well as high interest rates. Poultry feed manufacturers identified similar obstacles 
including high interest rates and long and cumbersome loan application appraisal processes,
which also slowed down loan disbursements. 
14%
36% 36%
19%
36% 38%
14%
4%2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Fruits & Vegetable/Spices 
Processors (n=10)
Poultry Feed 
Manufacturers (n=26)
Percentage
SME Category
Challenges in Accessing Finances for SMEs
long and cumbersome application a 
appraisal process(Slow loan 
application, processing and disburs 
process)
lack of sufficient loan collateral/str 
collateral requirements
High loan interest rates charged
The Maximum amount advanced t 
agribusiness SMEs is not enough
Figure 3-31: Challenges in Accessing Finances by SMEs
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
3.3 Access to Training and Capacity Building
3.3.1 Access to Trainings amongst Producers
Through the KASI Agriventures program, SEAF will establish a Center for Entrepreneurship and 
Executive Development (CEED) to provide technical assistance to poultry feed producers, fruit
vegetable and spice processors, and other agribusiness SMEs as well as their suppliers and/or 
customers. In doing so, the program will result in increased capacity and knowledge of 
smallholder farmers involved in agricultural production.
The baseline survey noted that access to trainings and extension services was very low. Within 
the last 1 year, only 27% of the fruits, vegetables and spice producers and 32% of the poultry 
producers had accessed to capacity building training opportunities. 
20 Refers to producers of fruits, vegetables and spices as well as poultry, in the context of this report.
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-36
27% 32%
73% 68
 
Percent of Producers that Accessed Training in th 
1 Year
Yes No
Figure 3-32: Access to Training amongst Producers
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
A wide variance was observed between the demand for trainings and the percentage of 
producers who had been trained. There still existing gaps in areas such as land preparation 
technologies, soil fertility management and diseases and pests control for fruits, vegetables and 
spices. For poultry producers, gaps exist for trainings on modern farming technologies. 
Table 3-33: Trainings Demanded and Offered to Producers
Category 
of 
producer
Type of training % of producers 
demanding the 
trainings
% of 
producers 
trained
Variance
Fruits, 
Vegetables 
& Spices 
Producers
Accounting/ book keeping 11% 4% 7%
Land preparation technologies 61% 18% 44%
Soil fertility management 49% 12% 37%
Disease and pest control 49% 17% 32%
Post-harvest handling 24% 0% 24%
Marketing and negotiation skills 24% 0% 24%
Application of new technology 22% 0% 22%
Poultry 
Producers
Pest, diseases and their control 34% 23% 11%
Vaccination and treatment 33% 13% 19%
Marketing 16% 13% 3%
Poultry feeding routine 13% 3% 10%
Modern poultry farming 
technologies
40% 0% 40%
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
The major training and extension providers to producers were government extension staff, 
private extension staff and NGOs21 (Figure 3-33).
21 NGOs only for fruits, vegetables and spice producers
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-37
20%
25%
5%
25%
4%
 
Providers of Training and Extension Service 
Producers
Government Private extension staff NGO
Figure 3-33: Major Providers of Training and Extension Services to Producers
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
Contact with the trainings and extension service providers were rather infrequent with 
majority of the producers interacting with providers on monthly or quarterly basis. 
23%
30%
26%
14%
34%
8%
26%
11%
Poultry Producers (n=61) Fruits, Vegetables and Spice producer (n=30)
Frequency of Contact with Training and Extension Service 
Providers
Weekly Monthly Quarterly Annually Irregularly
Figure 3-34: Frequency of contact with Training and Extension Service Providers 
Amongst Producers
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
The key challenges limiting access to training and extension services amongst producers are
summarized in Table 3-33 below.
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-38
Table 3-34: Main Challenges in Accessing Training for Producers
Category of 
producer
Challenge Percentage of farmers 
facing the challenge
N
Fruits, Vegetables 
& Spice 
Producers
Untimely trainings 23.4% 32
Inadequate expertise 21.2% 29
Poor choice of training language 
(English instead of Swahili)
17.5% 24
High training costs 12.4% 17
Poultry Producers Inadequate training time 19.4% 26
Inadequate extension services 
providers
15.6% 21
Poor organization amongst farmers 11.2% 15
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
3.3.2 Access to Capacity Building amongst SMEs
The baseline survey noted that access to trainings among fruits, vegetables and spice processors 
and poultry feed manufacturers is relatively high at 80% and 63% respectively (Figure 3.35). 
80%
63%
20%
37%
 
Percentage of SMEs that Received Training in the Last 
Months
Yes No
Figure 3-35: Access to Training amongst SME Employees
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
Improved processing technologies, product quality standards and marketing were the main 
training topics offered to employees of fruits, vegetables and spice processors interviewed in 
the baseline survey. For poultry feed manufacturers, feed manufacturing technologies and 
product quality standards management were the main training modules offered to their 
employees (Table 3-34).
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-39
As opposed to producers, smaller variances were observed with regard to supply and demand 
of capacity building amongst SMEs. Major gaps are on financial management training, product 
quality management, business planning and record keeping as well as marketing (Table 3-34) 
Table 3-35: Trainings Preferred and Offered to SMEs
Category 
of SME
Type of training % of SMEs 
demanding the 
trainings
% of SMEs 
trained
Variance
Fruits, 
Vegetables 
& Spices 
Processors
Improved processing 
technologies
60% 50% 10%
Product quality standards 
management
80% 63% 18%
Business planning 20% 13% 8%
Record keeping 20% 25% -5%
Financial management 30% 0% 30%
Risk management 10% 13% -3%
Marketing 40% 50% -10%
Poultry 
Feed 
Manufactur
ers
Feed manufacturing 
technologies
62% 88% -27%
Product quality standards 
management
65% 41% 24%
Business planning 19% 12% 7%
Record keeping 31% 6% 25%
Financial management 42% 0% 42%
Risk management 15% 0% 15%
Marketing 35% 6% 29%
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
The major training service providers to fruits, vegetables and spice processors and poultry feed 
manufacturers were private companies/individuals and NGOs/donor programs (Figure 3-36). 
These findings suggests that it will be important for CEED to liaise with companies, individual 
experts, NGOs and donor programs that are involved in providing training to fruits, vegetables 
and spice processors and poultry feed manufacturers in order to leverage the available 
expertise and experience. 
The majority of the fruits, vegetables and spice processors (64.7%) and poultry feed 
manufacturers (68%) interviewed in the survey accessed training services quarterly or less
frequently (Figure 3-37). 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-40
5.0%
15.0%
5.0%
75.0%
13.3%
53.3%
6.6%
26
Government NGO/Donor Cooperative society Private 
Training Providers for SMEs
Fruits &vegetables/ spices processors (n=10) Poultry feed manufacturers (n
Figure 3-36: Major Providers of Training Services to SMEs
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
60.0%
50.0%
30.4%
73.9%
13.0%
High Costs/Lack of funds Lack/unavailability of 
appropriate 
trainings/Information
Time Factor
Challenges in Accessing Training Services for SMEs
Fruits &vegetables/ spices processors (n=10)
Poultry feed manufacturers (n=27)
Figure 3-37: Frequency of Training amongst SMEs
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
The main challenges for fruits, vegetables and spices processors and poultry feed manufacturers 
in accessing training services are lack/unavailability of appropriate trainings and lack of funds and 
high cost of training (Figure 3.38). 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-41
60.0%
50.0%
30.4%
73.9%
High Costs/Lack of funds Lack/unavailability of Time 
Challenges in Accessing Training Services
Fruits &vegetables/ spices processors (n=10)
Poultry feed manufacturers (n=27)
Figure 3-38: Main Challenges in Accessing Training for Fruits & Vegetables/Spices and 
Poultry Feed Manufacturers
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
3.3.3 Capacity Building for Financial Institutions
One of the main activities of CEED is to provide training to the partner financial institution(s) 
employees on SME lease financing procedures, working capital finance and equipment leasing 
finance and/or operating capital leasing/lending procedures. CEED is also expected to provide 
training to the financial institution’s customers on leasing/borrowing procedures. According to 
the findings of the baseline survey, only a third (4 out of 12) of the financial institutions sampled 
had their employees trained in the last year (Figure 3.39). The financial institutions employees 
were mainly trained in agricultural lending procedures, risk management in agricultural finance, 
credit management and finance and auditing procedures (Table 3.30).
Yes
33%
No
67%
Staff Members of Agribusiness Unit ever Accessed Train 
Last One Year (n=12)
Figure 3-39: Access to Training amongst Financial Institutions Employees 
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-42
The financial institutions sampled also indicated a lack of training in marketing, information 
management, product development and client management services (Table 3-35). 
Table 3-36: Current Training offered to Financial Institutions Employees and Preferred 
Training Needs by Financial Institutions
Training Module Current Training Training Needs
Agricultural lending procedures 60.0% 0.0%
Risk management 40.0% 87.5%
Marketing 0.0% 25.0%
Credit management 20.0% 62.5%
Information management 0.0% 25.0%
Finance and auditing procedures 20.0% 12.5%
Product development 0.0% 37.5%
Client management services 0.0% 50.0%
Source: KASI Agriventures Baseline Survey, 2015
3.4 Baseline Values for Program Indicators
The KASI Agriventures program has a total of 64 performance indicators which are broadly 
categorized into three levels: goal, outcome and output. This section summarizes the baseline 
values for the KASI Agriventures program indicators based on the findings of the baseline 
survey. It also includes a review of the program indictors and their targets. These baseline 
values will be used as a basis for evaluating the performance of the program during the Life of 
Program (LOP) as well as for reviewing program targets where necessary. Recommendations 
have been made where the targets were found to be either too high or too low compared to 
the resultant baseline values. Recommendations have also been made on the indicators that 
should be rephrased, merged or deleted as found necessary. The summary of the resultant 
baseline values as per the PMP is presented in Table 3-36 below. 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-1
Table 3-37: Baseline Values for Program Indicators
No Indicators Unit of 
Measure
Baseline 
Value
LOP Targets Remarks/ recommended action 
on indicators
SME Lending: Equipment Leasing Finance, Working Capital, and Term Loans
1. Number of loans disbursed 
as a result of USDA 
assistance
Number 
of loans
0 Year Number There is a need to shift the target 
from 2015 to 2016 because of delay 
in commencement of program 
activities. 
Based on recommendation from 
Indicator #2, we recommend 
increasing number of loans to 80.
2015 40
2016 0
2017 0
LOP 40
2. Value of loans provided as a 
result of USDA assistance
USD Male=24,83
8
Female=
24,838
Year Male Female Total From the baseline survey, the 
average loan size provided by 
nonbank financial institutions to 
individuals (whether male or female) 
is USD 24,838. Since the program 
targets to disburse a total of 40 loans 
(30 male and 10 female as per 
indicator No. 4), these values will 
translate to totals of USD 745,140 
for males and USD 248,830 for 
females respectively. These values 
are approximately half of the 
targeted values. 
Based on this finding, we recommend 
increasing the number of loans to 80 
while retaining the proportions for 
male and female. There is, however, 
a need to shift the target from 2015 
to 2016 because of delay in program 
activities.
2015 1,500,000 500,000 2,000,000
2016 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0
LOP 1,500,000 500,000 2,000,000
Joint=0
Not 
applicable=0
Year Joint Not 
applicable
Total These targets are a combination of 
both Male and Female. There is a 
need to shift the target from 2015 to 
2016 because of delay in program 
activities.
2015 2,000,000 0 2,000,000
2016 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0
LOP 2,000,000 0 2,000,000
3. Value of loan repayment by USD Male=0 Year Male Female Total There is a need to shift the target 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-2
agribusiness SMEs Female=0 2015 1,500,000 500,000 2,000,000 from 2015 to 2016 and 2017 because 
of delay in commencement of 
program activities and loan 
repayment may spread beyond one 
year. 
2016 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0
LOP 1,500,000 500,000 2,000,000
4. Number of individuals 
receiving financial services as 
a result of USDA assistance 
Number 
of 
entrepre
neur 
borrower
s
Male=0
Female=0
Year Male Female Total There is a need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to the subsequent 
years because of delay in 
commencement of program 
activities. 
2015 30 10 40
2016 30 10 40
2017 30 10 40
LOP 30 10 40
5. Number of jobs attributed 
to USDA assistance (male)
Loan 
officer at 
finance 
company
Male=0
Female=0
Year Male Female Total The target for 2015 should be 
changed to zero (0) because of delay 
in commencement of program 
activities. 
2015 1 1 2
2016 1 1 2
2017 1 1 2
LOP 1 1 2
6. Number of private 
enterprises, producers 
organizations, water users 
associations, women’s 
groups, trade and business 
associations, and 
community-based 
organizations (CBOs) that 
applied improved techniques 
and technologies as result of 
USDA assistance
Number 
of 
organizati
ons
New=0
Continuing=
0
Year New Continuing Total There is a need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to 2016 because of 
delay in commencement of program 
activities. 
2015 2 0 2
2016 0 2 2
2017 0 2 2
LOP 0 2 2
Private 
enterprises 
(PE)=0 
Producers 
organization
s (PO)=0 
Water 
users 
associations 
(WUA)=0 
Women’s 
group 
(WG)=0 
Trade and 
business 
associations 
(TBA)=0 
Community
Year PE PO W
UA
WG TB
A
CB
O
Total KASI Agriventures targets to invest 
in only 2 private enterprises (PE) i.e. 
an equipment leasing company and a 
financial institution that will provide 
working capital loans. Targets should 
therefore be set at 2 for PE as well 
as the LOP. Targets for all other 
organizations should be set at zero 
(0). 
2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2016 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LOP 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-3
-based 
organization
s (CBO)=0
7. Annual profit margin of 
equipment leasing and 
working capital firm(s) as a 
result of USDA assistance 
(expressed as a percentage)
Percentag
e
0 Year Percentage There is need to move the targets 
for 2015 to the subsequent years 
because of delay in commencement 
of program activities.
The LOP target should also be 
adjusted to 7% from 12%. This is 
necessitated by delay in 
commencement of program 
activities.
2015 2
2016 5
2017 5
LOP 12
SME Investing: Poultry Feed Producer
8. Amount invested in SME 
poultry feed producer as a 
result of USDA assistance
USD 0 Year Amount There is need to move this target to 
2015 3,000,000 2016.
2016 0
2017 0
LOP 3,000,000
9. Number of weeks in which 
investment officer provided 
direct management support 
to poultry feed producer
Time in 
weeks
0 Year Number of Weeks There is need to remove the targets 
for 2015. The LOP target should 
also be adjusted to 96 weeks from 
144 weeks. This is necessitated by 
delay in commencement of program 
activities. 
2015 48
2016 48
2017 48
LOP 144
10. Number of feed distribution 
nodes established as a result 
of USDA assistance
Distribut
ion 
nodes
2 Year Number From the baseline, each of the 
poultry feed manufacturer has an 
average of 2 distribution points, a 
target of 3 is therefore deemed 
reasonable. There is a need to 
redistribute the targets for 2015 to 
2016 because of delay in 
commencement of program 
activities. 
2015 3
2016 0
2017 0
LOP 3
11. Volume of commodities sold 
by project beneficiaries
MT Chick mash 
(CM)-292
Growers 
mash (GM)-
266
Layers mash 
Year CM GM LM BM P Total There is a need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to the subsequent 
years because of delay in 
commencement of program 
activities. Since not all poultry feed 
manufacturers produce all 6 types of 
2015 12,500
2016 25,000
2017 25,000
LOP 62,500
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-4
(LM)-265
Broilers 
mash (BM)-
277
Pellets (P)-
36
feed, it would be more accurate to 
set targets for each feed-type 
individually.
Additionally, since SEAF may invest 
in a company that only manufactures 
some and not all of the feed-types, 
we recommend that the “total” 
column be removed. 
Suggested targets are as follows for 
2016: 584 for CM, 532 for GM, 530 
for LM, 554 for BM, and 72 for P. 
Suggested targets for 2017 are: 829 
for CM, 756 for GM, 753 for LM, 
787 for BM and 102 for P. New 
targets are based on 
expected/targeted increase in feed 
production output (See Indicators 
21 and 23). 
12. Number of feed producing 
companies screened for 
investment as a result of 
USDA assistance
Number 
of 
compani
es
0 Year Number This is a one-off indicator. The 
target is okay bearing in mind that 
only one company will be selected.
This can however, be moved to 
2016. 
2015 5
2016 0
2017 0
LOP 5
13. Amount of principal and 
proceeds recovered from 
existing investment in poultry 
feed producer
USD 0 Year Amount This target is reasonable as the 
amount comprises the budgeted 
principal amount of USD 3 Million 
and a 5% interest.
2015 0
2016 0
2017 3,150,000
LOP 3,150,000
14. Number of individuals who 
have applied new techniques 
or technologies as a result of 
USDA assistance 
Individua
l poultry
farmer
New-0
Continuing￾0
Year New Continuing Total The targets are unreasonable. Given 
that the program will work with 
only one feed manufacturer, it is 
unlikely that one manufacturer will 
have a customer base of 8,000. 
Based on the calculations in Annex
5, a single SME has a reach of up to 
3,755 customers per year. The 
recommended targets are therefore 
4,000.
Additionally, targets should also be 
2015 8,000 0 8,000
2016 0 8,000 8,000
2017 0 8,000 8,000
LOP 8,000 8,000 8,000
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-5
redistributed to reflect delay in the 
start of program activities. 
Male- 0
Female-0
Year Male Female Total The targets should be reduced to a 
total of 4,000 per year with males 
being 1,700 and females 2,300. This 
is because from the baseline survey 
there were more female poultry 
farmers (about 57%) compared to 
male farmers (43%). There is also 
need to redistribute the targets for 
2015 to the subsequent years 
because of delay in commencement 
of program activities. 
2015 6,000 2,000 8,000
2016 6,000 2,000 8,000
2017 6,000 2,000 8,000
LOP 6,000 8,000 8,000
Pest 
managemen
t (PM)-23%
Disease 
managemen
t (DM)-13%
Improved 
feeds (IF)-
3%
Year PM DM IF Total Important to set annual targets for 
each technology. We propose 
distribution of targets for each 
technology based on the percentage 
of individuals trained on each 
technology as per the baseline 
values. 
2015 0
2016 8,000
2017 8,000
LOP 8,000
15. Number of individuals who 
have received short-term 
agricultural sector 
productivity or food security 
training as a result of USDA 
assistance
Individua
l poultry 
farmer
New- 0
Continuing￾0
Year New Continuing Total There is need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to the subsequent 
years because of delay in 
commencement of program 
activities.
Additionally, the targets should be in 
line with targets to indicator 14, if 
those targets are to be changed. We 
also recommend this target be 
shifted to the CEED section. 
2015 8,000 0 8,000
2016 0 8,000 8,000
2017 0 8,000 8,000
LOP 8,000 8,000 8,000
16. Farmer revenue increases 
from improved chicken feed
USD 13,148 Year Amount From the baseline survey, the 
average revenue for the farmer is 
approximately USD 13,150 per year. 
Based on this, there is a need to 
readjust the targets downwards. 
There is also need to redistribute 
the targets for 2015 to the 
subsequent years because of delay in 
2015 200,000
2016 400,000
2017 400,000
LOP 1,000,000
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-6
commencement of program 
activities.
17. Number of jobs attributed to 
USDA assistance
Feed mill 
employe
e
Male-8
Female-2
Year Male Female Total Targets are reasonable, but there is 
need to redistribute the targets for 
2015 to the subsequent years 
because of delay in commencement 
of program activities.
2015 9 3 12
2016 9 3 12
2017 9 3 12
LOP 9 3 12
18. Number of public-private 
partnerships formed as a 
result of USDA assistance 
(agricultural production)
Public￾private 
partners
hip
0 Year Number Targets are reasonable, but there is 
need to redistribute the targets for 
2015 to the subsequent years 
because of delay in commencement 
of program activities.
2015 1
2016 0
2017 0
LOP 1
19. Value of sales by project 
beneficiaries
USD Chick mash 
(CM)-
137,776
Growers 
mash (GM)-
108,200
Layers mash 
(LM)-
111,564
Broilers 
mash (BM)-
134,263
Pellets (P)-
10,884
Year CM GM LM BM P Total There is need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to the subsequent 
years because of delay in 
commencement of program 
activities. 
Since not all poultry feed 
manufacturers produce all 6 types of 
feed, it would be more accurate to 
set targets for each feed-type 
individually. 
Additionally, since SEAF may invest 
in a company that only manufactures 
some and not all of the feed-types, 
we recommend that the “total” 
column be removed. 
Suggested targets for 2016 are as 
follows: USD 275,552 for CM, USD 
216,400 for GM, USD 223,128 for 
LM, USD 268,526 for BM, and USD 
21,768 for P. Suggested targets for 
2017 are as follows: USD 391,317 
for CM, USD 307,314 for GM, USD 
316,869 for LM, USD 381,340 for 
BM, and USD 30,913 for P. These 
figures are based on 
expected/targeted annual production 
output (See indicators 21 and 23).
2015 6,750,000
2016 13,500,000
2017 13,500,000
LOP 33,750,000
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-7
20. Number of private 
enterprises, producers 
organizations, water users 
associations, women’s 
groups, trade and business 
associations, and community￾based organizations (CBOs) 
that applied improved 
techniques and technologies 
as result of USDA assistance
Number 
of 
organizat
ions
New=0
Continuing=
0
Year New Continuing Total There is need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to 2016 because of 
delay in commencement of program 
activities.
KASI Agriventures targets to invest 
in only 1 private enterprise involved 
in poultry feed manufacturing. 
Targets for all other organizations 
have been set at zero (0). 
2015 2 0 2
2016 2 2 2
2017 2 2 2
LOP 2 4 2
Private 
enterprises 
(PE)=0 
Producers 
organization
s (PO)=0 
Water 
users 
associations 
(WUA)=0 
Women’s 
group 
(WG)=0 
Trade and 
business 
associations 
(TBA)=0 
Community
-based 
organization
s (CBO)=0
Year PE PO WU
A
WG TBA CB
O
Total
2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2016 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LOP 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
21. Amount of new animal feed 
available to farmers as a 
result of USDA assistance
MT 1,008 Year MT There is a need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to the subsequent 
years because of delay in 
commencement of program 
activities.
From the baseline, the average 
volume sold by each SME is
approximately 1,008 MT per SME 
per year. There is therefore need to 
revise the targets downwards given 
2015 31,250
2016 62,500
2017 62,500
LOP 62,500
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-8
that the program targets to work 
with only one feed manufacturer. 
Suggested revised targets are 1,008 
MT of new feed in 2016 (assumes 
manufacturer has maintained 
utilization capacity at 60% but 
doubled manufacturing capacity for a 
total output of approx. 2,016 MT 
per year); and a new target of 847 
MT of new feed in 2017 (assumes 
manufacturer has maintained 
capacity but increased utilization 
rate to 85%) for a total production 
output of approx. 2,860 MT in 2017. 
22. Annual profit margin of feed 
mill as a result of USDA 
assistance
Percenta
ge
0 Year Percentage There is need to readjust the targets 
so that 2016 becomes year 1 of 
implementation. 
2015 4
2016 8
2017 8
LOP 8
23. Daily output of feed 
producer (in MT) as a result 
of USDA assistance
MT 8.2 Year MT There is need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to the subsequent 
years because of delay in 
commencement of program 
activities.
Additionally, from the baseline, the 
average installed capacity was 13.7 
MT while the utilized capacity is 
8.2MT. The current targets are 
therefore very high and will need to 
be readjusted. Suggested revised 
targets are 16.4MT in 2016 (assumes 
investment will allow manufacturer 
to double their installed capacity 
while maintaining utilization rate of 
60%) and 23.3 MT in 2017 (assumes 
an increase in utilization rate to 85%, 
while maintaining production 
capacity).
2015 4,000
2016 8,000
2017 8,000
LOP 8,000
24. Number of financially Number Year Percentage There is need to redistribute the 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-9
sustainable feed distributors 
linking feed producer with 
target area farmers.
2015 1 targets for 2015 to the subsequent 
years because of delay in 
commencement of program 
activities
2016 3
2017 3
LOP 3
25. Number of farmers educated 
on use of new type of animal 
feed as a result of USDA 
assistance
Individua
l farmer
0 Year Number These targets are quite high and 
need to be reduced since KASI 
Agriventures will likely only invest in 
1 feed manufacturer. Recommended 
targets for 2016 are 2,000 and 4,000 
for 2017 based on calculations for 
indicator 14 (see Annex 5).
There is also need to redistribute 
the targets for 2015 to the 
subsequent years because of delay in 
commencement of program 
activities. 
2015 4,000
2016 8,000
2017 8,000
LOP 8,000
SME Investing: Fruit, Vegetable, and Spices Processor
26. Amount invested in SME 
fruit, vegetable, and/or spice 
processor as a result of 
USDA assistance
USD 0 Year Amount This target is reasonable as it 
reflects the amount that the 
program intends to invest in an SME 
involved in fruit, vegetable and/or 
spices processing, based on the 
current budget. 
The target should, however, be 
moved to 2016 to reflect the delay 
in the start of program activities. 
2015 3,000,000
2016 0
2017 0
LOP 3,000,000
27. Number of weeks in which 
investment officer provided 
direct management support 
to fruit, vegetable, and/or 
spice processing facility
Time in 
weeks
0 Year Number of Weeks There is need to remove the targets 
for 2015. The LOP target should 
also be adjusted to 96 weeks from 
144 weeks. This is necessitated by 
delay in commencement of program 
activities. 
2015 48
2016 48
2017 48
LOP 144
28. Volume of fruit, vegetables, 
and/or spice plants processed 
(in MT) as a result of USDA 
assistance
MT Fruits 
=495.6
Vegetables
=325.2
Spices=3.3
Year Total From the baseline survey, SMEs 
processed an average of 495.6 MT of 
fruits, 325.2 MT of vegetables and 
3.3 MT of spices per year. Since 
SEAF intends to invest in only 1 SME 
involved in processing fruits, 
vegetable and/or spices, these 
2015 7,500
2016 15,000
2017 15,000
LOP 15,000
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-10
targets are quite high. 
Since most SME processors in 
Tanzania are not involved with all 
three commodity types (fruit, 
vegetable and spices), it would be 
more accurate to set targets for 
each commodity individually. 
The targeted increase in the volume 
processed should align with increase 
in targets for production in indicator 
42.
29. Number of farmers from 
whom the fruit, vegetable, 
and or/spice processor buys 
inputs
Fruit, 
vegetable, 
or spice 
company
New-0
Continuin
g-1,541
Year New Continuing Total This target is unreasonable. Since 
only 1 processor will be selected for 
investment, it is unlikely that the 
processor will have a total of 10,000 
individual farmers as suppliers of raw 
materials. 
From the baseline survey, SMEs
involved in fruits, vegetables and 
spices processing buys inputs (raw 
materials) from 1,541 farmers on 
average. Larger SMEs on average,
however, procure their raw 
materials from 3,225 farmers.
Since SEAF will likely invest in a
single relatively large processor or 
potentially two smaller processors, 
we recommend that this target be 
revised downwards to 5,000. 
Targets should also be redistributed 
due to the delay in the start of 
program activities.
2015 10,000 0 10,000
2016 0 10,000 10,000
2017 0 10,000 10,000
LOP 10,000 10,000 10,000
30. Number of fruit, vegetable, 
and/or spice processing 
companies screened for 
investment as a result of 
USDA assistance
Fruit, 
vegetable, 
or spice 
company
0 Year Number This is a one-off indicator. The 
target is okay bearing in mind that 
only one company will be selected. 
Target should, however, be moved 
to 2016 
2015 5
2016 0
2017 0
LOP 5
31. Volume of commodities sold MT Fruits- Year Fruit Veg Spice Total The set targets are relatively high as 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-11
by project beneficiaries 481.2
Vegetables
-267.8
Spices-1.4
2015 2,500 they are approximately 4 times of 
the baseline values. 
Current values from the baseline are 
Fruits-481.2, Vegetables-267.8 and 
Spices-1.4. Suggested targets for 
2016 are 500 MT for fruits, 280MT 
for vegetables and 2 MT for spices. 
There is need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to the subsequent 
years because of delay in 
commencement of program 
activities.
Since most SME processors in 
Tanzania are not involved with all 
three commodity types (fruit, 
vegetable and spices), it would be 
more accurate to set targets for 
each commodity individually. 
Additionally, since SEAF may invest 
in a company that processes only 
one or two of these commodities, 
we recommend that the “total” 
column be removed. 
2016 5,000
2017 5,000
LOP 12,500
32. Total increase in installed 
storage capacity (dry or cold 
storage) as a result of USDA 
assistance
MT Dry-0
Cold-0
Year Dry Cold Total Targets should be moved to 2016 
2015 10 5 15 and 2017 
2016 10 5 15
2017 0 0 0
LOP 30
33. Total increase in installed 
storage capacity (new or 
refurbished storage) as a 
result of USDA assistance
MT New-0
Refurbishe
d-0
Year New Refurbished Total Targets should be moved to 2016 
2015 5 10 15 and 2017. 
2016 0 15 15
2017 0 0 0
LOP 30
34. Number of jobs attributed to 
USDA assistance
Fruit, 
vegetable, 
or spice 
company 
employee
Male-0
Female-0
Year Male Female Total There is also need to redistribute 
the targets for 2015 to the 
subsequent years because of delay in 
commencement of program 
activities.
2015 8 2 10
2016 8 2 10
2017 8 2 10
LOP 8 2 10
35. Number of public-private Public- 0 Year Number There is need to redistribute the 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-12
partnerships formed as a 
result of USDA assistance 
(agricultural post-harvest 
transformation)
private 
partnershi
p
2015 1 targets for 2015 to 2016 because of 
delay in commencement of program 
activities.
2016 0
2017 0
LOP 1
36. Value of new public and 
private sector investment 
leveraged as a result of 
USDA assistance
Public￾private 
partnershi
p
Private-0
Public-0
Year Private Public Total There is need to redistribute targets 
for 2015 to 2016 because of delay in 
commencement of program 
activities. 
2015 20,000 0 20,000
2016 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0
LOP 20,000 0 20,000
37. Value of sales by project 
beneficiaries 
USD Fruits￾342,594
Vegetables
-246,898
Spices￾30,081
Year Fruits Veg Spices Total There is need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to 2016 because of 
delay in commencement of program 
activities
Additionally, since most SME 
processors in Tanzania are not 
involved with all three commodity 
types (fruit, vegetable and spices), it 
would be more accurate to set 
targets for each commodity 
individually. 
Suggested targets for 2016 are: 
375,000 (Fruits), 280,000 
(Vegetables), 35,000 (Spices); 
followed by a 10% increase in each 
of the following years. 
2015 3,750,000
2016 7,500,000
2017 7,500,000
LOP 18,750,000
38. Number of private 
enterprises, producers 
organizations, water users 
associations, women’s groups, 
trade and business 
associations, and community￾based organizations (CBOs) 
that applied improved 
techniques and technologies 
as result of USDA assistance
Number 
of 
organizati
ons
New=0
Continuin
g=0
Year New Continuing Total The target assumes that the 
program will invest in only one 
private enterprise (PE) and that this 
PE will apply improved technologies 
and techniques for fruit, vegetable 
and/or spices processing.
There is however, need to move the 
target from 2015 to 2016. 
2015 1 0 1
2016 0 1 1
2017 0 1 1
LOP 1 1 1
Private 
enterprise
s (PE)=0 
Producers 
organizati
ons 
Year PE PO WUA WG TB
A
CBO Tota
l The target assumes that the 
program will invest in only one 
private enterprise (PE).
We thus recommend zero targets 
for all the other types of 
organizations. 
2015 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LOP 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-13
22 Baseline values are based on value of commodities sold by farmers regardless of where sold
23 These values are calculated based on quantities purchased by SMEs as raw materials
(PO)=0 
Water 
users 
associatio
ns 
(WUA)=0 
Women’s 
group 
(WG)=0 
Trade and 
business 
associatio
ns 
(TBA)=0 
Communit
y-based 
organizati
ons 
(CBO)=0
39. Value of commodities 
purchased from fruit, 
vegetable, and/or spice 
farmers as a result of USDA 
assistance
USD 22Fruits￾152,303
Vegetables
-176,639
Spices￾15,02023
Year Fruits Veg Spices Total Since most SME processors in 
Tanzania are not involved with all 
three commodity types (fruit, 
vegetable and spices), it would be 
more accurate to set targets for 
each commodity individually. 
Suggested targets for 2016 are 
155,000, 180,000 and 15,500 for 
fruits, vegetables and spices 
respectively. Targets will increase by 
10% in each of the following years.
2015 5,500,000
2016 10,500,000
2017 10,500,000
LOP 26,500,000
40. Annual profit margin of fruit, 
vegetable, and/or spice 
processor as a result of 
USDA assistance (expressed 
Percentag
e
0 Year Percentage The LOP target should be 8 because
it is not a cumulative indicator
There is also need to redistribute 
the targets for 2015 to 2016 
2015 4
2016 8
2017 8
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-14
as a percentage) LOP 20 because of delay in commencement 
of program activities 
41. Percentage increase in 
processing capacity of fruit, 
vegetable, and/or spice 
processor as a result of 
USDA assistance
Percentag
e
0 Year Percentage According to the baseline study, the 
average installed capacities are as 
follows: fruits - 2.5MT/day, 
vegetables - 3.1MT/day and spices -
0.02 MT/day. 
Utilized capacities as measured by 
daily output are as follows: fruits -
2.14 MT/day, vegetables - 2.83 
MT/day and spices - 0.01MT/day. 
Given these values, the utilization 
rates are therefore, 85.6% for fruits, 
91.3% for vegetables and 50% for 
spices. It may be unlikely to 
substantially increase the utilization 
rates for fruits and vegetables 
further although the utilization rates 
for spices can be increased. 
These targets are therefore deemed 
reasonable as increased production 
can only be achieved through 
increased capacities. 
There is need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to 2016 because of 
delay in commencement of program 
activities.
2015 25
2016 50
2017 50
LOP 50
42. Daily output of fruit, 
vegetable, or spice producer 
(in MT) as a result of USDA 
assistance
MT Fruits = 
2.14 
MT/day; 
vegetables 
=2.83 
MT/day; 
spices 
=0.01MT/
day
Year Output Given that SMEs involved in fruit, 
vegetable or spice processing have 
varying daily outputs, we 
recommend disaggregating the 
targets by commodity type (i.e. 
Fruits, Vegetables, Spices) 
According to the baseline study, 
daily output is as follows: for fruits is 
2.14 MT/day, for vegetables is 2.83 
MT/day and for spices is 
0.01MT/day. We suggest that targets 
for daily output be increased by 5% 
2015 30
2016 60
2017 60
LOP 60
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-15
in 2016 and 10% in year 2017. 
43. Percentage of fruits, 
vegetables, and/or spices 
processed that meet 
international food safety and 
packaging standards as a 
result of USDA assistance.
Percentag
e
0 Year Percentage Given that most (79%) of the 
horticultural products are currently 
marketed locally; (meaning that only 
21% is marketed internationally) it 
may be unrealistic to target that 90% 
of all produce will be sold 
internationally. We recommend that 
the 2016 target by 30% and 
increased to 50% at LOP. 
2015 45
2016 90
2017 90
LOP 90
44. Volume of fruit, vegetable, 
and/or spice products that 
meet international export 
standards as a result of 
USDA assistance
MT 1,059 Year Volume Assuming the 21% that is currently 
marketed internationally meet 
international standards, this 
translates to an average of 1,059 MT 
per SME. Since the program targets 
to work with 1 SME, there is a need 
to lower the targets. The LOP 
targets can be increased by up to 
50% as suggested in indicator No. 
43. 
There is also a need redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to 2016 because of 
delay in commencement of program 
activities.
2015 5,625
2016 11,250
2017 11,250
LOP 28,125
45. Reduction in farmers' 
wastage of fruits, vegetables, 
and/or spices as a result of 
USDA assistance
Percentag
e
0 Year Percentage Rather than capture the percentage 
of wastage, we recommend 
measuring the percentage increase 
in the number of farmers that are 
selling to processors. According to 
the baseline survey, only 3% of 
smallholder farmers sold their 
produce directly to processors (or 
their agents). 
Recommended percentage increase 
at the LOP are an increase to 5% in 
2016 and to 10% in 2017.
There is also need to redistribute 
the targets for 2015 to 2016 
because of delay in commencement 
of program activities. 
2015 45
2016 90
2017 90
LOP 90
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-16
46. Number of fruit, vegetable, 
and/or spice processing 
facilities implementing 
international food safety and 
packaging standards as a 
result of USDA assistance
Fruit, 
vegetable, 
or spice 
processor
0 Year Number This target is reasonable as it is 
based on the fact that the program 
will only invest in 1 SME. 
There is need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to 2016 because of 
delay in commencement of program 
activities.
2015 1
2016 1
2017 1
LOP 1
47. Number of new countries to 
which fruit, vegetable, and/or 
spice processor exports its 
products as a result of USDA 
assistance
Individual 
country
2 Year Number There is need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to 2016 because of 
delay in commencement of program 
activities. 
From the baseline, major export 
markets were only for vegetables 
and spices to the EU - mainly 
Belgium and Ireland. Given these 
findings, the targets of 6 and 12 
countries seem very high. It should 
be noted that horticultural 
commodities meant for export are 
particular to specific countries 
(target markets). We recommend 
that the target for first year is set to 
3, which would then increase to 5 at 
LOP. 
2015 6
2016 12
2017 12
LOP 12
Establish a Center for Entrepreneurship and Executive Development
48. Number of individuals given 
SME agribusiness 
management training
Individual 
entrepren
eur
New-0
Continuin
g-0
Year New Continuing Total There is a need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to 2016 because of 
delay in commencement of program 
activities.
2015 25 0 25
2016 25 20 45
2017 25 40 65
LOP 25 40 65
49. Number of leasing finance 
company employees trained 
in SME leasing finance 
procedures
Leasing 
finance 
company 
employee
New-0
Continuin
g-0
Year New Continuing Total There is need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to 2016 because of 
delay in commencement of program 
activities. 
2015 5 0 5
2016 0 5 5
2017 0 5 5
LOP 5 5 5
50. Number of working capital 
finance company employees 
trained in SME leasing finance 
procedures 
Working 
capital 
finance 
company 
New-0
Continuin
g-0
Year New Continuing Total There is need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to 2016 because of 
delay in commencement of program 
activities. 
2015 5 0 5
2016 0 5 5
2017 0 5 5
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-17
employee LOP 5 5 5
51. Number of leasing finance 
company customers trained 
in leasing/ borrowing 
procedures
Leasing 
finance 
company 
customer
0 Year Number There is need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to 2016 because of 
delay in commencement of program 
activities. 
2015 20
2016 0
2017 0
LOP 20
52. Number of working capital 
finance company customers 
trained in leasing/ borrowing 
procedures
Working 
capital 
finance 
company 
customer
0 Year Number There is need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to 2016 because of 
delay in commencement of program 
activities. 
2015 20
2016 0
2017 0
LOP 20
53. Number of training sessions 
in business management 
conducted for agribusiness 
SMEs
Training 
session
0 Year Number The current targets suggest an 
average of 2 training sessions per 
month on average. From the 
baseline survey, majority of the 
training to agribusiness SMEs are on 
quarterly basis or less frequently, 
i.e. fruits, vegetables and spice 
processors (64.7%) and poultry feed 
manufacturers (68%).
Based on these findings, we think 
this is too high, we recommend that 
the targets be reduced to at most 
12 per year which would imply 
increasing the frequencies of 
trainings currently available to at 
least one per month. Additionally, 
given the delay in the start of 
program activities, we suggest 2016 
targets are set at 6 and 2017 at 12.
2015 24
2016 24
2017 24
LOP 72
54. Number of training sessions 
in lease finance conducted 
for local finance companies
Training 
session
0 Year Number The current targets suggest an 
average of 2 training sessions per 
month on average. From the 
baseline survey, majority (85.7%) of 
the training to financial institutions 
employees are held on quarterly 
basis or less frequently. Based on 
these findings, we think that the 
current targets are too high. We 
2015 24
2016 24
2017 24
LOP 72
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-18
recommend that the targets be 
reduced to at most 12 per year 
which would imply increasing 
current frequencies of trainings to 
an average of one session per 
month. Further, given the delay in 
the start of program activities, we 
suggest 2016 targets are set at 6 and 
2017 at 12.
55. Number of training sessions 
in leasing/borrowing 
procedures conducted for 
agribusiness SMEs and 
entrepreneurs
Training 
session
0 Year Number The targets suggest an average of 2 
training sessions per month on 
average. From the baseline survey, 
majority of the training to 
agribusiness SMEs occur on a 
quarterly basis. Based on this, we 
think the target is too high 
recommend that the target for the 
first 12 months after the start of 
program activities be reduced to 12, 
which translates to an average of 
one training session per month. 
Additionally, given the delay in the 
start of program activities, the target 
should be adjusted to 6 trainings in 
the remainder of 2016 and 6 in 
2017. 
2015 24
2016 0
2017 0
LOP 24
56. Number of financial firms 
trained on equipment leasing 
finance and/or operating 
capital leasing/lending 
procedures targeting SME 
agribusinesses as a result of 
USDA assistance
Individual 
financial 
firm
0 Year Number These targets seem reasonable. 
2015 0
2016 1
2017 2
LOP 3
Business and Technical Mentorship: Poultry Feed and Fruit Producer, Vegetable, and Spice Processor
57. Number of international 
standards taught to managers 
of fruit, vegetable, and or 
spice processors
Internatio
nal 
standard
New-0
Continuin
g-0
Year New Continuing Total Rather than capture the "number of 
standard taught", we recommend 
capturing the "number of managers 
taught on different international 
standards" 
There is also need to redistribute 
2015 10 0 10
2016 0 10 10
2017 0 10 10
LOP 10 10 10
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-19
the targets for 2015 to 2016 
because of delay in commencement 
of program activities. 
58. Number of in person 
mentoring engagements 
between managers of fruit, 
vegetable, and/or spice 
processor and business 
and/or technical advisors 
from multinational 
corporations
Corporate 
mentoring 
engageme
nt
0 Year Number There is need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to 2016 because of 
delay in commencement of program 
activities.
2015 4
2016 3
2017 2
LOP 9
59. Number of in person 
mentoring engagements 
between managers of feed 
producer and business and/or 
technical advisors from 
multinational corporations
Corporate 
mentoring 
engageme
nt
0 Year Number There is need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to 2016 because of 
delay in commencement of program 
activities.
2015 4
2016 3
2017 2
LOP 9
60. Number of international 
retail standards met as a 
result of USDA assistance
Internatio
nal 
standard
0 Year Number We recommend that this indicator 
be removed since retail standards 
vary depending on product being 
exported and countries/regions to 
which they are being exported. 
2015 10
2016 20
2017 20
LOP 20
61. Number of international 
companies to which fruit, 
vegetable, and/or spice 
processor sells its value￾added outputs as a result of 
USDA assistance
Individual 
internatio
nal 
company
2 Year Number There is need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to 2016 because of 
delay in commencement of program 
activities.
2015 1
2016 2
2017 2
LOP 2
Overall Program
62. Total number of individuals 
benefiting directly as a result 
of USDA assistance 
Individuals Male-0
Female-0
Year Male Female Total Targets needs to be revised 
downwards to reflect the likely 
number of SMEs, and thereby 
smallholder farmers, with which 
KASI Agriventures will work. 
This will be the combined number of 
beneficiaries for lease financing (80), 
poultry (4,000) and FVS (5,000) 
which is 9,080 
There is need to redistribute the 
2015 13,530 4,510 18,040
2016 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0
LOP 18,040
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
3-20
targets for 2015 to 2016 because of 
delay in commencement of program 
activities. 
63. Total number of individuals 
benefiting directly as a result 
of USDA assistance 
Individuals New-0
Continuin
g-0
Year New Continuing Total Targets needs to be revised 
downwards to reflect the likely 
number of SMEs, and thereby 
smallholder farmers, with which 
KASI Agriventures will work. 
This will be the combined number of 
beneficiaries for lease financing (80), 
poultry (4,000) and FVS (5,000) 
which is 9,080 
There is need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to 2016 because of 
delay in commencement of program 
activities.
2015 18,040 0 18,040
2016 0 18,040 18,040
2017 0 18,040 18,040
LOP 18,040
64. Total number of individuals 
benefiting indirectly as a 
result of USDA assistance
Individuals 0 Year Number This target assumes that each direct 
beneficiary or member of a 
household (as in Indicator 62 or 63) 
will indirectly benefit 5 household 
members; where the average 
household size in Tanzania is 7. This 
assumption is deemed reasonable as 
it assumes that 70% of the 
household members will benefit 
indirectly.
The targets should therefore be 5 
times the direct beneficiaries in 
Indicator No. 62 and 63. The 
recommended target is therefore be 
45,400.
There is need to redistribute the 
targets for 2015 to 2016 because of 
delay in commencement of program 
activities. 
2015 90,200
2016 90,200
2017 90,200
LOP 90,200
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
4-1
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Conclusions 
4.1.1 Conclusions on Agricultural Production and Marketing
The KASI Agriventures program targets fruits, vegetables and spices value chains. Pineapples 
were the most commonly produced fruits at 49% followed by mangoes at 23%, and lastly 
passion fruits by bananas 2.3% of respondents. Tomatoes were the most commonly produced 
vegetables at 50%, followed by onions (19%), green pepper (18 %) and carrots at 7.6%. Only a 
few respondents produced target spices with paprika being produced by 38% and vanilla by 
13%. Total annual volumes of fruits, vegetables and spices sold by sampled respondents in the 
last one year averaged 10.3 MT for fruits, 25.6 MT for vegetables and 1.3 MT of spices. 
Fruits, vegetables and spice producers marketed approximately sold approximately 3.4 tons of 
fruits, 8.5 tons of vegetables and 0.6 tons of spices. However, these were marketed in raw form 
with limited access to higher end markets (such as processors and exporters), a majority of the 
producers sold their products to retailers in the local24 markets. Markets were also unstable as 
only 7.6% sold their products through contractual arrangements with most of the arrangements 
being under informal (non-written) contracts.
The KASI Agriventures program also aims to improve productivity of the poultry value chain by 
increasing access to quality feed for poultry producers. Currently, majority (76%) of producers 
rear improved breeds of poultry, with their poultry stocks increasing over time. Purchase of 
poultry feeds is frequent, with majority of producers (44%) buying feed on a weekly basis 
primarily from feed manufacturers and retailers. The frequency of purchase implies that there is 
high demand for poultry feed but may also point to the fact that producers purchase feeds in 
smaller quantities albeit more frequently. Within the last one year, poultry producers 
purchased an average of 23.3 tons of feeds valued at USD11,486.
Poultry producers marketed various products including mature birds, eggs and chicks. In return, 
poultry producers earned an average of USD.13,148. Sale of hen comprised the biggest share of 
the marketed value while manures contributed the least. Similar to fruits, vegetables and spice 
producers, fewer poultry producers accessed higher-end markets such as wholesalers, large off 
takers, supermarkets and hotels. This may be as a result of lack of organized marketing, since 
the majority of the poultry producers sold individually instead of in a consortium or group. 
4.1.2 Conclusions on Post-Production Processing and Marketing
The KASI Agriventures program targets to increase the quantity and the value of products 
produced and sold by fruits vegetables and spice processors as well as by poultry feed 
manufacturers. Fruits, vegetables and spice processors mainly bought raw materials directly 
from individual smallholder farmers which corroborates the findings that producers mainly sold 
24 Local market means near the producers’ own villages or towns
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
4-2
their products as individuals instead of as a collective group. However, processors also bought 
from farmer groups and associations. On average, each SME involved in processing of fruits 
purchased an average of 1,404 tons of raw materials per year valued at USD 72,336 annually. 
Fruits were mainly processed into juices, pulp or canned while vegetables were mainly 
processed into dried vegetables, sauces and canned vegetables. Spices were mainly dried and 
ground into powders or sold as liquid extracts. Within the last year, each of the fruits, 
vegetables and spice processors sold an average of 48.2 tons of fruits and fruit products valued 
at USD 342,594, 267.8 tons of vegetable products valued at USD 246,900 and 1.4 tons of spices 
valued at approximately USD 30,080. The majority (79%) of fruits, vegetables and spice 
processors sold their products in the domestic market.
On average, each SME involved in poultry feed manufacturing procured 236 tons of raw 
materials mainly from aggregators, wholesalers and middlemen. These were used to produce an 
average of 85.7 tons of assorted feeds per month. Each poultry feed manufacturer sold an 
average of 1,008 tons of feed valued at USD 434,316. All of these animal feeds was sold in the 
domestic market. Findings on the major market outlets points out the importance of 
distributors, who are used by feed manufacturers to take their product to market. 
Feed manufacturers played a major role not only in supplying feeds to producers but also other 
services. These included supply of drugs and vaccines, day old chicks, poultry equipment and 
tools, and extension services from feed manufacturers. The feed manufacturers also noted that 
competition from low quality but cheaper feeds was a major challenge. This particular challenge 
presents a gap that the KASI Agriventures program is designed to address.
4.1.3 Conclusions of Financial Services
Amongst the financial products supplied by community banks and non-bank financial institutions 
in Tanzania, were short-term lending products, agricultural asset financing and leasing. On 
average, agricultural portfolios as a percentage of the total portfolios were approximately 22.3% 
valued at USD1.45 million. However, financial institutions still considered agricultural lending to 
be relatively risky with a total of 16% of the agricultural portfolio (USD 231,843 on average) 
being at risk. 
Majority of the loan clients for non-bank financial institutions were either associations/co￾operatives or groups with corporate clients making up the smallest portion of the clientele. The 
high number of group based loans is consistent with the group based lending approaches which 
are preferred by smaller financial institutions. While the low number of corporate clients may 
indicate a low preference to lend to corporate clients, it may also suggest that community 
banks and non-bank financial institutions are unable to service large corporate clients, who 
ordinarily require larger loan sizes than individuals or groups. 
KASI Agriventures program targets fruits, vegetables and spices as well as poultry value chains. 
But as expected, the baseline survey noted that non-bank financial institutions mostly financed 
cereals, vegetables and pulses in that order. This is because cereals and pulses are also the 
major categories of value chains that are produced by majority of Tanzanians. However, fruits 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
4-3
and vegetables/spice as well as poultry provide major opportunities for financing as they are 
considered commercial products. 
Demand for financial services amongst producers was low as indicated by low rates of 
borrowing among producers. Only 31% of the poultry keepers and 14% of the fruits, vegetables 
and spices producers had ever borrowed loans. Low rates of borrowing were, however, 
associated with unfavorable terms and conditions set by financial institutions. Demand for 
financial institutions amongst SMEs was higher, with the majority borrowing to fund raw 
materials supplies and stocks. In comparison, rates of borrowing amongst SMEs was lower for 
fruits, vegetables and spice processors at only 30% compared to 77% for SMEs engaging in 
poultry feed manufacturing. On average, SMEs involved in fruits, vegetables and spice processing
borrowed loans valued at USD 10,230 while those involved in manufacturing of poultry feeds 
borrowed an average of USD 19,210. 
However, preference for sources of borrowing varied. While most of the producers preferred 
using their own savings or borrowing from informal sources such as friends and family members 
and savings groups, SMEs preferred commercial banks. Only 18% of the fruit, vegetables and 
spice producers and 21% of the poultry producers had borrowed from community banks or 
non-bank financial institutions. Preference by SMEs to borrow from community banks or non￾bank financial institutions was low at only 5% for poultry feed manufacturers and 0% for fruits, 
vegetables and spice processors. This may point to the need for the KASI Agriventures to 
consider including commercial banks in the program but may also point on the need to 
strengthen the target financial institutions so that they are able to offer the necessary products 
and increase their market share.
With regard to leasing, the major assets financed included plant and machinery, industrial and 
farm equipment as well as vehicles. However, supply and demand of lease financing products 
was very low for both producers and SMEs. This presents a gap which the KASI Agriventures 
program can fill in by facilitating increased access to leasing services. 
4.1.4 Conclusions on Capacity Building Services
Access to training and extension services amongst producers was low. Only 27% of fruits, 
vegetables and spice producers and 32% of poultry producers had accessed training and 
extension services in the last year. This was mainly associated with inadequate supply of training 
providers. The major training and extension providers to producers were government 
extension staff, private extension staff and NGOs. However, contact with the trainings and 
extension service providers were rather infrequent, with majority of the producers interacting 
with providers on monthly basis or longer intervals. 
In comparison, access to capacity building amongst SMEs was relatively high at 80% for fruits, 
vegetables and spices processors and 63% for poultry feed manufacturers. Improved processing 
technologies, product quality standards and marketing were the main training offered to staff of 
vegetables, fruits and spice processors. For poultry feed manufacturers, feed manufacturing 
technologies and product quality standards management were the main training modules 
offered. The primary training service providers to SMEs were private companies/individuals and 
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
4-4
NGOs/donor programs. These findings suggests that it will be important for CEED to liaise 
with companies, individual experts, NGOs and donor programs that are involved in providing
training to SMEs.
4.2 Recommendations
The following recommendations are made from the baseline survey:
• With regard value chains, the program may need to look at value chains that were found 
to be commonly produced in the target regions. This will increase the chances of the 
program meeting its set targets especially on volumes and values;
• With regard to marketing, the program will need to consider organizing producers into 
groups. This will help in accessing higher end markets as the aggregation will result in 
higher volumes that will appeal to buyers. This will also encourage market reliability by 
seeking contractual arrangements with buyers. Organized groups can also be used to 
coordinate capacity building activities. Since farmer organization is not a key component 
of the KASI Agriventures program, the program may consider working with partners 
such as TAHA an TAFMA to identify already organized groups; 
• With regard to provision of financial services, the program may need to consider 
inclusion of commercial banks since they have a wider outreach and were used as 
preferred sources of borrowing by both producers and SMEs. In the absence of 
commercial banks, the KASI Agriventures program will need to increase the number of 
community banks and non-bank financial institutions involved in the program with 
special considerations for outreach within the target regions;
• With regard to program performance indicators, the baseline survey recommends that 
some of the program targets may need to be revised or redistributed. 
Recommendations for each of the indicators are contained in Table 3.31.
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
5-1
5 ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE
ANNEX 2: SAMPLING FRAME FOR THE BASELINE SURVEY
SEAF SAMPLING 
FRAME.doc
ANNEX 3: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS
NB: DOUBLE CLICK TO OPEN
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
5-1
ANNEX 5: CALCULATIONS FOR REFERENCED INDICATORS
Capacity Increase Estimation:
Current 1008 MT per year Yr 1 Utilization Rate 60%
Current Production 8.2 MT per day Yr 2 Utilization Rate 85%
Current Capacity 13.7 per day
Current utilization rate 60%
Daily Production Multiple 123
Indicator 23 Indicator 21
Post-Investment Capacity Output Feed output per year New Feed Produced per Year % change from previous year
End Yr. 1 (assume capacity is 
doubled with new machinery 
from investment)
27.4 16.4 2,016 1,008 100%
End Yr 2 (capacity is NOT 
doubled, but utilization rate is 
increased)
27.4 23.29 2,863 847 42%
VALUE OF SALES BY FEED MILLERS- INDICATORS 11 AND 19
Total number of SMEs surveyed 26
Output Sold No. 
of 
SMEs 
selling
% of 
sampled 
SMEs 
selling
Quantity 
Sold 
(Tons), 
per SME
Average 
Price per 
Ton (USD)
Value of 
Output Sold 
(USD)
Yr. 1 --
Indicator 19 
(increase in 
value of sales 
based on 
increase in 
output 
capacity)
Yr. 2 --
Indicator 19 
(increase in 
value of sales 
based on 
increase in 
output 
capacity)
Yr 1 --
Indicator 11 
(increase in 
volume of 
sales based 
on increase 
in output 
capacity)
Yr 2 -- Indicator 
11 (increase in 
volume of sales 
based on 
increase in 
output capacity)
Broilers Mash (Starter 
& Finisher)
26 100% 277 484 134,263 268,526.00 381,339.67 554.00 786.75
Chick Mash 22 85% 292 471 137,776 275,552.00 391,317.44 584.00 829.35
Growers Mash 24 92% 266 407 108,200 216,400.00 307,314.39 532.00 755.50
Layers Mash 26 100% 265 421 111,564 223,128.00 316,868.97 530.00 752.66
Pellets 1 4% 36 302 10,884 21,768.00 30,913.21 72.00 102.25
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
5-2
CALCULATION FOR NUMBER OF BENEFICIARIES- POULTRY - INDICATORS # 14,15,25
TOTAL NUMBER OF BENEFICIARIES FROM POULTRY FEED ACTIVITY
Hardcoded inputs
Number of farmers per region according to poultry type
Region Layers Broilers Total
Arusha 556 512 1,068
Kilimanjaro 4,200 1,096 5,296
Morogoro 966 1,394 2,360
Pwani (Coast) 894 553 1,447
Dar Es Salaam 1,742 535 2,277
Iringa 2,303 477 2,780
Mbeya 3,351 2,054 5,405
Total 14,012 6,621 20,633
Source: Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics based on 2007/2008 figures, published 2012
Average Quantity Purchased per Year (KG) by farmers 
Feed type Quantity
Chick mash 1,476
Growers mash 3,486
Layers mash 3,384
Broilers mash 3,870
Broilers pellets 1,440
Source: SEAF-KASI Baseline Study
Total Amount of Feed Demand per Region (KG)
Region Layer Mash Broiler Mash
Arusha 1,881,504 1,981,440
Kilimanjaro 14,212,800 4,241,520
Morogoro 3,268,944 5,394,780
Pwani (Coast) 3,025,296 2,140,110
Dar Es Salaam 5,894,928 2,070,450
Iringa 7,793,352 1,845,990
Mbeya 11,339,784 7,948,980
Source: SEAF-KASI Baseline Study
Country-wide annual production per SME Feed Manufacturer
Layer Mash Broiler Mash
Annual Average Production per SME 265,200 292,400
SEAF-KASI AGRIVENTURES BASELINE SURVEY REPORT - FEBRUARY 2016
5-3
4841-7752-4783, v. 1