i
MID TERM EVALUATION OF THE ZAMBIA AGRIBUSINESS TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE CENTRE (ZATAC)
Prepared by
Agricultural Sciences Association of Zambia (ASAZ)
Review team:
Mlotha Damaseke, Team Leader
Gabriel Jere, Agribusiness Expert
Ndambo Ndambo, M & E Specialist
Commissioned by the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID/Zambia)
September 2002
ii
Acknowledgments
We wish to acknowledge the assistance offered by individuals and organizations
during the course of the Mid-term Evaluation mission
Special thanks to USAID/Zambia Mission for the financial support; Mr. Cris Muyunda, 
Cognizant Technical Officer-ZATAC- USAID, and Ms Bagie Sherchand Chief of Party 
for ZATAC and her team for the time and cooperation they rendered during the study.
We also greatly appreciate the cooperation from the many farmers and professional 
people we met and had discussions with during the course of the study. To all, God 
bless.
Authors1
 
1
 Mlotha Damaseke is a Food Security Pack Manager for the Programme Against Malnutrition (PAM); 
Gabriel Jere is a Lecturer in Agribusiness at The University of Zambia; Ndambo Ndambo is the 
Liaison Officer for the Zambia National Farmers Union and the Swedish Cooperative Center.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................. iii
List of Tables.........................................................................................................................v
List Of Acronyms .................................................................................................................. vi
List Of Acronyms .................................................................................................................. vi
Executive Summary............................................................................................................. vii
1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................1
1.1 ZATAC: A Historical Evolution..........................................................................................1
1.2 Objectives of ZATAC .......................................................................................................1
1.2.1 Specific Objectives of ZATAC .......................................................................................2
1.2.2 Indicator of Achievement to ZATAC Objectives .............................................................2
1.3 Implementation Design of ZATAC....................................................................................2
1.4 ZATAC Budget and Funding............................................................................................2
1.5 Evaluation Purpose..........................................................................................................3
1.5.1 Specific Objectives of the Evaluation.............................................................................3
1.6 Methodological Design.....................................................................................................3
1.6.1 Study Design ................................................................................................................3
1.6.1.1 Effort..........................................................................................................................3
1.6.1.2 Effect .........................................................................................................................4
1.6.1.3 Change......................................................................................................................4
1.6.2 Fieldwork and Data Collection Tools .............................................................................4
1.6.2.1 Sampling ...................................................................................................................4
1.6.2.2 Semi-structured Interviews.........................................................................................5
1.6.2.3 Structured Interviews .................................................................................................5
1.6.3 Data Analysis................................................................................................................5
2.0 Study Findings, Analysis and Discussions........................................................................6
2.1 Project Management and Administration..........................................................................6
2.1.1 Project Management and Administration Appraisal........................................................6
2.1.1.1 Baseline Study...........................................................................................................6
2.1.1.2 Monitoring and Evaluation System .............................................................................7
2.1.1.3 Performance Indicators Appraisal...............................................................................7
2.2 Establishment of Linkages to Financial and Business Institutions .....................................8
2.2.1 Effort Appraisal .............................................................................................................8
2.2.2 Establishment of Linkages to Financial Institutions - Effect/Change Appraisal................9
2.3.2 Effect/Change Appraisal .............................................................................................15
2.4 Policy Advocacy ............................................................................................................18
2.4.1 Policy Advocacy Appraisal ..........................................................................................18
2.4.2 Policy Constraints.......................................................................................................19
2.5 Skills Development and Information Dissemination ........................................................20
2.5.1 Skills Development and Information Dissemination Appraisal ......................................20
iv
2.6 Market Demand and Analysis ........................................................................................21
2.6.1 Market Demand and Analysis Effort Appraisal.............................................................21
2.6.1 Market Demand and Analysis Effect Appraisal ............................................................22
2.7 Market Development and Expansion..............................................................................24
2.7.1 Market Development and Expansion Effort Appraisal ..................................................24
2.7.1 Market Development and Expansion Effect/Change Appraisal ....................................24
2.7 Sustainability .................................................................................................................25
2.7.1 ZATAC Sustainability Appraisal...................................................................................25
3.0 Lessons Learned ...........................................................................................................29
4.0 Conclusion and Recommendations................................................................................30
ANNEXES
ANNEX 1 - TERMS OF REFERENCE .................................................................................33
ANNEX 2 - LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED................................................................365
ANNEX 3 - LIST OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWED.....................................................................36
ANNEX 4 - ZATAC REFLOW TRACKING FORM: OCTOBER 2000 TO JULY 2002.............37
ANNEX 5 - ZATAC FISCAL REPORT AS AT JULY 9TH 2002 .............................................38
ANNEX 6 - CUSTOMER & BORROWER LIST AS AT 31ST JULY 2002................................39
v
List of Tables
Table 1: Milk Collected at Kazungula Project .........................................................................8
Table 2: Interest Rates Developments (1997-2001) ...............................................................8
Table 3: NTEs Earnings.......................................................................................................10
Table 4: Linkages to Finance Performance Achievements .................................................121
Table 5: Number and Type of ZATAC Partners....................................................................15
Table 6: Participants Trained. ..............................................................................................20
Table 7: Market and Demand Analysis Performance Targets...............................................23
Table 8: Market Development & Expansion..........................................................................25
Table 9: Credit Portfolio Summary .....................................................................................256
vi
List Of Acronyms
ASAZ Agricultural Science Association of Zambia
CFU Conservation Farming Unit
CLUSA Cooperative League of United States of America
DAI Development Alternatives Incorporated
DVO District Veterinary Officer
FY Financial Year 
GRZ Government of the Republic of Zambia
IDE International Development Enterprises
IOA Indicators Of Achievement
IR Immediate Result
JIC Joint Industrial Council
JICA Japanese International Cooperation Agency
LINTCO Lint Company
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MPU Micro-Projects Unit
NGOs Non Governmental Organizations
NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development
NTEs Non Traditional Exports
NUPAW National Union of Plantations and Agricultural Workers
PAM Programme Against Malnutrition
PME Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
RNFEs Rural-Non-Farm Enterprises
SO1 Strategic Objective 1
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
USA United States of America
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VAT Value Added Tax
WRP Warehouse Receipt Programme
ZACA Zambia Agricultural Commodities Agency
ZAHVAC Zambia Association of High Value Crops
ZATAC Zambia Agribusiness Technical Assistance Center
ZCGA Zambia Coffee Growers Association
ZFEA Zambia Farm Employers Association
ZIC Zambia Investment Center
ZIF ZATAC Investment Fund
ZRA Zambia Revenue Authority
vii
Executive Summary
This report presents the findings of a Mid-term review of the USAID funded ZATAC
Project. The purpose of the Mid-term Evaluation of the ZATAC Project was to
determine the (1) efforts made in form of activities to realize the project objectives,
(2) effect in terms of extent to which interventions improved the identified gaps and;
(3) change in form of evidence available that impacted positively or negatively on the 
intervention targets.
The mid-term review had the following objectives:
» To determine the extent to which the Development Alternatives Incorporated (DAI) 
implemented Zambia Agribusiness Technical Assistance Centre (ZATAC), which was 
established to provide business development services to agribusinesses that work
with smallholder farmers has had or is having a beneficial impact; 
» To identify the key elements of success of the centre that can be replicated to
improve ongoing or future investments and interventions on the part of USAID and;
» To provide remedies or reorientation of the operations of the Centre if ZATAC does 
is not achieving the intended goals.
In order to have a comprehensive review or assessment of the Project, the study
used PRA methods. The study focused on the following issues or thematic areas in 
the data collection and analysis:
(a) Project Management and Administration
(b) Establishment of Linkages to Financial and Business Institutions
(c) ZATAC Partners and Collaborators
(d) Policy Advocacy
(e) Market and Demand Analysis
(f) Skills Development and Information Dissemination
(g) Market Development and Expansion
(h) Project Sustainability
The following are the main findings of the mid-term review:
1. Project Management and Administration
hThe ZATAC’s effort were directed towards setting up of the project office with six
highly experienced, qualified and technically sound US and Zambian professional
staff and together these professionals were expected to build a sustainable ZATAC
and achieve the objectives of the project. The DAI was responsible for project
management and administration of the project. 
hBy and large, the ZATAC has managed to meet most of the targets envisaged in
the work plan from year one to year three of the project life. Remarkable
achievement has been registered in establishment of a Zambian-led and managed
private, non-profit firm, the ZATAC ltd. Other achievements include the
operationalisation of the Monitoring and Evaluation system including the
commissioning of the baseline study; establishment of the ZATAC Investment Fund
(ZIF) and effective partner collaboration - linkages have been established with other 
development agencies such as JICA and NORAD.
viii
hHowever, this review noted that the baseline study was not as focused and useful
as it should have been to ZATAC’s developmental objectives. The baseline study did 
not provide any meaningful data/information about the capacity (both in terms of
skills and ability) of the smallholder farmers to participate gainfully in the ZIF projects.
· It was also found that there are serious indications that there were gaps in the 
ZATAC management monitoring process. This is largely because ZATAC’s M&E was 
‘apex-oriented’ and left the field level activity monitoring to its collaborative partners. 
However, this review study found that the ZATAC management have already taken
note of these hiccups in the project and have since commenced sourcing funds from 
other donors/partners that will enable ZATAC register its presence at activity level by 
employing its own personnel to subsequently strengthen its M&E capacity.
hThe target of adding 120,000 more RNFE beneficiaries is achievable but it is not
certain as to whether the target will eventually be met. This is because some of the 
smallholder farmers who were mobilized in the various projects had low capacity to
participate and thus found it difficult to continue. However, with the new strategy by
ZATAC management of intensifying capacity building programs through training and 
field days, the target would certainly be achieved.
The performance indicator of increasing the net income per RNFE member to
US$271 per annum is being met (mainly by ZATAC’s flag carrier projects of
smallholder vegetable export and milk collection center programs). However, the
performance indicator with a target of increasing the NTEs to US$450 million
annually has not been achieved and it also difficult to ascertain ZATAC’s direct or
indirect influence on this.
2. Establishment of Linkages to Financial and Business Institutions
hZATAC has put in a lot of programs and activities in its effort to link the RNFEs and 
smallholder farmers to financial institutions. ZATAC has also been promoting joint
ventures with other partners in finance, most notably in conjunction with the Embassy 
of Japan. ZATAC has promoted joint ventures intended to reduce risk of lending
money and also to bring in as many relevant investors/stakeholders as possible into 
the agribusiness sub sector to make agribusiness projects sustainable. To this end,
ZATAC has identified 72 joint venture partnerships compared to its 5-year target of 
48. This is a 160% achievement rate. ZATAC has also been mandated to provide
financial intermediation services to improve RNFE access to credit and manage two 
risk-reducing funds. One is a Special Purpose Financing Vehicle ($400,000) to
leverage funding for natural resource RNFEs, and the other is a Matching Grant
Fund ($100,000) to foster innovation in RNFE technology, market development, and 
service delivery. In line with increasing non-traditional export (NTEs) an additional
$600,000 to the SPFV was specifically earmarked for the “smallholder export
vegetables cooperative” project. This amount is being used to provide loans for the
smallholders to acquire irrigation equipment for growing export vegetables. ZATAC is 
working with AGRFLORA Ltd in this smallholder export vegetables cooperative
project. 
hThe intended beneficiaries are indeed utilizing the financial linkages. The impact
on the smallholder as a result of access to credit is evident. Statistics from the
interviews conducted by the Evaluation team shows that access to credit has
improved for the ZATAC project participants. Only 3% of the participants had access 
to any form of credit before the ZATAC projects. This figure jumped to 72% of
ix
participants that now have access to credit since introduction of the projects. The
credit is primarily in form of inputs like seed, fertilizer and irrigation equipment. 
hThe majority (about 75%) of the loan recipients are male. This however does not
mean that the females have not benefited. The study found out that families (man,
wife and children) worked together on the farm and thus benefits accrued to the
entire family. The males got the loans on account of being household heads.
Females that were in charge of households also had access to the loans. The overall 
benefits include easier access to markets for their produce and increased incomes
for the households. The review mission noted that even if there is no spelled out
gender policy, the ZATAC project has encouraged equal opportunity for women and 
men to access markets, loans and training. Furthermore, ZATAC also encourages
the cooperatives (RNFEs) to register members’ spouses (wives) so that women can 
fully participate in cooperative meetings and trainings. In Katuba, ZATAC is currently 
enforcing a minimum female representation policy in most of its training programs. 
hThe major change in the behavior of the RNFEs as a result of having access to
credit is that they now own infrastructure/facilities. The Kazungula Cooperative
Society has a Milk Collection Center worth more than US$40,000. The smallholder
farmers that are members of this Cooperative easily sell their milk to the center and 
are assured of a market. The Buteko Cooperative, as an RNFE, has a new storage 
shade that has cooling facilities for the vegetables that the farmers produce. The
Buteko storage facility has enabled the cooperative members to reduce on the
amount of vegetables wasted when AGRIFLORA delays in picking up the produce. 
3. ZATAC Partners and Collaborators
hZATAC has managed to establish linkages with various partners and collaborators. 
The partners work with ZATAC in primarily three areas: Technical, Commercial and
Financial. The technical partners are key to the success of ZATAC’s projects as they 
impart the basic skills and supply equipment to the smallholders and RNFEs. These 
partners will help the smallholder farmer produce to a profitable level, as these
farmers still lack the basics in farm/business management The financial partners
provide credit or financial resources to the smallholder farmers and the RNFEs in
order to increase their productivity. The commercial partners buy produce from the
smallholder farmers and thus contribute directly to their increased incomes. The
commercial partners have a critical role to play in the success of the projects and
thus ZATAC would do well to work with commercial partners that are willing to pay a 
competitive price for the products. 
hThe major concerns expressed by the smallholder farmers from the projects that
were visited in the study were mainly with reference to the technical and commercial 
services. Almost all (95%) of the smallholders interviewed were not satisfied with the 
services provided by the technical and commercial collaborators. The spraying to
control diseases and pests has not been done consistently and effectively by
AGRIFLORA, resulting in estimated losses of up 30% of crop yield. BIOPEST, 
ZATAC’s partner in Katuba area, which provides fertilizer and seed input for growing 
of Paprika has also not met the farmers’ expectations as it has failed to avail fertilizer 
in sufficient quantities on time and has failed to effectively control disease and pests.
hZATAC’s technical partners in providing irrigation equipment IDE and AMIRAN
have generally been popular with the smallholder beneficiaries, especially with the
treadle pumps. The only problem that the farmers cited was that the equipment was 
expensive and it will take them beyond the agreed loan repayment period to service 
x
their loans. This has also been exacerbated by the fact that the farmers are not
getting in the projected cash flows from their production due to the problems of low
prices and late payment of money.
hA strategic partner in ZATAC’s activities that has not been fully involved is the
GRZ, specifically, the Departments of Extension and Veterinary/Animal health. The
review noted that the Veterinary Department was not fully consulted in the Kazungula 
Milk Collection Project and this led to the failure to combat the outbreak of Foot and 
Mouth disease in the area during the course of project implementation. The DVO was 
not officially consulted during the baseline study and only knew of the project
informally through a colleague at CARE. The project is now making efforts to link with 
the DVO. For instance, a Memorandum of Understanding was recently signed with
the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives by the District Veterinary Officer to
incorporate the Ministry in project activities. The Government has since carried out
vaccinations to help prevent Foot and Mouth Disease in Kazungula.
hDuring the review mission, the ZATAC project beneficiaries suggested that for
improvement of service delivery and smooth implementation of the projects, there
was need for ZATAC to partner with institutions that can work with the community
and the government to improve infrastructure like roads. A good partner for this
activity would be the Rural Investment Fund (RIF) of the Agricultural Sector
investment Programme (ASIP). The communities also felt that organizations like
Prevention Against Malnutrition (PAM) and The Micro-Projects Unit (MPU) could
work together with ZATAC to achieve these objectives. 
4. Policy Advocacy
hThe policy advocacy dialogues initiated by ZATAC have also been very successful. 
Examples of this include the formation of the Zambia Commodity Association Agency 
and the lobbying done to include lime in the GRZ agricultural input packages.
However, from the ZATAC reports, it was apparent that a significant number of policy 
discussions mainly involved government technocrats and well established
businesspersons. It would be more appropriate if more rural stakeholders like
smallholder farmers were involved in policy initiatives so that they can influence
policy areas that directly impact them. This works well as the case was when ZATAC 
held the Lime workshop/seminar 
5. Policy Constraints
hA significant policy constraint to ZATAC’s program implementation has been the
lack of clarity in government’s agricultural and industrial policies. For example, even 
though the government encourages a free market economy, its distribution of
subsidized inputs like fertilizer in certain seasons distorts the rural private-sector 
economy. This has limited the number of investors in the agribusiness sub-sector 
who could buy produce from and sell inputs to smallholder farmers. 
hA lack of consistent policy on tariff and tax regimes (e.g. VAT) has resulted in
agribusinesses facing unfair competition from imported products and at the same
time being heavily taxed by the government. This clearly discourages more
investment in the agribusiness sector that can promote and work with RNFEs.
hThe lack of commitment to quality and standards enforcement by both the public
and private sector has been a major constraint to expanding agricultural exports. The 
xi
smallholders who are in the AGRIFLORA outgrower scheme are a notable example. 
A significant percentage of their produce is rejected due to poor quality. While this is 
not entirely caused by them, it shows how both the producer and the local buyer
neglect quality in production.
6. Skills Development and Information Dissemination
hBased on the review of ZATAC quarterly and annual reports, it is clear that the
skills development and dissemination workshops conducted so far are over and
above the targeted outputs. At the end of the 3rd Financial Year, projected output had 
been exceeded by over 400%.
hThe topics covered in these training sessions have been broad, ranging from basic 
business management skills to more complex issues in finance and marketing. Both 
RNFEs and RNFE members have been involved in these training programs. The
current records show that an estimated number of about 1,200 people have
undergone training in the various workshops/seminars delivered. 
hThe other important training issue that has been provided by ZATAC has been on 
HIV/AIDS awareness. Several hundreds of ZATAC beneficiaries have attended
these. However, more seminars on HIV/AIDS need to be held so that the target
beneficiaries can be sensitized. This is especially critical in view of the fact that about 
75% of ZATAC beneficiaries are in the age group 15 to 49 years, which is the most 
vulnerable to the disease. This thematic area is very cardinal in the remaining years
of the project. This is because if necessary skills are not imparted in the targeted
beneficiaries then the whole concept of sustainability of ZATAC as a project and
ZATAC Ltd in years to come will be threatened.
hThe review mission conducted interviews with RNFE members to determine their
perceptions on the training conducted by ZATAC. From the random sample
interviewed, only 54% attended any kind of training course. The majority (28%) of
those that attended these training courses went to more than two of these courses.
7. Market Demand and Analysis 
hZATAC made important strides in achieving project goals remaining vigilant to its
goal of increasing outreach as far as possible to smallholder farmers with the
commitment to pursue those activities that benefit small holders and help raise their 
income.
hThe market assessments done at the start of the year concentrated on products
like sunflower, groundnuts, soybeans and cottonseed. These crops are grown mostly 
by rural small-scale farmers and supplied to oil processing companies like Amanita.
ZATAC has since moved its focus to also include market assessments for products
with increasing demand and windows of opportunity during periods of low supply.
ZATAC has conducted such a study involving three large wholesale open city council 
markets of Lusaka and Livingstone.
8. Market Development and Expansion 
hZATAC’s Market Development and Expansion activities are designed to help
increase the marketability of Zambian products and create new joint venture
partnerships between Zambian and foreign firms. Through development of trade and 
xii
investment contracts, this service area is expected to assist RNFEs strengthen their 
products positions regionally and internationally. The objective of this component is
to help expand markets for Zambian products. ZATAC offers services in such areas 
as market entry and development strategies, production improvement, increase and 
improve market linkages, and increase investments to help improve RNFEs.
hThe review mission noted that the targets set under this project component have
not been fully met. Only 20% of the project life target has been met so far while the
annual targets have not been achieved. This is a crucial component that ZATAC has 
to work on since the RNFE can only have a good business if their plan is good. Good 
plans will also assist the RNFEs to have easier access to finance. A crucial market
development and expansion area that needs urgent attention from ZATAC is the
provision of technical assistance to RNFEs on utilization of diversified crops. Most
RNFEs have been having problems servicing their loans because they are not
generating sufficient incomes from the main activity that they are involved in.
9. ZATAC Sustainability 
hOne of the key determinants for the sustainability of ZATAC is that it has to bring in 
sufficient financial resources from the services it renders without relying on outside
funding. ZATAC has disbursed a total of $375, 516.38 as at the end of its third
financial year. Sixty-three percent of this loan disbursement was for the AGRIFLORA 
horticulture program. Over the same period, ZATAC has received $54, 453.52 in
form of principal repayments, interest and service charges. The ratio for this credit
portfolio shows that for every $1 that ZATAC has loaned out, it has received back 15 
cents. The smallholders that have received the finance have certainly not been
making sufficient returns on their investment to service their loans.
hThe non-AGRIFLORA ZIF related loan disbursement totaled $59,159.01 and
$20,005.42 has been repaid. These non-AGRIFLORA ZIF loans have mostly been
one time loans for procurement of farming equipment like irrigation pumps or used to 
fund relatively smaller projects like the Kazungula milk collection center, Mongu
cashew production, CLUSA-Chipata irrigation program and Shibuyunji. Such smaller 
projects have repaid 34% of the loans compared to the 13% repayment by
AGRIFLORA. It would make good business sense and ensure sustainability for
ZATAC to pursue funding of more such projects.
hAlthough the majority of smallholders (40%) participating in the ZATAC project
have been farmers their entire lives, they have been involved in subsistence farming 
with little or no business skills. This has resulted in ZATAC having to spend a lot
more resources in training these farmers to grow high value crops and manage their 
businesses profitably. It will therefore take a few more years before the majority of
these smallholders attain a level where the can run their business well and be able to 
service their loans.
hThe review mission noted that ZATAC’s sustainability is not assured in the short
term (next two to three years) primarily because it is not bringing in enough money to 
support all its activities. ZATAC will therefore continue to need donor funding until
such a time that it can bring in sufficient returns to stand on its own. The major
reason for its lack of sustainability at the moment is the poor debt servicing from the 
smallholders and insufficient funds from service charges from clients. The 
smallholders are not making enough money as they are currently learning new skills 
in their new businesses. 
xiii
LESSONS LEARNED
The following are the main lessons learned so far in the implementation of the
ZATAC project:
· Projects or intervention activities need to be mooted with a full consultation of 
the community that is being targeted for assistance. This will allow ownership 
by the communities so that sustainability after the project life span can be
enhanced. Therefore, setting up enterprises that are demand driven and
participatory in nature taking into account all socio-economic dimensions
should become the main root of setting up new interventions. 
· All members of the community and both genders should be considered as
potential participants in ZATAC projects. In Zambia, the female gender is the 
most afflicted with deprivation of means of production like finances and
equipment and yet they are the most reliable in returning what was borrowed. 
However, ZATAC has no deliberate policy on gender equity in its project
implementation. 
· When starting a project(s), it is important to put in place a very strong
Monitoring and Evaluation System that can quickly detect the bottlenecks and 
be responsive to the changing needs. This will ensure that corrective
measures are quickly put in place to avoid emergency measures that simply
result in deterioration of the situation as was done with the Kazungula project 
where there was too much dependency on cooperating partners. Recent
efforts by ZATAC to develop implementation and completion schedules for
each project with specific targets and outputs to be used as benchmarks will 
be valuable in establishing an operational M&E system for the project. 
· The setting-up of targets that will be used for measuring the success or failure 
of the programme to attain its objectives was a bit over ambitious. For
instance, the capacity of the smallholders in the Kazungula Milk Project to fill 
up the 2,400 liters tank is questionable, now and in the short to medium term. 
A baseline study that was done before this project was implemented assumed 
this holding tank would serve as a catchment area for 3 to 4 other areas. This 
has not been realized yet. The farmers there have only been able to supply
190 liters of milk a day. 
· The vegetable export project is critical in raising smallholder farmers’ incomes 
quickly. The evaluation study found that the vegetable producers made $396
per annum while the smallholders in the milk project raised $288 per annum.
· A project that has a loan facility has a greater chance of being successful
than one without, given the difficulties of accessing finance in Zambia. We
learnt that ZATAC’s success was mainly because of its loan facility.
· ZATAC has played a crucial role in deepening the understanding of the 
agribusiness concept in Zambia. Having come from a background of
socialism, most smallholder farmers involved in the programme are now
business oriented and they aim for a profit in their undertakings.
xiv
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the study findings, the following recommendations are proposed for
consideration:
· The number of farmers involved in the ZATAC programme can be increased if 
ZATAC makes strategic linkages with developmental NGOs and private firms 
like PAM, ZNFU, ZAHVAC and LONRHO Cotton.
· ZATAC should expand its milk projects. The potential for increased milk
production is very high. Milk collection centers can be established in sub￾urban areas of Kabwe and in most Copperbelt towns. The increased milk
production can also be targeted for export within the sub-region, especially
the DRC.
· For ZATAC to have an impact on increased NTEs, it should form a strategic
partnership and work closely with the Export Board of Zambia (EBZ). ZATAC 
cannot afford to work in a vacuum. The review mission noted that no such 
linkage existed between ZATAC and EBZ. EBZ is a crucial partner in exports 
issues in Zambia as they have conducted a lot of market analysis and
baseline studies in products targeted for export.
· For the Kazungula project, it seems that CARE was a critical partner in terms 
of organizing the farmers and even implementing the project. Both ZATAC
and USAID need to think carefully about how to fill the gap left by CARE. For 
example, in the Katuba project, when AGRIFLORA pulled out and they were 
quickly replaced by BIOPEST. ZATAC should similarly look for a new partner 
in this case.
· USAID should continue supporting ZATAC up to its close in 2004. Beyond
2004, it is recommended that USAID carefully consider an extension because 
ZATAC limited, whereas it is a good start, will not have attained sustainability.
· ZATAC needs to continue funding smaller to medium sized projects as their
repayment record is better and risk can be reduced if the portfolio is spread
over more projects. The fund should be utilized fully as at the time of
evaluation less than half of the monies were disbursed.
· ZATAC ltd needs to be more aggressive in finding new partners. It should
NOT ride on the success of the ZATAC project. As a Zambian institution, it
should go flat out and engage local, regional and international partners to
help agribusiness investment in Zambia and thereby assume its sustainability.
· It was noted that some of the portfolios ZATAC went into were weak in terms
of generating income for ZATAC. These include cashew and dried tomato
projects. It is recommended that ZATAC should carefully review its
engagement procedures in future in order to safeguard its investments. For 
instance, given ZATAC’s interest in honey production, it would be prudent to 
use ZATAC’s new engagement procedures before initiating the honey project 
and other activities. ZATAC needs to first consolidate its current projects and 
programs before starting any new ventures.
xv
· The treadle pump oriented investments are of high returns and it is proposed 
that ZATAC should assess other geographical areas to see where else these 
pumps can be used in production of crops for both local and export markets.
· ZATAC started off well on the lime initiative and so they need to go further to 
assist lime companies with issues of marketing by linking them with potential 
buyers.
1
1.0 Introduction
For nearly over decade, the concept of agri-business through a structured
partnership between the private sector and the smallholder organized farmer groups 
has become an important feature in the liberalized market environment. One of the
prominent styles of collaboration has been the co-existence of the Agribusiness
private companies/agencies and the smallholder farmers in an Out grower Scheme
Arrangement.
1.1 ZATAC: A Historical Evolution 
The concept of agribusiness in Zambia was first pioneered in the late 1970’s by a 
government parastatal company called LINTCO, which was involved in production
and marketing of cotton as a commodity in Mumbwa district of Central Province. In
1996, LINTCO was privatized and was taken over by another company called
LONRHO. Records indicate that production has since then increased by 15-20% 
annually over the past 6 years. The Zambia Association of High Value Crops
(ZAHVAC) established a similar arrangement in 1997, in which in the production of 
paprika was promoted.
Despite the long years of implementing Out-grower schemes in Zambia, there have
been serious gaps in ensuring that there is genuine increase in the incomes of the
rural households. This is because most of the agribusiness enterprises are tailor￾made by the agribusiness companies giving no option to smallholder farmers.
Advocating for setting up of agri-business enterprises that are demand driven and
participatory in nature that could take into account all key important socio-economic 
dimensions became increasingly vital in order to establish sustainable agribusiness
projects and subsequently attain increased rural household incomes. 
It is against this realization that the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) and its collaborating partners found it provident to support a
Zambian engineered initiative, the Zambia Agribusiness Technical Assistance Center 
(ZATAC), so as to bridge up the identified gaps and provide a remedy in this regard.
The ZATAC Project, which has a five-year lifespan, officially commenced its
operations on 23rd August 1999 and is expected to conclude implementing its
activities by 22nd August 2004. ZATAC is a self-sustaining institution with a mandate 
to articulate principles under which the project was founded. Some of these principles 
include continued provision of technical assistance to business organizations and
institutions that support or work with rural smallholder farmers so that rural poverty
and food insecurity problems are reduced among the rural population.
1.2 Objectives of ZATAC
The shared objective of USAID/Zambia’s Strategic Objective number one (SO-1) 
support to ZATAC is increased sustainable rural incomes, which should be achieved 
through:
(1) Fostering greater demand for smallholder farmer agricultural production and
the goods and services of rural non-farm enterprises- RNFEs (the rural
agribusiness entrepreneurs who either supply inputs to or purchase product
from smallholder producers, including producers or non-agricultural natural
resource-based goods) and; 
(2) Increased number of agribusinesses that buy output from and sell inputs to
smallholder farmers. 
2
1.2.1 Specific Objectives of ZATAC
The specific objective of ZATAC is to increase rural incomes in order to positively
influence ongoing or future activities or investments through the provision of high
quality technical assistance which is structured through five service areas which are: 
(1) market and demand analysis; (2) market development and expansion; (3) Skills
development and information dissemination; (4) linkages to finance and; (5) policy
advocacy.
1.2.2 Indicator of Achievement to ZATAC Objectives
The Indicator(s) Of Achievement (IOA) for ZATAC includes:
1) Adding one hundred and twenty thousand (120,000) smallholder farmers to the
current number of smallholder farmers using productivity enhancing
technologies.
2) Increasing the annual income of the rural non farm enterprises to each member 
up to United States dollar, two hundred and seventy one (US$271) and
3) Attain a United States dollar four hundred and fifty million (US$450m) on an
annual basis in non-traditional exports (NTEs).
1.3 Implementation Design of ZATAC
ZATAC was designed to be implemented by a consortium of three firms led by
Development Alternatives Incorporated (DAI) with assistance of J.E. Austin and
Mano Consultancy Services. The staffing levels of ZATAC included six highly
experienced, qualified and technically sound American and Zambian professional 
staff and together these professionals are expected to build a sustainable ZATAC
and achieve the objectives of the project.
The terms of reference and mandate of the Development Alternative Incorporated
(DAI) was to, among other assignments:
a. Establish and manage ZATAC in Lusaka, Zambia, for an initial five year
lifespan;
b. Provide business development services to agribusiness that buy from or sell
to smallholder farmers; 
c. Increase the number of and efficiency of Zambian agribusiness competing for 
smallholder production; 
d. Assist in marketing the produce profitably and competitively in domestic and
international markets and; 
e. Provide a complementing and coordinating capacity for the other ongoing
business development and rural income activities supported by USAID and
other donors.
1.4 ZATAC Budget and Funding
The ZATAC total budget over a five-year period is US$ 6.6 million and is wholly 
funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
3
1.5 Evaluation Purpose
The purpose of this mid-term evaluation was to determine:
· Efforts made in form of activities to realize the project objectives
· Effect in terms of extent to which interventions improved the identified gaps 
· Change in form of evidence available that impacted positively or negatively on 
the intervention targets.
1.5.1 Specific Objectives of the Evaluation
The following are the specific objectives of the mid-term review:
1. To determine the extent to which the Development Alternatives Incorporated
(DAI) implemented Zambia Agribusiness Technical Assistance Centre
(ZATAC) which was established to provide business development services
that work with smallholder farmers has had or is having a beneficial impact; 
2. To identify the key elements of success of the Centre that can be replicated to 
improve ongoing or future investments and interventions on the part of USAID 
and;
3. To provide remedies or reorientation of the operations of the Centre if ZATAC 
does not achieve the intended goals.
1.6 Methodological Design 
1.6.1 Study Design
There are a number of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems being employed in 
evaluating projects of this nature. However, for the purpose of this assignment, the
Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) system was used. The PME system is
based on four (4) main broad fundamental principles. The PME system is:
(1) Able to capture and/or feed quality information on output, outcome and impact at 
any level of the project cycle, including accountability, reflective and analytical
capabilities of the project implementers leading to adaptation of plans and realization 
of set objectives; 
(2) Based on the assumptions that change, as a result of social development, may be 
unpredictable and that its evaluation cannot always be based on the predetermined
expectations of likely outcomes and 
(3) Acknowledges the value of alternative sources of information-both oral and visual￾and of the perceptions of the target beneficiaries who have not been directly targeted 
in the project, but somehow have been affected by the spill over effects of the
interventions. 
In employing the PME system in M&E, four (4) key questions are addressed and
measure the following: (a) Effort; (b) Effect; (c) Change and; (d) Efficiency.
1.6.1.1 Effort
The following questions were considered under this section:
· What interventions have been put in place to improve the situation on the
target beneficiaries?
4
· What improvements in supporting target beneficiaries have been made by the 
organization?
· What activities have been undertaken to improve the organizational structure, 
productive and financial base of the target beneficiaries?
· What has been done to strengthen the organization as an actor in the society, 
or community?
1.6.1.2 Effect
The following questions were considered under this section:
· To what extent are the interventions being utilized?
· How have the target group benefited from the activities of the project?
· What is the level of participation of various partners/collaborators or interest
groups in increasing opportunities?
1.6.1.3 Change
The following questions were considered under this section:
· What evidence is there to show that there have been improvements and
sustainability in the entrepreneurships of the target beneficiaries?
· What evidence is available to show that the capacity of the beneficiaries’
organizations have been strengthened
· What evidence exists to show that the project is providing relevant support to 
the target group?
· What evidence is there to show that there is increased equity among the
target beneficiaries?
1.6.2 Fieldwork and Data Collection Tools
1.6.2.1 Sampling
The evaluation team visited Kazungula Dairy Project in Kazungula district of
Southern province; and Buteko and Katuba Cooperative Societies in the Lusaka
Province. Other farms or firms largely involved in production of export vegetables and 
Coffee production were visited too. The team also visited the ZATAC Project offices
and met all the relevant staff except one.
The exercise utilized a complement of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods 
and techniques to collect different data sets. The data collection methods used
allowed target beneficiaries and those not directly linked to the project but aware of it, 
to investigate, analyze and evaluate their problems and/or constraints pertaining to
their respective projects. The data collection methods also allowed target
beneficiaries assess opportunities requisite to the development of sustainable
business strategies in their area.
The assessment used the following PRA methods:
1. Semi-structured Interviewing (using purposely selected Focus Groups), 
2. Key Informant Interviews and,
3. Structured Interviews (using questionnaires). 
5
The methods managed to collect data about project performance in the question
areas of effort, effect and change and target beneficiaries’ relationships with socio￾economic factors including policy issues prevailing in their localities.
1.6.2.2 Semi-structured Interviews
The study team conducted semi-structured interviews on five purposely selected and 
representative focus groups among the Project (both at ZATAC Office and respective 
local projects), community leaders, women, men and youths. The interviews
collected data/information pertaining to community indicative income levels,
capabilities and activities critical to the existing business strategies. In addition, key
informant interviews through individual interactive discussion complemented focus
group data/information collection. Among the people talked to, as key informants,
were the Government leadership in the relevant line ministries and successful
entrepreneurs/farmers in the specific relevant commodities within the study areas.
1.6.2.3 Structured Interviews
The Assessment Team conducted structured interviews, using questionnaires, to
collect specific and quantitative data sets on randomly sampled target beneficiaries
about all the important aspects of the project. The team members interviewed a total 
of 35 beneficiaries in line with the key evaluation questions.
1.6.3 Data Analysis
Data/information collected through semi-structured (focus group discussions) and
key informant interviews were subjected to qualitative analysis and synthesized by
the study team. On the other hand, data sets collected under the structured
interviews were subjected to statistical analysis using the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS 11.0). The analyzed data makes the base of the ZATAC mid 
term review evaluation results report.
6
2.0 Study Findings, Analysis and Discussions
2.1 Project Management and Administration
2.1.1 Project Management and Administration Appraisal 
From the onset, ZATAC’s effort was directed towards setting up of the project office 
with six highly experienced, qualified and technically sound US and Zambian
professional staff. Together these professionals are expected to build a sustainable
ZATAC and achieve the objectives of the project. The DAI was responsible for
project management and administration and activities that included: (1) official
launching of ZATAC, (2) inventorisation of reports and (3) drawing and submission of 
work plans to UASID, which was successfully done within the first year of the project 
life.
Other efforts made by the project were trying to put in a place and operationalise the 
Monitoring and Evaluation system including the commissioning of the baseline study. 
In order for the project to realize one of its goals, that is, to make ZATAC a stand
alone, self-funding and self managing Zambian organization within five years, a
number of efforts were made and these included the operationalisation of the ZATAC 
Investment Fund (ZIF) and effective partner collaboration. This component has seen 
the establishment of the Smallholder Export Vegetables Project with strategic
collaborations with a number of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) such as
Cooperative League of United States of America (CLUSA), CARE, Africare, and the 
private sector firms like Agriflora. Linkages have also been establishment with other 
development agencies such as JICA and NORAD. Other projects under ZIF with
strategic collaboration include the Milk Collection Center in Kazungula and the Oil
seeds projects in Lusaka.
The ZATAC management has also made remarkable achievement in the
establishment of a Zambian led and managed private firm, a non-profit firm, the
ZATAC ltd. This is a strategic initiative in ensuring that the project objectives and
activities will be articulated beyond the project life for sustainability of its activities.
By and large, ZATAC has managed to meet most of targets envisaged in the work 
plan from year one to year three of the project life.
2.1.1.1 Baseline Study
The evaluation study has noted that the baseline study was not as focused and
useful as it should have been to ZATAC’s development objectives. An example of
this is the way the smallholder farmers were mobilized into the ZIF funded projects
especially on the Export Vegetables. The baseline did not provide any meaningful
data/information about the capacity (both in terms of skills and ability) of these
farmers to participate gainfully in these projects. The implication of this is that there
this has been a ‘reverse approach’ in terms of stepping up the capacity building
efforts to the target RNFEs. The review mission notes that this problem could have
been identified earlier and the implementation process could have been halted all
together until the capacity building programs have been implemented. 
7
2.1.1.2 Monitoring and Evaluation System
Despite a number of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) tools being put in place, there 
are serious indications that there were gaps in the ZATAC management monitoring
process. This is largely because ZATAC’s M&E was ‘apex-oriented’ and left the field 
level monitoring to the collaborative partners. This approach was inherently weak
because some partners did not share the same developmental objectives with
ZATAC. They also had their own aspirations and agendas. An example of this would 
be the Kazungula Milk Collection project, where up to now, there has not been a
democratically elected leadership structure to stir up the project objectives because
this role was given to CARE which has since left due to change in their activity focus. 
Another example is the collaboration with Agriflora, who are responsible for carrying 
out farmer mobilization in the case of the Export Vegetable projects. ZATAC failed to 
detect the quality and capacity of smallholder farmers until when the project was
midway in implementation.
However, the Evaluation study noted that ZATAC management have already taken
note of these hiccups in the project and have since commenced sourcing funds from 
other donors/partners that will enable ZATAC register its presence at activity level by 
employing its own personnel to subsequently strengthen its M&E capacity.
2.1.1.3 Performance Indicators Appraisal
ZATAC’s performance test is based on three immediate results (IR’s), which together 
are collapsed into one strategic objective, that is, to increase sustainable Rural
Income of selected groups. The three IR’s include:
a) Increased Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources Production and the 
performance indicator for this is an increase in the number of farmers using
improved technologies and the target is adding 120,000 RNFEs more within
the project life.
The target is achievable but from the evaluation study, it is not certain whether the
target has been met. This is because some of the smallholder farmers that were
mobilized in the various projects had low capacity to participate and as such found it 
difficult to continue. However, with the new strategy by ZATAC management of
intensifying capacity building programs through training and field days, the target
would certainly be achieved.
b) Increased Productivity of Rural Non-Farm Enterprises and the performance
indicator is increased net income per RNFE member and the target is
US$271. From the evaluation data analysis, especially using the Export
vegetables and Milk collection projects, the target has been successfully
attained (refer to table 2). This includes factoring in the labor costs which 
according to the Joint Industrial Council (JIC), 2001/2 of Zambia Farm
Employers Association (ZFEA) and the National Union of Plantations and
Agricultural Workers (NUPAW) is ZMK4,265/day (US$1). From this kind of
result, it is projected that a higher net income will be recorded by the time the 
project ends.
8
Table 1: Milk Collected at Kazungula Project
Month No. of Smallholders Total Amount Liters Collected
November 11 2815.4
December 11 942.3
January 18 8390.8
February 32 5747.9
March 30 7496.9
April 32 6039.4
May 29 5576.7
June 28 4438.7
July 30 Not available
Totals 191 41448.1
Source: Kazungula Cooperative Records
c) Reduced Constraints to Private Sector Growth and the performance indicator 
is cumulative number of new, fair and effective trade protocols and that is
expected to increase the value of NTEs per annum to US$450 million
annually
This has not been achieved and in fact within the project life, in 2000, the records
show that the NTEs value dropped significantly from about US$238.7 million in 1999 
to US$164.4 million in 2000 (see table 4). However, this is a very difficult target to
attain as it is dependant on a lot of factors and ZATAC efforts alone cannot positively 
impact the NTEs during the project life. It is also true that the NTEs are very sensitive 
to macro indicators such as currency fluctuations and world market trends.
Decreased NTE values over the years can also be attributed to inconsistent
investment policies by GRZ. The GRZ has recently (1999) changed its investment
requirements were an investor is required to have a lot more capital before they can 
be allowed to start a business. This has certainly been a disincentive and has
resulted in reduced investment in agribusiness sub sector. 
2.2 Establishment of Linkages to Financial and Business Institutions 
2.2.1 Effort Appraisal
One of the major impediments to developing agribusiness or any other business in
Zambia is the exorbitant interest rates and very short-term loan cycles offered by the 
Zambian banks. The commercial banks’ simple average lending base rates for the
last 5 years are shown in the table below
Table 2: Interest Rates Developments (1997-2001)
Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Five year average
Average 
Interest 
Rate
49.3 46.1 51.5 45.9 54.6 49.5
Source: Bank of Zambia
Average milk production per smallholder/ month = 217 litres
Average income/smallholder/month = ZMK108, 502 (US$24@ZMK4, 500)
Annual Income/smallholder annually = US$289, 34
9
With an average annual lending interest rate of almost 50%, it is easy to understand 
why many agribusinesses are under-investing in their capital, processes and
practices. The cost of financing is just too high and unsustainable for companies that 
are already struggling to make their profit margins in a domestic market
characterized by decreasing value and volume, year-on-year. For those that are
seeking to enter the lucrative but competitive export market, the reality is that they
need to sustain high levels of new investment and re-investment to keep pace with
the technical standards and rigorous specifications expected of them and delivered
by their competitors. To do this requires them to fund their growth out of profits
and/or their own capital rather than from bank borrowings.
It is against this background that ZATAC seeks to improve credit access to its
participating RNFEs, through one of its five service areas, namely linkages to 
finance. Under this service area, ZATAC spells out that it will not be a credit
program. 
The design of ZATAC has demonstrated that financial flow to RNFEs are constrained 
by factors related to sectoral credit history, lack of collateral, and the risk associated 
with lending to the agricultural and non-mineral natural resource sectors. ZATAC has 
been mandated to provide financial intermediation services to improve RNFE access 
to credit and manage two risk-reducing funds. One is a Special Purpose Financing 
Vehicle ($400,000) to leverage funding for natural resource RNFEs, and the other is 
a Matching Grant Fund ($100,000) to foster innovation in RNFE technology, market 
development, and service delivery. ZATAC put in more effort to secure more funding 
such that by the end of FY 1, USAID released more money to increase ZIF to
$1,000,000. In line with increasing non-traditional export (NTEs); an additional
$600,000 was specifically earmarked for the “smallholder export vegetables
cooperative” project. This is the amount that is being used to provide loans for the
smallholders to acquire irrigation equipment and inputs for growing export
vegetables. ZATAC is working with AGRFLORA in this smallholder export vegetables 
cooperative project. 
2.2.2 Establishment of Linkages to Financial Institutions - Effect/Change 
Appraisal
To improve the situation of its target beneficiaries, that is, the RNFEs and
smallholders, ZATAC has primarily put in place the linkages to finance service area
outlined above. This service area is to be measured by three milestones and two
benchmarks under each milestone. The target milestones and their respective
benchmarks are summarized below.
Milestone 1: Strengthen Financial Position of ZATAC Clients
Benchmark: 18 Articles in National and International Press For Zambian Business
Opportunities Published
Benchmark: 18 Investment Promotion Pieces on Zambian Agribusiness
Published/Distributed
Milestone 2: Increase By 120 Number of Loans Granted To RNFEs
Benchmark: 150 Financial Applications Facilitated, 120 Succeed
Benchmark: 60, 000 Smallholders Benefited From Improved Finances Of 120 RNFEs
Milestone 3: Identify 30 Equity/Joint Ventures
Benchmark: 45 Potential Joint Venture Partners Identified
Benchmark: 30 Information Memos/Profiles for Potential Partners Written.
10
From the milestones set by ZATAC, it is easy to see that the 2nd and 3rd milestones
have clear benchmarks to measure success or failure of the program. The problem
however is with the benchmarks to be used in measuring the 1
st milestone. The
milestone itself is clear, as the idea is to strengthen the financial position of ZATAC 
clients. However, how articles published in the national and international media can
strengthen the financial position of the ZATAC clients is not clearly stated. The
benchmarks under the 2nd and 3rd milestones could more accurately measure the 1st
milestone.
The ZATAC linkages to financing institutions is a unique effort as it addresses credit 
support for non-traditional agriculture, which mainly involves the growing of high
value crops and also production of other high value commodities like dairy and
poultry. Effort has been put in by ZATAC to help finance agribusiness activities in
coffee, horticulture, dairy, poultry, cashew and warehouse receipts. This deliberate
approach by ZATAC to assist investment in production of NTEs is strategic as the
countries export earnings are increasingly depending on NTEs. For example, in 2001 
the value of NTEs was at over US$230million compared to about US$164million in
2000 (see table 3 below). ZATAC’s initiative is in line with government’s policy of
diversifying the export base. 
Table 3: NON-TRADITIONAL EXPORT EARNINGS (US$ 000)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Products Jan to Oct Jan to Oct Jan to Oct % Change
__________________________________________________________________________________
 1999 2000 2001 2001/2002
__________________________________________________________________________________
Animal products 2,276.80 4,688.40 4,715.29 0.6
Building products 5,519.50 4,765.80 5,850.11 22.8
Chemical products 4,937.90 4,834.10 4,912.01 1.6
Engineering products 19.690.10 12,928.10 18,599.15 43.9
Floriculture products 33,123.90 24,074.20 29,946.38 24.4
Garments 11,513.50 9,461.80 12,399.94 31.1
Handicrafts and curios 108.2 88.7 174.53 96.0
Horticultural products 19,474.30 13,247.80 26,057.73 96.7
Leather products 2,508.50 855.7 240.36 -71.9
Cooper rods 2,386.70 3,223.70 11,922.82 269.8
Non-metallic Minerals 773.3 800.6 612.49 -23.5
Other manufacturers 4,465.20 3,073.40 7,632.03 148.3
Petroleum Oils 6,486.90 162.2 1,406.09 766.9
Primary Agriculture Products 51,580.00 26,091.20 32,317.06 23.9
Processed Foods 29,153.00 26,114.00 36,123.75 38.3
Re-exports 2,392.70 3,547.00 2,611.01 -26.4
Scrap metal 5,437.50 4,343.30 4,148.90 -4.5
Textiles 30,019.40 19,586.30 28,059.89 43.3
Wood products 1,825.50 2,350.10 2,337.58 -0.5
Electricity 4,747.80 - -
Total 238,706.80 164,440.70 230,285.60 40.0
__________________________________________________________________________________
Source: Ministry of Finance and National Planning (2001) Economic Report
As can be noted from the table, the percentage change in horticultural products was 
remarkable (96.7%). ZATAC has no doubt contributed to this growth through its
mediation and support of out grower schemes like the one between Agriflora and the 
various smallholders.
11
ZATAC has also been supportive of agribusinesses that add value to the products in 
view of the potential that the processed food sector has to contribute to the export
earnings. However, data in the table shows that there is still a lot of room for growth
in this sub-sector as the growth percentage from 2000 to 2001 was only 38.3. ZATAC 
has thus been targeting smallholders in poultry, diary and tomato paste production so 
that the agro-processing industry can be improved. 
A worthwhile effort by ZATAC to promote investment opportunities in Zambia has
been made in accordance with the benchmarks for milestone number 1. ZATAC has 
been supporting its clients by promoting Zambian products and opportunities to
attract investors through the publication and distribution of articles in the local press. 
And more recently, ZATAC has helped launch two radio programs to help small-scale 
farmers to get to the export market. The radio programs have however been
discontinued.
There has also been an effort by ZATAC to strengthen the organization as an actor in 
the agriculture community. A major accomplishment to this end has been the
Zambianization of the ZATAC project that has led to the successful establishment of 
ZATAC Ltd. This effort will no doubt help ZATAC to remain focused in its activities as 
it pursues its objectives of improving the Zambian agribusiness in general and
specifically the rural smallholder farmers. 
Another initiative aimed at making the program responsive to the needs of its target 
beneficiaries has been the introduction of a ZATAC representative at project sites.
One such site is the Kazungula Milk Collection Center and the Katuba Coffee
integrated projects where a representative has been stationed to oversee the full
implementation of the project. 
There is no doubt that ZATAC has put in a lot of programs and activities in its effort to 
link the RNFEs and smallholder farmers to financial institutions. To try and reduce
risk for the borrower and lender alike, ZATAC has had its ZIF and the Matching Grant 
Fund to leverage finance. ZATAC has also been promoting joint ventures with other 
partners in finance like the Embassy of Japan. However, the question to consider is, 
to what extent have these programs been implemented and what effects have these 
efforts made on the target beneficiaries? 
We first consider the extent to which ZATAC has implemented its activities. Table 4 
below represents the total achievements made in the linkages to finance service area 
over the past three years.
12
Table 4: Linkages to Finance Performance Achievements 
ACTIVITY PERFORMANCE TARGETS
Life of 
Project
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Target Achieved Target Achieved Target Achieved Cumulative 
Achieved
Publish articles in 
national and 
international Press
on Zambian 
products
18 1 4 5 28 4 3 35
Publish and 
distribute 
investment 
Promotion Pieces
18 2 1 3 1 8 2 4
Facilitate financial 
applications
150 15 3 14 13 60 19 35
Benefit small 
holders from 
improved financing 
to RNFEs
60,000 500 750 3,370 18740 - - 19490
Identify potential 
joint venture 
partners
45 6 10 5 54 20 8 72
Write information 
memos/profiles for 
potential partners
30 3 3 5 34 16 0 37
Total no of 
Outputs
261 27 21 32 130 108 32
Source: ZATAC Annual Reports.
The table above summarizes the various targets set and the achievements for the
benchmarks set to achieve the milestones for measuring success of the project in
terms of linkages to finance.
Regarding the first milestone, which was to strengthen the financial position of
ZATAC’s clients, the benchmark of publishing 18 articles in national and international 
press for Zambian business opportunities has been achieved over and above the set 
target. However, the second benchmark has not been achieved yet. The annual
targets for this benchmark, though, have been achieved. It is good that enough has
been done to promote Zambian products locally and abroad. However, it would be
more critical and strategic to also bring in as many investors from both outside and
within the country. This is where ZATAC needs to work on-the second benchmark￾especially that the project’s life is half over. The major constraints or obstacles to
bringing in more investors have been the hostile macro-economic environment as
discussed in the introduction to this chapter on linkages to finance. The high interest 
rates, unstable currency exchange rate, high production costs (electricity, fuel) and
exorbitant corporate and value added taxes are the main deterrents to potential
investors in agriculture. Other obstacles include unfavorable and/or unclear
agricultural and investment policies as discussed in detail in the policy advocacy
section of this report.
Publishing and distributing investment promotions should be a priority now that
ZATAC has identified which areas of the agribusiness sub-sector are in dire need of 
13
investment. ZATAC can work with the Zambia Investment Center (ZIC). The ZIC
would be a strategic partner in bringing in more investors, both local and foreign, so 
that more investment can be made into the agribusiness sub-sector. The ZIC can
work together with ZATAC to identify quality investors that can replicate and invest
more in programs that have proven successful for ZATAC. The smallholder milk
schemes and smallholder vegetables for export have proved viable and could be
extended to other urban areas like Kabwe and the Copperbelt by these newly
identified investors. If the partnership with ZIC is already there, then it is necessary 
to improve it so that more promotional pieces can be done. ZATAC could then 
concentrate on helping these agribusiness partners to re-invest and/or re-capitalize. 
While there is no end to investment promotion, it would be effective to achieve the
set targets so that all potential investors are aware of what ZATAC has to offer so
that these investors can form financial partnerships with ZATAC.
The other key benchmark to reach regarding milestone number two is that of
increasing by 120 the number of loans granted to RNFEs. To achieve this, ZATAC
has to facilitate 150 financial applications and do so successfully for 120 of these. By 
the end of year 3, ZATAC had achieved 23.3% of this target. ZATAC has to work a 
lot more on this area so that more agribusinesses can have access to this credit. This 
is a critical area because for the ZATAC’s clients to benefit from the programs, they
ultimately need to have access to finance. The long-term loans (three to five years)
that have been granted to the smallholders have mostly been for purchase of
irrigation equipment like pipes, overhead sprinklers and treadle pumps. Inputs like
seed and fertilizer are also provided on loan (short term, seasonal) and this is then
deducted from the value of the farmers produce at harvest. The long-term loans
average about $100 per smallholder. The majority (about 75%) of the loan recipients 
are male. This however does not mean that the females have not benefited. The
review study noted that families (man, wife and children) worked together on the farm 
and thus benefits accrued to the entire family. The males got the loans on account of 
being household heads. Females that were in charge of households also had access 
to the loans. The review mission noted that even if there is no spelled out gender
policy, the ZATAC project has encouraged equal opportunity for women and men to 
access markets, loans and training. Furthermore, ZATAC also encourages the
cooperatives (RNFEs) to register members’ spouses (wives) so that women can fully 
participate in cooperatives meetings and trainings. In Katuba, ZATAC is currently
enforcing a minimum female representation policy in most of its training programs. 
The second benchmark of having 60, 000 smallholders to benefit from improved
finances of 120 RNFEs seems to be attainable. For the first two years, almost 20,000 
smallholder farmers have benefited, according to the ZATAC records shown in the
table above. This corresponds to about 33% of the target for the 5-year period. There 
were no records of how many benefited for the third year. However, it is likely that
many more smallholder farmers have benefited and will continue to benefit from the 
loans given to RNFEs. All that ZATAC needs to do is to capture the accurate number 
of smallholder beneficiaries. The study conducted by the Evaluation team noted that 
80% of the respondents did benefit from the ZATAC funded RNFEs. The benefits
ranged from easier access to markets for their produce to increased incomes for the 
households. Details of these benefits are discussed in the section under change
appraisal.
The concept of having joint ventures is intended to reduce risk of lending money and 
also to bring in as many relevant investors/stakeholders as possible into the
agribusiness sub sector to make the projects sustainable. To this end, ZATAC has
identified 72 joint venture partnerships compared to its 5-year target of 48. This is a
14
160% achievement rate. It would even be more progressive if ZATAC did follow up to 
ensure that the joint ventures succeeded in achieving the objectives agreed upon.
The intended beneficiaries are indeed utilizing the financial linkages. The impact on
the smallholder as a result of access to credit was also evident. Statistics from the
interviews conducted by the Evaluation team shows that access to credit has
improved for the ZATAC project participants. Only 3% of the participants had access 
to any form of credit before the ZATAC projects. This figure jumped up to 72% of
participants that now have access to credit since introduction of the projects. The
credit is primarily in form of inputs like seed, fertilizer and irrigation equipment. A
critical determinant of whether the beneficiaries actually used the funds is how much 
they invest in their businesses. Forty-eight percent (48%) of the smallholder
respondents invested amounts of between Kwacha one hundred thousand (K100,
000) and Kwacha two million (K2, 000,000), with an average of K1, 000,000. Only
two respondents invested amounts of K50 million and K10 million respectively. The
major share of this investment was in form of irrigation equipment offered on loan to 
the smallholders. A smaller portion was in form of variable inputs such as seed and 
fertilizer.
The major change in the behavior of the RNFEs as a result of having access to credit 
is that they now own infrastructure/facilities. The Kazungula Cooperative Society has 
the Milk Collection Center worth more than US$40,000. The smallholder farmers that 
are members of this Cooperative easily sell their milk to the center and are assured 
of a market. The Buteko Cooperative as an RNFE has a new storage shade that has 
cooling facilities for the vegetables that the farmers produce. The Buteko storage
facility has enabled the cooperative members to reduce on the amount of vegetables 
wasted when AGRIFLORA delays in picking up the produce. 
The review mission found that the average income earned by the smallholders
involved in horticulture is ZMK 150,000 (US$33 @ ZMK4500 per $1) per month. This 
translates to US$396 per annum. This is a significant gross income and is used by
households for the family upkeep and purchase of inputs. The ZATAC project has
thus enabled the families to make this income that would otherwise not have been
possible for them to earn.
2.3 Partnerships/ZATAC Collaborators
2.3.1 Effort Appraisal
ZATAC is a service organization and thus needs to have good relations with a broad 
set of potential partners who include public officials, private businesses, trade
associations, NGO’s and donors. The partners work with ZATAC in primarily three
areas: Technical, Commercial and Financial. 
ZATAC’s technical partners are the experts in various services that they offer. These 
include those that supply and/or install equipment used in the projects that ZATAC
supports. Notable among these partners are IDE and AMIRAN, the suppliers of
irrigation equipment. Since in most cases the equipment supplied is new technology
to the farmers, it is imperative that such partners also provide after sales service and 
listen to the concerns of their clients. The other type of technical partner offers mostly 
technical expertise on various aspects of agricultural management. Examples of
these are CLUSA, ZCGA and CARE. CARE has also worked with ZATAC in the
implementation of some projects. The Kazungula Milk Collection Centre in the
Southern Province was implemented with help of CARE. 
15
The technical partners are key to the success of ZATAC’s projects as they impart the 
basic skills and supply equipment to the smallholders and RNFEs. These partners
will help the smallholder farmers produce at a profitable level, as these farmers still
lack the basics in farm/business management. 
The commercial partners buy produce from the smallholder farmers and thus
contribute directly to their increased incomes. The Commercial partners have a
critical role to play in the success of the projects and thus ZATAC would do well to
work with commercial partners that are willing to pay a competitive price for the
products. It would even be more efficient and cost effective if a commercial partner
also takes up the role of providing technical assistance to the farmer so as to train
the farmers to produce a quality and acceptable product that will attract a good price. 
The financial partners provide credit or financial resources to the smallholder farmers 
and the RNFEs in order to increase their productivity. Table 5 below shows the
number of various partners that worked with ZATAC in the 2
nd fiscal year. These
partners serviced a total of 42 RNFEs and 2257 producers.
Table 5: Number and Type of ZATAC Partners
Type of Partner Number
Technical 17
Commercial 18
Financial 21
Total 56
 Source: 1st Quarterly Report for FY 2001
Financial partners are more than the other two service partners (see Table 5 above). 
This deliberate strategy by ZATAC to have more financial partners has actually 
worked well for the projects. The risk of lending out the money has been reduced for 
the various institutions involved because the smallholder farmers can leverage their
financing. 
2.3.2 Effect/Change Appraisal
The major concerns expressed by the smallholder farmers from the projects that
were visited in the study were mainly with reference to the technical and commercial 
services. Almost all (95%) of the smallholders interviewed were not satisfied with the 
services provided by the technical and commercial collaborators. In two areas that
the evaluation team visited, AGRIFLORA and BIOPEST were the partners that the
smallholder farmers cited as not providing satisfactory services. AGRIFLORA
provides inputs and controls disease and pest attacks on the crop. The spraying to
control diseases and pests, however, has not been done consistently and effectively 
by AGRIFLORA, resulting in estimated losses of up 30% of crop yield.
BIOPEST, ZATAC’s partner in Katuba area, provides fertilizer and seed input for
growing of paprika. BIOPEST has also not met the farmers’ expectations as it has
failed to avail fertilizer in sufficient quantities on time and has failed to effectively
control disease and pests.
The main reason behind AGRIFLORA’s failure to provide the expected quality
service to all the farmers under the outgrower programme is that it has limited
capacity to cater for the large number of farmers involved. ZATAC had initially
16
proposed that the AGRIFLORA outgrower program should begin by involving only
about 4 or 5 co-operatives but AGRIFLORA opted to work with about 10 co￾operatives. The result has been a lack of individual farmer attention by AGRIFLORA 
as it has outstretched its capacity.
BIOPEST is a relatively new partner for ZATAC as they have been working with
ZATAC for less than a year in the Katuba area. The smallholder producers that are 
working with BIOPEST are concerned that fertilizer is not provided in adequate
quantities and is usually delivered late. The smallholder farmers interviewed also
stated that BIOPEST has a poor pest and disease control programme. BIOPEST is, 
however, trying to address these shortcomings by introducing a permanent
representative within the farming community. This has partly improved their pest and 
disease control programme but not the delivery of adequate fertilizers to farmers on
time. 
The smallholders would get extra benefits if ZATAC engaged more commercial
partners, as that would widen the participants’ market options. That in turn would
increase the smallholder farmers’ income, as the many commercial partners would
be competing for purchase of the commodities.
ZATAC’s technical partners in providing irrigation equipment IDE and AMIRAN have 
generally been popular with the smallholder beneficiaries, especially with the treadle 
pumps. The only problem that the farmers cited was that the equipment was
expensive and it will take them beyond the agreed loan repayment period to service 
their loans. This has also been exacerbated by the fact that the farmers are not
getting in the projected cash flows from their production due to the problems of low
prices and late payment of money.
ZATAC would work successfully with partners that are not solely motivated by profits 
in the short run but look at the long-term benefits that will accrue when the
smallholders acquire their management skills and are able to sustain their
businesses and can thus repay any loans that are outstanding.
A strategic partner in ZATAC’s activities that has not been fully involved is the GRZ, 
specifically, the Departments of Extension and Veterinary/Animal health. For ZATAC 
to improve service delivery and impact and for long-term sustainability, the
government has to be consulted in the baseline activities for new projects and also
involved in the implementation of all projects. The evaluation study noted that the
Veterinary Department was not fully consulted in the Kazungula Milk Collection
Project and this led to the failure to combat the outbreak of Foot and Mouth disease 
in the area during the course of project implementation. The DVO was not officially
consulted during the baseline study and only knew of the project informally through a 
colleague at CARE. The project is now making efforts to link with the DVO. For
instance, a Memorandum of Understanding was recently signed by the District
Veterinary Officer to incorporate the Ministry in project activities. The Government
has since carried out vaccinations to help prevent Foot and Mouth Disease in
Kazungula.
The extension officers in the project areas rarely visit the farmers due to lack of
transport, poor remuneration and poor work ethics. Almost 75% of the farmers
interviewed stated that they had not seen an extension officer for about a year. They 
stated that the extension officer was only seen when there was an outbreak of
disease that needed combating. ZATAC should consider incorporating extension
officers in their projects by providing them with transport and/or allowances as an
incentive to work with the project participants. 
17
The ZATAC project beneficiaries suggested that for improvement of service delivery
and smooth implementation of the projects, there was need for ZATAC to partner
with institutions that can work with the community and the government to improve
infrastructure like roads. A good partner for this activity would be the Rural
Investment Fund (RIF) of the Agricultural Sector investment Programme (ASIP). The 
communities felt that organizations like Prevention Against Malnutrition (PAM) and
The Micro-Projects Unit (MPU) could work together with ZATAC to achieve these
objectives. 
The majority of smallholder farmers (70%) identified the government as a critical
partner in enhancing project service and delivery. Sixty three percent of the
respondents at the Kazungula milk collection center stated that their milk production 
would be improved significantly if the Animal Health Department worked with the
community in combating and preventing diseases. The farmers also felt they needed 
to work with animal breeders so they can adopt high milk yielding cattle breeds to
improve their milk production.
For the farmers involved in horticulture, more than half (52%) looked to more private 
sector participation in input supply as a way of enhancing ZATAC’s project service
delivery and impact. The smallholders pointed out that they could get competitive
prices for inputs if a few more organizations supplied seed and fertilizer.
The following are the strengths and weaknesses of 5 of ZATAC’s partners: -
1. AGRIFLORA
Strengths 
- Experienced in horticulture production and marketing
- Experienced in out grower scheme management
Weaknesses
- Handles too many smallholders, beyond its current capacity 
- Majority of small holders perceive AGRIFLORA as exploiting them by paying 
them low prices and rejecting an average of 33% of their produce as below
standard. The smallholders blame AGRIFLORA for the poor quality crop as
AGRIFLORA is in charge of disease and pest control.
2. CARE INTERNATIONAL
Strengths
- Experience in community development activities
- Well established in many rural areas of the country 
Weakness
- Have their own priorities and ZATAC activities might not be top of those.
3. SMALLHOLDER CO-OPERATIVES
Strengths
- Easier to manage projects as community is organized in cooperatives
- The co-operative is held accountable and responsible for activities it
undertakes to both sponsor and the community.
Weakness
- Most co-operatives lack business and managerial skills
18
4. GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA (GRZ): DEPARTMENTS OF 
VET/ANIMAL HEALTH AND EXTENSION
Strengths
- Are in charge of creating an enabling environment on a macro-level and also 
providing support in areas such as specialized human resource and
infrastructure.
- Can be used a vehicle for influencing policy change and to facilitate smooth
implementation of ZATAC projects
Weaknesses
- Misplacement of priorities leading to lack of resources for program
implementation.
- Bureaucracy in formulation and implementation of policies/programmes.
5. INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES (IDE)
Strengths
- Experts in irrigation installation 
- Provide treadle pumps that are popular with a lot of small-scale farmers
Weakness
- Poor service back up and after sales service
Inspite of the many shortcomings on the part of ZATAC’s partners that have been
highlighted in the discussion above, most of the partners are working towards
rectifying these mistakes. The partners have also impacted on the beneficiaries as
the incomes that the smallholders earn from the many programs they are involved in 
are as a result of these partnerships. The smallholders are assured of a ready
income when they enter into these outgrower schemes and at the same time the
smallholders are provided with “free” inputs. The impact on the smallholders and
other RNFEs is that they acquire farm management skills in producing commodities
for both local and export markets.
2.4 Policy Advocacy 
2.4.1 Policy Advocacy Appraisal
ZATAC’s policy advocacy is aimed at improving the enabling environment and
providing quality dialogue among stakeholders in ZATAC activities. Over the past
three years, ZATAC has participated in many policy workshops. In the majority of
these workshops, ZATAC’s expertise was required to input in areas such as
agribusiness management and agricultural finance. 
The policy advocacy dialogues initiated by ZATAC have also been very successful
For example, the formation of the Zambia Commodity Association Agency and the
lobbying done to include lime in the GRZ agricultural input packages.
19
In most of its quarterly plans, ZATAC includes only a couple of workshops on policy
advocacy. This is a good approach by ZATAC as policy discussion, formulation and 
lobbying is time consuming and is usually perceived as political. If ZATAC were to
be highly involved in policy issues, a considerable amount of its resources would be 
taken up. However, from the ZATAC reports, it was apparent that a significant
number of policy discussions involved mostly government technocrats and well
established businesspersons. It would be more appropriate if more rural stakeholders 
like smallholder farmers were involved in policy initiatives so that they can influence 
policy areas that directly impact them. This works well as the case was when ZATAC 
held the Lime workshop/seminar 
2.4.2 Policy Constraints
A significant policy constraint to ZATAC’s program implementation has been the lack 
of clarity in government’s agricultural and industrial policies. For example, even
though the government encourages a free market economy, its distribution of
subsidized inputs like fertilizer in certain seasons distorts the rural private-sector 
economy. This has limited the number of investors in the agribusiness sub-sector 
who could buy produce from and sell inputs to smallholder farmers. A point that was 
raised in the analysis of ZATAC’s collaborators was the fact that there were not
enough commercial partners to work with ZATAC and its clients. One reason behind 
this scenario could be the lack of clear and good agricultural policies.
Another policy constraint has been that agriculture is “supply” rather than “market
driven”. This too has slowed down the implementation of some of ZATAC’s
programs, as the participants who have been used to a culture of simply supplying
products without proper market or demand analysis have to be trained to carry out
the necessary market analysis.
A lack of consistent policy on tariff and tax regimes (e.g. VAT) has resulted in
agribusinesses facing unfair competition from imported products and at the same
time being heavily taxed by the government. The ZRA estimates that only about
3.5% of the population actually pays any tax at all. This means that Zambia has a
narrow tax base, resulting in the private commercial and industrial sectors as the only 
few areas that can be consistently taxed by the treasury. This clearly discourages
more investment in the agribusiness sector that can promote and work with RNFEs. 
For the existing agribusinesses, it is difficult to make any long-term plans due to the 
variable tax regimes. For a long time now, some finished agricultural and industrial
products attract less duty than critical inputs that are essential to the manufacture of 
these same or similar products locally. This too is a disincentive for agribusinesses
that could possibly work with ZATAC programs.
The lack of commitment to quality and standards enforcement by both the public and 
private sector has been a major constraint to expanding agricultural exports. The
smallholders who are in the AGRIFLORA outgrower scheme are a notable example. 
A significant percentage of their produce is rejected due to poor quality. While this is 
not entirely caused by them, it shows how both the producer and buyer neglect
quality in production. At the Kazungula milk collection centre, about 10% of the milk 
is brought in as sour milk each day. While the sour milk is not discarded, the farmer 
is paid a low price and this certainly lowers their income, as their cost of production is 
still the same.
ZATAC has been bringing its clients and the GRZ to try and address these policy
constraints. As has been alluded to earlier, a success story in policy for ZATAC has
20
been that in which it influenced the GRZ to include lime as part of a core input in crop 
production to improve yield by as much as 30% and this will ultimately raise the
beneficiaries incomes. ZATAC has also planned more workshops to influence policy
so that a number of the constraints that have been highlighted in the discussion
above can be reduced.
2.5 Skills Development and Information Dissemination
2.5.1 Skills Development and Information Dissemination Appraisal
Good business needs good management and thus ZATAC has planned, tailored and 
implemented its programs to incorporate this important aspect of skills development
through conducting training workshops, courses, seminars and conferences. The
ZATAC’s objective of training and skills development is to develop business, finance, 
marketing and agribusiness related skills to ensure success and sustainability of its
programs.
From the ZATAC quarterly and annual reports, it is clear that the skills development 
and dissemination workshops conducted so far are over and above the targeted
outputs. At the end of the 3rd Financial Year, projected output had been exceeded by 
over 400%.
The topics covered in these training sessions have been broad, ranging from basic
business management skills to more complex issues in finance and marketing. Both 
RNFEs and RNFE members have been involved in these training programs. The
current records show that an estimated number of about 1,200 people have
undergone training in the various workshops/seminars delivered. The table below
shows the type of skills and the estimated number of people trained.
Table 6: Participants Trained.
Training Skill Number of Participants
Crop diversification/new crop/marketing 529
Cost saving 80
Business skills 105
Financial management 45
HIV/AIDS awareness and dissemination 20
Health, safety, soil and water
management
200
Paprika post harvest management 30
Paprika production 40
Baby corn harvesting 40
Milk hygiene 16
Poultry production 19
Warehouse receipt program 47
Cashew production 30
Total 1201
 Source: ZATAC Quarterly and Annual reports
The evaluation study did conduct interviews with RNFE members to determine their
perceptions on the training conducted by ZATAC. From the random sample
interviewed, only 54% attended any kind of training course. The majority (28%) of
21
those that attended these training courses went to more than two of these courses.
This indicates that it is the same people that go to these training courses and this will 
certainly not ensure that as many project beneficiaries as possible attain skills to run 
their businesses. The most common training that the smallholders attended was
general farm management as over 25% of the participants attended this kind of
training. Only a few attended some kind of specialized training to meet their specific
requirements. The training could be more helpful if all participants not only attended 
general training but also were exposed to a specialized training for their particular
business.
Over two-thirds of the people that have undergone the training courses did apply the 
knowledge acquired and they did state that the skills had improved their business
performance. The subsequent impact on the trainees is that most have been able to 
run their businesses well and thus earn more income. As was pointed earlier, most of 
the target groups lacked basic farm management skills. The training that they have
received has helped them become better managers.
One component of the training worth mentioning is that concerning HIV/AIDS. Table 
6 above shows that 20 people have attended an HIV/AIDS awareness seminar.
Discussions with ZATAC staff however revealed that a number of such workshops 
have actually been held and that several hundreds of ZATAC beneficiaries have
attended these. However, more seminars on HIV/AIDS need to be held so that the
target beneficiaries can be sensitized. This is especially critical in view of the fact that 
about 75% of ZATAC beneficiaries are in the age group 15 to 49 years, which is the 
most vulnerable to the disease. This thematic area is very cardinal in the remaining
years of the project. This is because if necessary skills are not imparted in the
targeted beneficiaries then the whole concept of sustainability of ZATAC as a project 
and ZATAC Ltd in years to come will be threatened.
2.6 Market Demand and Analysis
2.6.1 Market Demand and Analysis Effort Appraisal
As a market led, demand-driven project, ZATAC’s priority is to continue creating and 
sustaining direct links between RNFEs and small producers to meet the primary
objective of increasing smallholder farmers’ incomes. This component is also
focused on examining national and regional markets for the supply of Zambian
products to improve productivity and profits. Constraints that hinder RNFEs from
taking advantage of market opportunities are also identified. Market assessments
and analyses, combined with identification of potential buyers and investors are key
activities of this component. 
Three market assessments were completed in the product areas of dairy, groundnuts 
and peanut butter and garlic. ZATAC staff identified twenty-two brokers and buyers 
of low rainfall products, while some value added processing opportunities were also 
identified. Related to establishing new market opportunities, desk studies on trade
flows and product profiles for non-traditional agricultural export products were
completed, and business opportunities and foreign partners for licensing were also
identified.
A comprehensive study of the dairy industry was undertaken in December of 2000, in 
conjunction with a consultant supported by Land O’ Lakes. The purpose of the study 
was to determine the consumption trends and growth opportunities in the processed 
22
milk industry in order to expand the scope of ZATAC’s dairy initiative that is focused 
on smallholder production in Southern Province
More processed milk products are being sold into an ever more competitive market
which included soft drinks juices and artificially flavored fruit drinks. These and other 
findings in the study have formed the basis of the dairy directive proposal that will
focus on industry-wide promotion, product safety and quality, improved handling in
rural areas (milk depots) and assistance to smallholder production.
In May of 2000, the Natural Resources Institute of the UK initiated the development 
of a Warehouse Receipt Program (WRP), a type of inventory credit and marketing
scheme that is effective in countries such as Zimbabwe, South Africa and the United 
States. The initiative began as a stakeholder-driven effort with farmers, millers,
traders, banks, NGO’s and others as the formative body that eventually formalized a 
Zambian registered non-profit organization called ZACA – Zambia Agricultural
Commodities Agency. To date with ZATAC assistance, ZACA has completed staff
hiring and is fully operational under the pilot phase.
ZATAC has been instrumental in the formation of the organization and the receipt
program through technical contributions on task forces, offering temporary office
space and administrative support for ZACA since November 2000. ZACA was
scheduled to officially launch the warehouse receipt program by July 2002. ZATAC’s 
participation and contributions toward the program have augmented the marketing
efforts of various Zambian businesses and producers and increased the profit
potential for the holder-produced non-perishable commodities. To this end, the WRP 
has contributed ZATAC’s milestones with the Market and Demand Service Areas
related to identification of brokers and buyers and identification of new business
opportunities.
2.6.1 Market Demand and Analysis Effect Appraisal
ZATAC made important strides in achieving project goals remaining vigilant to its
goal of increasing outreach as far as possible to smallholder farmers with the
commitment to pursue those activities that benefit small holders and help raise their 
income. Table 7 below shows the performance targets set and achieved by ZATAC 
during the last three years. All the activities undertaken during this period, in one
way or other, have or are contributing to stimulating the agribusiness sector in
Zambia.
23
 Table 7: Market and Demand Analysis Performance Targets
Activity Project 
life
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Target Achieved Target Achieved Target Achieved Cumulative
Achieved
Market Assessment
performed
10 4 8 3 3 30 6 17
Market Analysis/Desk
studies completed
21 4 4 4 4 - - 8
Brokers/buyers 
identified
45 5 4 4 22 20 10 36
Potential Investors
invited to Zambia
15 1 1 4 0 5 - 1
Value added processing 
opportunity identified
15 0 2 5 10 4 3 15
Identify new markets for 
non traditional products
and natural resources
products
5 0 1 2 1 4 - 2
Study tour completed 24 2 6 1 0 8 - 6
Products and business
profile prepared
1 1 1 11 13 4 6 20
Foreign Partners for
technology transfer
1 1 1 0 5 4 1 7
Total No. Outputs 18 28 36 58 79 26 112
Source: ZATAC annual reports
ZATAC has performed well in market assessments as 17 out of the project target of 
10 have been performed so far. The assessments done at the start of the year
concentrated on products like sunflower, groundnuts, soybeans and cottonseed.
These crops are grown mostly by rural small-scale farmers and supplied to oil
processing companies like Amanita. ZATAC has since moved its focus to also
include market assessments for products with increasing demand and windows of
opportunity during periods of low supply. ZATAC has conducted such a study
involving three large wholesale open city council markets of Lusaka and Livingstone. 
The products that have been investigated include cabbage, sweet potatoes, Irish
potatoes, bananas, oranges, watermelons, pumpkins, onions, tomatoes and sugar
cane. These assessments have shown that ZATAC is indeed demand driven, as
there has been an increasing and growing market for these products in the urban
areas. There was thus need for this kind of assessment so that the smallholders can 
be supplied with the production and marketing information.
ZATAC has worked hard in identifying buyers and brokers for its smallholder
beneficiaries. ZATAC started off with identifying buyers for the Jatropha soap from
the smallholders by Sun International and milk by FINTA. This was during its first
financial year. ZATAC has also gone out of its way by making sure that it still assists 
smallholders that have been abandoned by their buyers. A good example is the
Katuba farmers where AGRIFLORA pulled out but ZATAC went in and partnered up 
with BIOPEST as new buyers for the paprika that the farmers are growing.
One area under market and demand analysis in which the targets have not been met 
is potential investors invited to Zambia. ZATAC has possibly set too many indicators 
to measure its achievements and this has obviously resulted in not meeting some of 
these like that of inviting potential investors into Zambia. ZATAC has also
concentrated on dealing with investors who are already established in the country
and thus has not seen the priority of getting in foreign investors.
24
As can be seen from the table, ZATAC is on course in meeting its targets under this
component by the end of the project life. All that ZATAC needs is to continue meeting 
these targets and review them each quarter to see if they are still attainable.
 
2.7 Market Development and Expansion
2.7.1 Market Development and Expansion Effort Appraisal
ZATAC’s Market Development and Expansion activities are designed to help
increase the marketability of Zambian products and create new joint venture
partnerships between Zambian and foreign firms. Through development of trade and 
investment contracts, this service area is expected to assist RNFEs strengthen their 
products positions regionally and internationally. The objective of this component is
to help expand markets for Zambian products. ZATAC offers services in such areas 
as market entry and development strategies, production improvement, increase and 
improve market linkages, and increase investments to help improve RNFEs.
Coffee production in the crop mixes is being practiced. Hundreds of smallholders are 
attached to The Agriflora vegetable project and through ZATAC’S assistance, have
included perennial cash crops to complement their intensive high value vegetable
enterprises. Coffee, vegetables, cashew and dairy are among the diversified
enterprises that producer groups are adopting in order to increase incomes.
2.7.1 Market Development and Expansion Effect/Change Appraisal
Table 8 below shows the targets set and what has been achieved in the area of
market development and expansion. The target for facilitating of RNFE business
plans has not been met. Only 20% of the project life target has been met so far while 
the annual targets have not been achieved. This is a crucial component that ZATAC 
has to work on since a RNFE can only have good business if its plan is good. Good 
plans will also assist the RNFEs to have easier access to finance. 
The linking of RNFEs and smallholders using NRM has not been done. Out of a
target of 120 RNFEs to be linked, none have been. ZATAC needs to strengthen this 
natural resource component, as it has to be integrated with most agricultural
practices
ZATAC has done well in market assessment of NTE products, trade promotion
events and providing technical assistance to improve post-harvest handling. All the
set targets where achieved under these programmes.
A crucial market development and expansion area that needs urgent attention from
ZATAC is the provision of technical assistance to RNFEs on utilization of diversified 
crops. Most RNFEs have been having problems servicing their loans because they
are not generating sufficient incomes from the main activity that they are involved in. 
The successful RNFEs have a diversified production base as they spread their
income earning sources over several ventures. ZATAC has to urgently address this
issue if the RNFEs that are under the programmes are to sustain themselves. 
25
Table 8: Market Development & Expansion 
Activity Project 
life
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Target Achieved Target Achieved Target Achieved Cumulative
Achieved
Facilitate RNFE
business plan
60 9 3 11 6 10 3 12
Conduct Cooperative
workshops with CFU
9 1 3 1 2 8 2 7
Linkages between
RNFE and smallholders 
using NRM practices
120 1 0 - - 23 - 0
Market assessments of
NTAE products
5 1 4 5 5 5 - 9
Trade promotion events 
organized
12 1 1 3 7 4 - 8
Provide technical
assistance to improve
post-harvest handling
10 1 1 4 7 4 3 12
SWOT analysis of
competing firms
12 1 1 4 1 4 - 2
Technical assistance 
provided to RNFEs on
utilization of diversified
crops
150 1 1 4 51 30 - 52
Total No. Outputs 378 16 14 32 79 71 8 101
Source: ZATAC annual reports
It can be clearly seen that ZATAC is not doing well in achieving the set targets for
this component. One reason could be the lack of capacity by ZATAC in carrying out
market development and expansion. ZATAC can thus either strengthen its human
resource by building a stronger and more focused “marketing team” or it can work
together with its consultant, Mano, to improve its performance under market
development and expansion. In this way, more agribusinesses can be introduced and 
encouraged to produce and supply larger markets.
2.7 Sustainability
2.7.1 ZATAC Sustainability Appraisal
One of the key determinants for the sustainability of ZATAC is that it has to bring in 
sufficient financial resources from the services it renders without relying on outside
funding. Table 9 below shows ZATAC’s credit portfolio at the end of its FY 3.
ZATAC has disbursed a total of $375, 516.38 as at the end of its third financial year. 
Sixty-three percent of this loan disbursement was for the AGRIFLORA horticulture
program. Over the same period, ZATAC has received $54, 453.52 in form of principal 
repayments, interest and service charges. The ratio for this credit portfolio shows
that for every $1 that ZATAC has loaned out, it has received back 15 cents. The
smallholders that have received the finance have certainly not been making sufficient 
returns on their investment to service their loans. This is especially so in the case of 
the AGRIFLORA program where the farmers are paying back 13 cents for every
dollar they borrow. The farmers interviewed mentioned that they lose as much as
30% of the crop due to poor control of disease and pest attack. They also lost a
further 20% when the crop is sorted and graded for quality. What this all translates 
26
Table 9: Credit Portfolio Summary 
Source: ZATAC accounts document
Source: ZATAC Accounts Document
TOTAL TRANSFERS
ZATAC/USAID $316,154.00
Japanese Embassy $100,000.00
Total To Date: $416,154.00
ZIF LOAN DISBURSEMENTS
300 $59,159.01
400 $249,018.51
Total To Date: $308,177.52
OTHER DONOR LOAN DISBURSEMENTS
Japanese Embassy (500) $67,338.86
 Other
Total To Date: $67,338.86
**ZIF REFLOWS
300-Activities $20,005.42
400-Activities $33,900.29
Other Reflows $547.81
Total To Date: $ 54,453.52
Grand Total LOAN DISBURSED = $54,453.52
ZIF REFLOWS BREAKDOWN: ZIF OTHER DONORS TOTAL
** Total Principal Repayment = $17,046.43 $391.41 $17,437.84
ZATAC Interest & Service Fees = $8,755.30 $156.40 $8,911.70
Pangaea Interest = $4,103.70 $4,103.70
Security Deposit Payments = $24,000.00 $24,000.00
TOTAL ZIF REPAYMENTS = $53,905.43 $547.81 $54,453.24
Transaction Costs: (386.79)
Exchange Gain/Loss = $248.15
Bank Charges ($634.94)
27
into is loss in income and the farmers therefore cannot fully pay the interest and 
principal on their loans. Sustainability of the loan facility is therefore threatened, as 
the farmers will not be paying back enough to keep the loan facility operational in the 
long run.
The amounts repaid to ZATAC are also low because a number of loans were only
recently given out. This is especially so for the ZATAC projects like the Katuba coffee 
and paprika production (see appendix for Customer and Borrower list)
The non-AGRIFLORA ZIF related loan disbursement totaled $59,159.01 and
$20,005.42 has been repaid. These non-AGRIFLORA ZIF loans have mostly been
one time loans or trade finance for procurement of farming equipment like irrigation
pumps or used to fund relatively smaller projects like the Kazungula milk collection
center, Mongu cashew production, CLUSA-Chipata irrigation program and Shibuyunji 
project. Such smaller projects have repaid 34% of the loans compared to the 13%
repayment by AGRIFLORA. It would make good business sense and ensure
sustainability for the ZATAC loan facility to pursue funding of more such projects.
Although the majority of smallholders (40%) participating in the ZATAC program have 
been farmers their entire lives, they have been involved in subsistence farming with 
little or no business skills. This has resulted in ZATAC having to spend a lot more
resources in training these farmers to grow high value crops and manage their
businesses profitably. It will therefore take a few more years before the majority of
these smallholders attain a level where the can run their business well and be able to 
service their loans. 
Three quarters of the smallholders relied on income from selling their produce to
ZATAC’s commercial partners. Even when these farmers make incomes of about
$300 a year, this amount is a gross figure and when they factor in costs, their net
income is reduced substantially. Only a handful (2%) of the farmers are able to
service their loans fully and make a reasonable net income. These few farmers had a 
number of other income sources like poultry, growing potatoes and other more
“liquid” ventures that bring in “quick cash”. For ZATAC to have sustainable projects, 
its smallholder farmers have to diversify their businesses, like the farmer portrayed in 
the case study (See Box 1 below).
Box 1 Entrepreneurship Among the Local Farmers
Mr. Divecha is a 60-year-old retired farm manager and owns 20 acres of land in Lusaka west. 
He is the current Chairperson for the Buteko Cooperative. He is an ambitious and determined 
farmer who always tries out ways of improving productivity at his farm. He has been on the
AGRIFLORA out grower scheme supported by ZATAC for the last two years. He grows
mange tout, sugar snap, baby corn and fine beans on contract for AGRIFLORA. 
He has however realized that the prices paid by AGRIFLORA are fixed and paid after a given 
period. This had affected his cash flows, as he could not meet his daily expenses because
cash was tied up in the produce sold to AGRIFLORA. Mr. Divecha thus decided to improve 
and work on his other businesses that bring him ready cash. He has bought more cattle for
his diary business (he owns at least 100 heads of cattle with about 30 dairy animals). He also 
rears about 3,000 birds for his poultry business.
Mr. Divecha has also embarked on reducing production costs. His integrated, mixed farm
provides him with manure from cattle and chickens. He uses this manure in his horticulture.
He has managed to cut his chemical fertilizer bill by 75%. He also uses the maize stalks from 
the baby corn crop to feed his animals.
28
He has managed to pay off all loans on his farm and he is considering upgrading his current 
irrigation equipment.
Mr. Divecha says he has picked up most of these skills from interacting with fellow farmers, 
staff from MACO, attending seminars and workshops and also from his own creativity.
 
While it might not be possible for all the smallholders involved to attain Mr. Divecha’s 
level of management, ZATAC can strive to encourage and work with its partners like 
AGRIFLORA to train farmers to work towards improving their productivity and
incomes like Mr.Divecha. This should be a long-term goal for ZATAC if it is to
become a sustainable Programme offering services to RNFEs and smallholders.
Another crucial factor in determining sustainability of ZATAC Limited is that it should 
be able to find more new partners and not ride on the success of the ZATAC project. 
The quicker it does this, the better for ZATAC as its clients will have confidence in
that it can link them to the necessary partners.
From the foregoing, it can be noted that ZATAC’s sustainability is not assured in the 
short term (next two to three years) primarily because it is not bringing in enough
money to support all its activities. ZATAC will therefore continue to need donor
funding until such a time that it can bring in sufficient returns to stand on its own. The 
major reason for its lack of sustainability at the moment is the poor debt servicing
from the smallholders and insufficient funds from service charges from clients. The
smallholders are not making enough money as they are currently learning new skills 
in their new businesses. Recommendations given at the end of this chapter are
aimed at suggesting what ZATAC can do to increase its chances of sustainability.
29
3.0 Lessons Learned
The following are the main lessons learned so far in the implementation of the
ZATAC project:
· Projects or intervention activities need to be mooted with a full consultation of 
the community that is being targeted for assistance. This will allow ownership 
by the communities so that sustainability after the project life span can be
enhanced. Therefore, setting up enterprises that are demand driven and
participatory in nature taking in account all socio-economic dimensions should 
become the main root of setting up new interventions. 
· All members of the community and both genders should be considered as
potential participants in ZATAC projects. In Zambia, the female gender is the 
most afflicted with deprivation of means of production like finances and
equipment and yet they are the most reliable in returning what was borrowed. 
However, ZATAC has no deliberate policy on gender equity in its project
implementation. 
· When starting a project(s), it is important to put in place a very strong
Monitoring and Evaluation System that can quickly detect the bottlenecks and 
be responsive to the changing needs. This will ensure that corrective
measures are quickly put in place to avoid emergency measures that simply
result in deterioration of the situation as was done with the Kazungula project 
where there was too much dependency on cooperating partners. Recent
efforts by ZATAC to develop implementation and completion schedules for
each project with specific targets and outputs to be used as benchmarks will 
be valuable in establishing an operational M&E system for the project. 
· The setting-up of targets that will be used for measuring the success or failure 
of the programme to attain its objectives was a bit over ambitious. For
instance, the capacity of the smallholders in the Kazungula Milk Project to fill 
up the 2,400 liters tank is questionable, now and in the short to medium term. 
A baseline study that was done before this project was implemented assumed 
this holding tank would serve as a catchment area for 3 to 4 other areas. This 
has not been realized yet. The farmers there have only been able to supply
190 liters of milk a day. 
· The vegetable export project is critical in raising smallholder farmers’ incomes 
quickly. The evaluation study found that the vegetable producers made $396
per annum while the smallholders in the milk project raised $288 per annum.
· A project that has a loan facility has a greater chance of being successful
than one without, given the difficulties of accessing finance in Zambia. We
learnt that ZATAC’s success was mainly because of its loan facility.
· ZATAC has played a crucial role in deepening the understanding of the
agribusiness concept in Zambia. Having come from a background of
socialism, most smallholder farmers involved in the programme are now
business oriented and they aim for a profit in their undertakings
30
4.0 Conclusion and Recommendations 
Based on the study findings, the following and recommendations are proposed for
consideration:
· The number of farmers involved in the ZATAC programme can be increased if 
ZATAC makes strategic linkages with developmental NGOs and private firms 
like PAM, ZNFU, ZAHVAC and LONRHO Cotton.
· ZATAC should expand its milk projects. The potential for increased milk
production is very high. Milk collection centers can be established in sub￾urban areas of Kabwe and in most Copperbelt towns. The increased milk
production can also be targeted for export within the sub-region, especially
the DRC.
· For ZATAC to have an impact on increased NTEs, it should form a strategic
partnership and work closely with the Export Board of Zambia (EBZ). ZATAC 
cannot afford to work in a vacuum. The review mission noted that no such
linkage existed between ZATAC and EBZ. EBZ is a crucial partner in exports 
issues in Zambia as they have conducted a lot of market analysis and
baseline studies in products targeted for export.
· For the Kazungula project, it seems that CARE was a critical partner in terms 
of organizing the farmers and even implementing the project. Both ZATAC
and USAID need to think carefully about how to fill the gap left by CARE. For 
example, in the Katuba project, when AGRIFLORA pulled out and they were 
quickly replaced by BIOPEST. ZATAC should similar look for a new partner in 
this case.
· USAID should continue supporting ZATAC up to its close in 2004. Beyond
2004, it is recommended that USAID carefully considers an extension
because ZATAC limited, whereas it is a good start, will not have attained
sustainability.
· ZATAC needs to continue funding smaller to medium sized projects as their
repayment record is better and risk can be reduced if the portfolio is spread
over more projects. The fund should be utilized fully as at the time of
evaluation less than half of the monies were disbursed.
· ZATAC ltd needs to be more aggressive in finding new partners. It should
NOT ride on the success of the ZATAC project. As a Zambian institution, it
should go flat out and engage local, regional and international partners to
help agribusiness investment in Zambia and thereby assume its sustainability.
· It was noted that some of the portfolios ZATAC went into were weak in terms
of generating income for ZATAC. These include cashew and dried tomato
projects. It is recommended that ZATAC should carefully review its
engagement procedures in future in order to safeguard its investments. For 
instance, given ZATAC’s interest in honey production, it would be prudent to 
use ZATAC’s new engagement procedures before initiating the honey project 
and other activities. ZATAC needs to first consolidate its current projects and 
programs before starting any new ventures.
31
· The treadle pump oriented investments are of high returns and it is proposed 
that ZATAC should assess other geographical areas to see where else these 
pumps can be used in production of crops for both local and export markets.
· ZATAC started off well on the lime initiative and so they need to go further to 
assist lime companies with issues of marketing by linking them with potential 
buyers.
 
32
ANNEXES
33
ANNEX 1
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Terms of Reference For The Mid-term Evaluation of the ZATAC Project
1.0 Purpose
USAID/Zambia would like to find out whether the Development Alternative
Incorporated (DAI) implemented Zambia Agribusiness Technical Assistance Centre
(ZATAC), established to provide business development services to agribusiness that 
work with smallholders has had or is having beneficial impact. If so, USAID/Zambia
would like to identify the key elements of success of the Centre that can be replicated 
to improve ongoing or future investments. Finally, if ZATAC is not achieving the
intended results, USAID/Z does Zambia would like to know how to reorient the
operations of the Centre so that it does achieve the intended results.
2.0 Objective
The objective of this solicitation is to obtain Technical Consultancy service from a
local contractor to comprehensively assess the ZATAC project and to produce a
detailed report. The evaluation aims to obtain lessons learned that may be applicable 
to ZATAC’s objectives of increasing rural incomes in order to positively influence
ongoing or future activities of investments. The contractor is therefore required to
include in the report a section on lessons learned and describing their implications
across ZATAC’s contractual objectives. 
3.0 Background
In support of the Zambian economic liberalisation, USAID/Zambia has initiated and
supported activities that stimulate rural economic growth since 1991. Under
USAID/Zambia’s Country Strategic Plan for the 1998 –2003, Strategic Objective 1
(SO1) aims to increase rural incomes of selected groups.
SO1 activities arise from rural family problem and opportunity identification. They are 
intended to encourage rural family contributions to solving their social or economic
problems, enhance women’s contribution to rural economic growth and encourage
government food security and rural finance policies that promote private initiative.
During the June-July 2002 period, SO1’s Zambia Agribusiness Technical Assistance 
Centre is earmarked for a mid term evaluation.
Following a USAID Request for Proposal (RFP), DAI concluded a Cost Plus Fixed
Fee (CPFF) contract with USAID on August 23, 1999 to run the five-year ZATAC
project. The project was authorised for $6.0 million and was amended in April 2000 to 
reach a length of the project funding of $6.6 million. The ZATAC project was planned 
to work with agribusiness to deliver the following results:
Increase in the number of farmers using productivity enhancing technologies from
25,000 to 145,000 (an increase of 120,000);
Increase RNFE member income from $124 to $271 per annum and;
34
Expand non-traditional exports (NTEs) from $308 million to $450 million annually.
ZATAC was expected to achieve progress by providing high quality technical
assistance structured through five service areas: Market and Demand Analysis,
Market Development and Expansion, Skills Development and Information
Dissemination, Linkages to finance and Policy advocacy.
DAI’s goals were to:
Establish and manage ZATAC in Lusaka, Zambia, for an initial five-year life span.
Provide business development services to agribusiness that buy from or sell to
smallholders.
Increase the number of and efficiency of Zambian agribusiness competing for
smallholder production,
Assist in marketing that production profitably and competitively in domestic and
international markets.
Provide a contemplating and co-ordinating capacity for the other on-going 
development and rural income activities supported by USAID and other donors.
4.0 Scope of Work
The evaluation will obtain quantitative evidence impact on rural incomes through
provision of agribusiness development services. Quantitative evidence should be
presented over time to illustrate any growth or reduction in investment impact during 
the project implementation. Where quantitative evidence is not there available or
relevant, qualitative descriptions of impacts and process shall be provided.
The evaluation shall include assessment of the project and identification of ways to 
improve implementation and shall recommend to the Mission whether to extend or
cut the project. The contractor shall package relevant findings so that systemic or
national level impact from evaluation might be achieved with specific reference to the 
Zambian context.
Further, the ZATAC project experience may indicate how activities that deliver
business development services to agribusiness and the benefits accruing from them 
can be increased. The contractor shall package relevant findings so that systemic or 
national level impact from evaluation lessons learned might be achieved with specific 
reference to Zambian context.
The Contractor shall evaluate the ZATAC project under the following themes:
Results and Implementation
Beneficiary Target and Gender
Sustainability
Partnerships
Policy
Training and Sector Reports
Lessons Learned and the Way Forward
35
ANNEX 2
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Commonwealth Secretariat. (2001). Enhancing the Competitiveness of the Agri￾food Processing Sub-sector. Industrial Development Department, London, UK. 
Government of the Republic of Zambia. (2001) Economic Report 2001. Ministry of 
Finance and National Planning. Lusaka
Kazungula Cooperative Records
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)/Zambia Agribusiness Technical
Assistance Center (ZATAC). (2001) Contract No. 690-C-00-99-00251-00
Zambia Agribusiness Technical Assistance Center (ZATAC). (2000) Annual Work
Plan for FY 2000, ZATAC/DAI. Submitted to U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID). Lusaka, Zambia
Zambia Agribusiness Technical Assistance Center (ZATAC). (2000) Baseline Study.
Submitted to U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Lusaka, Zambia
Zambia Agribusiness Technical Assistance Center (ZATAC). (2001) Annual Work
Plan for FY 2001. Submitted to U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). 
Lusaka, Zambia
Zambia Agribusiness Technical Assistance Center (ZATAC). Annual and Quaterly
Reports. For FYs 1, 2 and 3. Submitted to U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID). Lusaka, Zambia.
36
ANNEX 3
LIST OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWED
1. Mr Chris Muyunda Cognizant Technical Officer-ZATAC UASID
2. Ms Susan Gale Private Sector Manager USAID
3. Ms Bagie Sherchand Chief of Party ZATAC
4. Ms Elizabeth Mudenda Chief Executive Officer ZATAC
5. Mr Gulum Banda Field manager ZATAC
6. Mr Kellock Hazemba Project accountant ZATAC
7. Ms Prisca Chikwashi Account Manager Horticulture ZATAC
8. Ms Judith Mainga Cashier Kazungula
9. Mrs Maureen Mubanga Veterinary Assistant Kazungula
10. Dr Christina Chisembele District Veterinary Officer Livingstone/Kazungula
11. Mr Costa Chambwa Kazungula
12. Mr Bernard Chali Kazungula
13. Mr Davison Milimo Kazungula
14. Mr Alfred Mulele Interim Chairman Kazungula Coop Kazungula
15. Mr Kanatu Mukamba Kazungula
16. Mr Mwanangombe Mulele Kazungula
17. Mr Siatontola Mbolola Kazungula
18. Mr L Siatumbula Kazungula
19. Mr Brighton Mwampole Kazungula
20. Mr Samwinga Heimer Kazungula
21. Mr D Kamwi Kazungula
22. Mr N Sianga Kazungula
23. Steven Bumba Kazungula
24. Mr Mukubi Kazungula
25. Mr Zambwe Mbuje Kazungula
26. Mr Ignitius Milimo Kazungula
27. Mr Paul Chilupula Kazungula
28. Mr Godfrey Mweemba Kazungula
29. Mr G C Muleya Buteko
30. Mr Alex Kafwata Buteko
31. Ms Mary Kafwimbi Buteko
32. Mrs A Banda Kaseya Buteko
33. Mrs E H Munzele Buteko
34. Mr John B Mubanga Buteko
35. Mr A K Muleya Buteko
36. Mr Rugnath Divecha Buteko
37. Mr Andrew Mwanza Katuba
38. Ms Mavis Zulu Katuba
39. Mr Ntumba Katuba
40. Mr Robert Mwanza Katuba
41. Mr Shadreck Sakala Katuba
42. Mr Shadreck Phiri Katuba
43. Mr Noah Phiri Katuba
44. Mr John January Mbewe Katuba
37
ANNEX 4
ZATAC REFLOW TRACKING FORM: OCTOBER 2000 TO JULY 2002
Project Security Principal Interest Service 
Fee/
Subtotal Bank Bank Exchange Total
Name Deposit Income Charges Interest Gain/Loss
Agriflora 24000 1760.42 6697.42 1442.22 33900.29 34148.44
Namboma 477 780.1 119.25 1376.35 1376.35
Chankwakwa 343.5 96.89 44.6 484.99 484.99
Shibuyunji 3185 296.54 43.76 3525.3 3525.3
Eureka 56.4 56.4 56.4
Sheni 1299 331 1630 1630
GoodFellow 240 60 300 300
NRI 944 944 944
25 -25
Katuba Coorp 138.6 138.6 138.6
CLUSA-Chipata 2517.28 629.32 3146.6 3146.6
USAID-Madagascar 627.46 156.87 784.33 784.33
Tim Durgan 9.3 2.32 11.62 11.62
Kazungula Coorp 391.41 156.4 547.81 574.81
Castor Company 6587.46 197.62 822.15 7607.23 7607.23
Total 24000 17437.83 8307.4 4808.29 54453.52 25 248.15 54676.67
38
ANNEX 5
ZATAC FISCAL REPORT AS AT JULY 9TH 2002
Category Budget Cumulative Current Cumulative Remaining Percent of 
Budget
Amount Amount Period Amount Amount Expended
CLIN 1 %
LTTA/CORE(100) 3348910 2232649 41764.12 2274413 1074497 67.92%
SUBCONTRACTS(200) 2227366 1267079 18007.06 1285087 942279.5 56.7
SPECAIL FINANCE 
VHCL (300)
250000 26910.15 1344.56 28254.71 221749.5 11.3
SPV MOD3 ZIF 600000 251519.1 18655.44 270174.5 329825.5 45.03
PRJCT 
CONTRIBUTIONS 
(501)
-100000 0 0 0 -100000 0
CLIN2
FEE (100) 201269 129188.6 2510.04 131698.6 69570.36 65.43
FEE(200) 66598 37885.61 538.41 38424.02 28173.98 57.43
FEE(300) 4975 5540.74 398 5938.74 -963.74 119.37
TOTAL 6599118 3950772 83217.63 4033990 2565128 61.13
FUNDED AMOUNT 4987258
%OF FUNDING SPENT 80.89%
39
ANNEX 6
CUSTOMER & BORROWER LIST AS AT 31ST JULY 2002
Customer & Borrower List
As At 31st July 2002
No. Customer Name Customer 
Code
Sub. No./ 
Borrower 
Code
Loan 
Amount
Principal 
Paid
Debts 
Outstanding
1 AgriFlora 100
Lilayi 01 $15,142.44 $228.77 $14,913.67
Kumboshi 02 $22,247.21 $9.84 $22,237.37
Leobex 03 $57,348.11 $65.10 $57,283.01
Chamba 
Valley
04 $23,543.92 $164.28 $23,379.64
Lusaka 05 $37,322.14 $38.53 $37,283.61
Buteko 06 $35,514.31 $6.87 $35,507.44
Makeni 07 $31,877.35 $1,000.00 $30,877.35
Katuba 08 $7,428.00 $0.00 $7,428.00
Nyemba 09 $18,595.03 $247.03 $18,348.00
$249,018.51 $1,760.42
2 CLUSA-LUSAKA 200
Chankwakw
a 
01 $3,386.61 $343.50 $3,043.11
Shibuyunji 02 $3,185.00 $3,185.00 $0.00
3 SHENI 
Agrienterprise
300 00 $108.87 $108.87 $0.00
4 CLUSA-CHIPATA 400 00 $108.87 $108.87 $0.00
5 JAPANESE GRANT 500
Kazungula 01 $43,714.56 $391.41 $43,323.15
Makunka 02 $23,624.30 $0.00 $23,624.30
6 NAMBOMA 600 00 $6,000.00 $0.00 $6,000.00
$0.00
7 CASTOR (Z)Ltd 700 00 $17,444.66 $6,587.46 $10,857.20
8 ZATAC Project 800
Katuba 1 $120.00 $0.00 $120.00
Katuba 
Treadle
$15,309.28 $0.00 $15,309.28
Treadle Repossed $5,319.00 $0.00 $5,319.00
9 Treadle $4,045.00 $3,607.84 $437.16
Cashew $3,201.79 $1,344.46 $1,857.33
Piddle $391.05 $0.00 $391.05
Coffee 
Seeds
$100.00 $0.00 $100.00
Refurbishm
ents
$257.99 $0.00 $257.99
Pipes $182.41 $0.00 $182.41
$375,517.90 $17,437.83 $358,080.07