A Case Study of Manhiça District

The Role of Farmer’s Cooperatives and Associations in Poverty
Reduction in Mozambique:
A Case Study of Manhiça District
モザンビークの貧困削減における農業協同組合・団体の役割
岡本
Master’s Thesis
Presented to
Graduate School of Regional Development Studies
Toyo University, Japan
by
SAMUGE Sergio de Nascimento Valia
38101010044
(Supervisor: Professor Okamoto Ikuko)
July, 2018
Declaration of Authorship
I declare that this thesis is my own unaided work. All citations, references and borrowed
ideas have been duly acknowledged. The thesis is being submitted for the degree of
Masters in the Graduate School of Regional Development Studies, Toyo University,
Japan. None of the present work has been submitted previously for any degree or
examination in any other university.
_______________________________ _________________________
SAMUGE Sergio de Nascimento Valia Date ____/_______/______
(38101610044)
i
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Japan International Cooperation Agency

(JICA) for awarding me a full scholarship with financial means to study at Toyo
University and the Japan International Cooperation Center (JICE) for their support in my
daily life during the whole period of study.
Professor OKAMOTO Ikuko, my supervisor and my co-supervisor Professor

NAKAJIMA Akiko and Professor SUGITA Elli for their attentive support and
commitment and their profound expertise in guiding me in the development of this thesis.
I consider it to be an honour to be mentored by you and I am very grateful for your
constant encouragement and for always making time to clarify my concerns despite your
busy schedule.
Manhica District Service of Economic Activities, specially my field work survey team
Juliao, Saveca, Paixão, Narciso, Henriques e Daniel thank you for your hard work.
My girls Palmira, Selmira e Sifa (Dad where are you and when are you coming back
home?) my source of energy and inspiration thank you for your constant love and
patience. My family for constant encouragement and support.
I would also like to make special mention to Mr. Artur Justo Chindandali, a person who
always inspire me to work hard for the people.
ii
Abstract
Graduate School of Regional Development Studies

Course Regional Development Studies
Master’s Thesis (Academic Year 2018)
Supervisor: Professor OKAMOTO Ikuko
The Role of Farmer’s Cooperatives and Associations in Poverty Reduction in

Mozambique:
A Case Study of Manhiça District
SAMUGE Sergio de Nascimento Valia

3810101004
Mozambique is an agriculture-based economy with a history of high poverty rates,

varying from 69.4% to 46.1%, and the number of poor peoples from 12 million to 11.1
million between 1997 and 2014. The Agriculture sector employs more than 75% of the
labour force in the last decade. Between 2000-2010, this sector contributed on average
about 23% to GDP. One of the main reasons for consistently high rates of consumption-
based poverty are slow growth in agricultural productivity. Per capita food production
has declined over several decades. Food shortage has been offset by imports using donors’
money, food aid in kind and export revenues. This trend generates poverty and food
dependence.
In Mozambique small farmers account for 98.9% of farmers. They are composed
mainly of family farmers organized in cooperatives and associations (C&A) that are
responsible for locally sold food production. Therefore, the main purpose of the study is
to clarify the effectiveness of cooperatives and association in poverty reduction in the
context of Mozambique agriculture sector.
The research indicates that the cooperatives and associations performance is quite
low, the membership generates low farm income, and that cooperatives and associations
farming food crops a more associated with categories of income determinant factor which
doesn’t contribute that much for farm income generation.
Key word: Small farmers, cooperatives, associations, poverty, rural areas, agriculture,
Mozambique.
iii
1. Introduction
Agriculture contributes to development as an economic activity, as a livelihood, and
as a provider of environmental services, making the sector a unique instrument for
development. Improving the productivity, profitability, and sustainability of smallholder
farming is the main pathway out of poverty. Enhance the performance of famers
organizations is one of many instruments that can be used to achieve poverty alleviation.
The main purpose of the study is to clarify the effectiveness of cooperatives and
association in poverty reduction in the context of Mozambique agriculture sector. To
achieve this purpose the following activities were conducted: Analyses of activities
performed by cooperatives and association; Estimation of agricultural income for both
member and non-members of cooperatives for cash and food crops and Determination of
factors that affect farmers performance and income.
Between September 4th to 27th 2017, a field survey was carried out in Manhica
District in Maputo Province. There were surveys for C&A and for farmers households.
Small farmers involved in cash and food crops production organized in C&A and non-
associated farmers were selected because they are the farmers’ organization most notable
forms in the district, most farmers are in those groups, and it was concluded that these
groups would be representative enough to provide information to understand the small
farmers’ socioeconomic dynamics.
11 C&A were selected as samples, the questionnaire was divided into general
information and performance of cooperatives and associations. 134 farm household were
also selected and the survey were divided into two groups: C&A membership households
and households who does not belong to any C&A. The groups were made for both cash
and food crops. The farmer household survey covered the following topics: family
structure, education, employment structure, wages, assets holding (land and livestock,
agricultural machinery, means of transport), housing and other facilities (energy, water,
etc.) and farm household income (from October 2016 to September 2017).
2. Famer’s organizations
Famers organizations are membership-based organizations or federations of
organizations with elected leaders accountable to their constituents. They take on various
legal forms, such as cooperatives, associations, and societies. Their functions can be
grouped in commodity-specific organizations, advocacy organizations and multipurpose
organizations.
Collective action by farmers organizations can reduce transaction costs in markets,

achieve some market power, and increase representation in national and international
policy forums. For smallholders, farmers organizations are essential to achieve
competitiveness.
Farmers organizations’ effectiveness is frequently constrained by legal restrictions,

low managerial capacity, elite capture, exclusion of the poor, and failure to be recognized
as full partners by the state. Donors and governments can assist by facilitating the right
to organize, training leaders, and empowering weaker members, in particular women and
young farmers. However, providing this assistance without creating dependency remains
a challenge.
iv
3. Cooperatives and associations performance index (CPI)
The cooperative performance index is a tool that covers the following five areas of
cooperative development: 1) Legal status & cooperative planning and strategy; 2)
Management structure and accounting system; 3) Production & quality of inputs; 4)
Market linkages and business relations; and 5) Recruitment & member retention Strategy.
The five areas are broken down into strategic questions intended to tease out subtle
differences between nascent, growing and mature cooperatives. The questions are
bivariate and the sum of positive answer in each question represent the score. The
cooperative scores are then broken down into three classes namely: Early transition to
growth, Mid-transition to growth and Model.
Legal Status &

Planning and Strategy
80% 62%
60% 52%
Recruitment & 40% Management
Member Retention 24%20% 35% Structure and
Strategy 25% 0% 36% Accounting System
2%
17%
21%
40%
Market Linkages and Production & Quality
Business Relations of Inputs
Cash Crop Food Crop
Figure 1. C&A development areas scores
The research recorded that the C&A performance is very weak having C&A farming
cash crops registered a CPI = 14% which means that it belongs to category early transition
to growth, subcategory 2. The other C&A recorded a CPI between 29 % and 36% which
means that they belong to the category early transition to growth, subcategory 3.
4. Income and its determinant factors

Non-cooperatives and cash crops generates higher income then cooperative and food
crops. NonC&A cash crops famer’s farm household income is higher followed by
NonC&A-food and C&A-cash famers, C&A-food recorded the lowest farm household
income.
v
Surveyed groups Sample Median farm income
C&A food 41 968.75Mt
C&A cash 50 7.168,79Mt
NonC&A food 19 6.160,00Mt
NonC&A cash 15 22.323,47Mt
Total 125
Location (Administrative Posts), gender, education and relationship with the

household head, size of land owned, working hour and days in the farm and non-farm
income are the farm household income generation determinant factors.
Compared Median income Eta

Factors N P
groups difference (mzm) r2
Gender 125 male-female 5,476.40 0.000 0.12
3 de Fevereiro-
47 6,886.4 0.22 0.017
Maluana
Location
Josina Machel
43 6,181.1 0.004 0.019
Island-Maluana
Relationship with 97 Male h-wife 5,839.8 0.004 0.084
household head 101 Male h-female h 5,424.00 0.002 0.092
Education 62 Formal- no formal 1748,00 0.71 0.12
Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Farm household income
2 Not farm household income .338**
3 Size of land owned/h .728** .503**
4 No. of hours worked/week .544** 0.215 .527**
5 No. of days worked/week .591** .310* .610** .887**
6 No. of male members/h 0.125 0.196 .179* .191* .214*
7 No. of female members/h 0.120 0.219 .287** 0.137 .243** -0.022
8 Size of household .210* .273* .353** .258** .355** .613** .765**
5. Conclusion
C&A Cash Non-C&A Non-C&A
Factors C&A Food crops
crops Food crops Cash crops
The roads and
Location market are less Accessible market and roads, available
accessible services, and goods
Most are Most are 100% are
Most are females
males and males and males and
Membership and household
household household household
head
head head, head,
vi
60% no 21% no 20% no
64% no formal,
Education formal, 40% formal, 79% formal, 80%
36% formal
formal formal formal
The average
1.4 3.2 9.2 23.6
land size (ha)
Days
3 days 4 days 5 days 5 days
working/week
Hours
11 hours 17 hours 35 hours 34 hours
working/week
Non-farm
income/h 4,000.00 5,075.00 10,000.00 12,050.00
(mzm)
 Cooperatives performance is low

 Cooperatives and associations are more associated with categories of farm
household income generation determinant factor which doesn’t contribute
that much for income generation
 cooperatives and associations do not substantially reduce the vulnerability of
membership, and, do not contribute to improving membership's economic
standard of living and reduce poverty.
vii
Table of Content
Declaration of Authorship ....................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. ii
Abstract ................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Content ................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables........................................................................................................... xi
List of Figures ....................................................................................................... xiii
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................ xiv
I. Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background and Objectives of the Study ....................................................... 1
1.2. Definitions ...................................................................................................... 2
1.2.1. Farmers’ Associations ............................................................................. 2
1.2.2. Farmers’ Cooperatives ............................................................................ 2
1.2.3. Non-associated farmers ........................................................................... 3
1.2.4. Farmers household .................................................................................. 3
1.3. Research methodology ................................................................................... 3
1.3.1. Preparatory survey................................................................................... 4
1.3.2. Cooperative and associations survey....................................................... 4
1.3.3. Farmer household survey ........................................................................ 5
1.4. Plan of study ................................................................................................... 6
II. Economy and development ................................................................................ 7

2.1. Agriculture and Development ........................................................................ 7
2.1.1. The Lewis Theory of Development......................................................... 7
2.1.2. Agriculture as instrument for development ............................................. 8
2.2. Mozambique Economic Development strategies ......................................... 14
2.2.1. Under the Portuguese administration (before 1975) ............................. 14
2.2.2. Socialist regime (1975 〜 1986) ........................................................... 14
2.2.3. Free Market Period (After 1987) ........................................................... 15
2.3. Economic Structure and Performance of Mozambique ............................... 17
III. Manhica District ............................................................................................. 21

3.1. Geography and population ........................................................................... 21
viii
3.2. General view on the six Administrative Posts.............................................. 22
3.3. Cooperatives and associations ...................................................................... 25
3.3.1. Development of Cooperatives and Association .................................... 25
3.3.2. Current condition of associations and cooperatives .............................. 27
3.4. Sugarcane production ................................................................................... 28
IV. Agricultural overview and characteristics of surveyed groups .................. 31

4.1. Location and household characteristics ........................................................ 31
4.2. Cultivated crops and market ......................................................................... 32
4.3. Land ownership and working hours on the farm.......................................... 35
4.4. Credit, inputs and extension service ............................................................. 36
4.5. Assets holdings ............................................................................................. 36
4.6. Irrigation ....................................................................................................... 38
4.7. Employment and income .............................................................................. 38
4.8. Housing ........................................................................................................ 39
4.9. Access to water, electricity and cooking fuel ............................................... 40
V. Cooperatives and associations performance index ........................................ 41
VI. Income and its determinant factors............................................................... 47

6.1. Income distribution....................................................................................... 47
6.2. Farm household income determinants and relationship with surveyed groups
..................................................................................................................... 49
6.2.1. Location ................................................................................................. 49
6.2.2. Gender ................................................................................................... 50
6.2.3. Education ............................................................................................... 51
6.2.4. Relationship with the household head ................................................... 52
6.2.5. Non-farm household income ................................................................. 53
6.2.6. Size of land owned ................................................................................ 55
6.2.7. Working days and hour ......................................................................... 56
VII. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 59

7.1. Capital accumulation pattern ........................................................................ 59
7.2. Famers cooperatives and associations development .................................... 60
7.3. Farm household income and its determinants factors .................................. 62
7.4. Cooperative and association performance .................................................... 63
Reference ................................................................................................................ 64
Annex 67
ix
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Number of cooperatives and associations selected ..................................... 5

Table 2: Number of households interviewed ............................................................ 5
Table 3: Index of some indicators between 1974-1993 (reference year is 1974 = 100,
for export is 1981 = 100) ........................................................................... 16
Table 4: Macroeconomic indicators ........................................................................ 18
Table 5: Mozambique import and export goods ..................................................... 18
Table 6: Domestic finance to agriculture sector ...................................................... 19
Table 7: Agriculture sector contribution to economy and labour force distribution 19
Table 8: Social indicators evolution in the past 20 years ........................................ 20
Table 9: Basic Indicators ......................................................................................... 23
Table 10: Manhica District livestock holding ......................................................... 23
Table 11: Number of industrial units ...................................................................... 24
Table 12: Number of educational units ................................................................... 24
Table 13: Number of health units ............................................................................ 24
Table 14: Number of bank units .............................................................................. 24
Table 15: Number of commercial units ................................................................... 25
Table 16: Cumulative percentage of existing cooperatives and associations ......... 25
Table 17: Basic information of Manhica District cooperatives and associations ... 27
Table 18: Number of registered agricultural cooperatives and associations ........... 27
Table 19: C&A council’s basic information (sample 11 C&A) .............................. 28
Table 20: Basic indicators of Sugar mills ............................................................... 29
Table 21: Farmers household distribution ............................................................... 32
Table 22: Household information............................................................................ 32
Table 23: Harvested areas (ha) and productivity..................................................... 33
Table 24: Share and number of households ............................................................ 33
Table 25: Number of crops farmed per household .................................................. 34
Table 26: Share of productions and destine ............................................................ 34
Table 27: Number of farmers and size of land ........................................................ 35
Table 28: Share of plots owned by farmers ............................................................. 35
Table 29: Number of working days and hours per week ........................................ 35
Table 30: Average number of owned durable goods .............................................. 37
Table 31: Average number of owned means of transportation ............................... 37
Table 32: Average number of livestock holding ..................................................... 37
Table 33: Percentage of plots and the type of irrigation used ................................. 38
Table 34: Average number of household members (more than 18 years old) by source
of income ................................................................................................ 39
Table 35: Number of earners and average income .................................................. 39
Table 36: Percentage of households ........................................................................ 39
Table 37: Share of household that get water for domestic purpose ........................ 40
Table 38: Share of households using cooking fuel.................................................. 40
Table 39: CPI composition and determination ........................................................ 43
Table 40: CPI Classes.............................................................................................. 44
Table 41: Median farm household income recorded ............................................... 48
Table 42: Independent samples Mann Whitney U Test summary .......................... 49
xi
Table 43: Correlation between Farm household income and Size of land owned by
household ................................................................................................ 56
Table 44: Correlation between farm household income and no of days and hours spent
working on farm by household ............................................................... 58
xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Manhica District ...................................................................................... 22

Figure 2: Agricultural season in Manhica District .................................................. 31
Figure 3: CPI dimensions ........................................................................................ 42
Figure 4: Cooperatives and associations performance on the CPI five dimensions 45
Figure 5: Farm household income distribution across Administrative Posts .......... 49
Figure 6: Farm household income distribution across gender ................................ 50
Figure 7: Distribution of farmers by gender ............................................................ 51
Figure 8: Farm household income distribution across famers education categories 51
Figure 9: Distribution of farmers by educations category....................................... 52
Figure 10: Farm household income distribution according to famers relationship with
household head........................................................................................ 52
Figure 11: Share of famers in the sample ................................................................ 53
Figure 12: Relationship between farm household income and non-farm household
income ..................................................................................................... 54
income for food crops farmers ................................................................ 54
Figure 14: Relationship between farm household income and size of land owned by
household ................................................................................................ 55
Figure 15: Distribution of land (ha) across famers.................................................. 56
Figure 16: Relationship between farm household income and number of hours spent
farming per week .................................................................................... 57
Figure 17: Relationship between farm household income and number of days spent
farming per week .................................................................................... 57
xiii
List of Abbreviations
C&A: Cooperative and Associations

CAME: Economic Mutual Assistance Community
CaPI: Category performance index
CCAP: Consultative Council of the Administrative Post
CPI: Cooperative Performance Index
DPI: Dimension performance index
GDP: Gross domestic product
HDI: Human Development Index
LIIF: Local Investment Initiative Fund
Mzm: Mozambican Currency
NonC&A: Non-associated farmers
OCDC: Overseas Cooperative Development Council
PPI: Prospective Indicative Plan
PRE/eS: Economic and Social Rehabilitation Plan
USAID: United States agency for International Development
xiv
I. Introduction
1.1. Background and Objectives of the Study

Mozambique is a country with a history of high poverty rates, varying from 69.4%
to 46.1% between 1997 and 2014, and the number of poor individuals from 12 million to
11.1 million. Arndt, et al., (2012) argue that the main reasons for consistently high rates
of consumption-based poverty are slow growth in agricultural productivity. Mosca (2015)
refer that per capita food production has declined over several decades. Food shortage has
been offset by imports using donors’ money, food aid in kind and export revenues. This
trend generates poverty and food dependence.
Mozambique is an agriculture-based economy employing more than 75% of the

labour force in the last decade. Between 2000-2010, this sector contributed on average
about 23% to GDP (Abbas, 2013).
Small farmers account for 98.9%1 of farmers in Mozambique. They are composed
mainly of family farmers organized in cooperatives and associations (C&A) that are
responsible for locally sold food production. Medium and large farms account for 1.06%
and 0.02% respectively and are oriented to commercial agriculture (MASA, 2014).
Reasons for small farmers’ low levels of production and productivity can be
summarized as follow:
• Low investiment in agriculture sector: only 1% of public expenditure (2001 to 2011),

4% of public investment expenditure (2001 to 2012) and 8% of economy's credit (2001
to 2011) was applied to the sector. The credit interest rates are high and volatile (Abbas
2015, Cunguara, et al., 2013, Mosca et al., 2013).
• Low use of inputs: the majority of farmers still rely on rainfall to irrigate the field, the
use of improved technologies like improved seeds, fertilizes, pesticide still extremely
low (Cunguara, et al., (2013).
• Low mechanization: most farmers are still using rudimentary work tools and that fact
affect the size of land sown which is very small and the farming is less efficient
(Uaiene 2015).
• Limited access to support services: access of extension services and market is still a
challenge to the farmers in Mozambique due to farmers’ low level of education, poor
access roads, weak communication system and lack of supporting policies (Uaiene
2015, Mosca 2015).
1
Small farms: plot size without irrigation <10ha or size of irrigated area <5ha or number of cattle <10 or
number of goats, sheep and pigs <50 or number of birds <2000; Medium farms: plot size without irrigation
between 10ha to 50ha or size of the area with irrigation between 5ha to 10ha or number of cattle between
10 to 100 or number of goats, sheep and pigs between 50 to 500 or number of birds between 2000 and
10,000 ; Large farms: plot size without irrigation> 50ha or size of irrigated area> 10ha or number of heads>
100 or number of goats, sheep and pigs> 500 or number of birds> 10,000 (Uaiene, 2015).
1
The role of farmer’s cooperatives and associations
in poverty reduction in Mozambique
According to United Nations (2009), Cooperatives, in their various forms, promote

the fullest possible participation in the economic and social development of all people,
including women, youth, old people, people with disabilities and indigenous peoples,
cooperatives are a major factor of economic and social development and contribute to the
eradication of poverty.
The main purpose of the study is to clarify the effectiveness of cooperatives and
association in poverty reduction in the context of Mozambique agriculture sector.
To achieve this purpose the following activities were conducted:
1) Analyse of activities performed by cooperatives and association.
2) Estimation of agricultural income for both member and non-members of cooperatives

for cash and food crops.
3) Determination of factors that affect farmers performance and income.
1.2. Definitions
1.2.1. Farmers’ Associations

Farmers associations are considered to be the diverse forms of communities’
organizations and mutual aid related to the agricultural activity, as well as those who hold
the right to use the land, livestock or forest areas and support or promote the agricultural,
livestock or forestry business or others with them directly related2.
1.2.2. Farmers’ Cooperatives

Cooperatives are freely constituted autonomous legal entities. With variable capital,
composition and democratic control, where the membership undertakes to contribute with
goods and services for economic activity purpose. Of common profit, through mutual
actions and risk sharing, with a view to meeting their economic needs and aspirations and
a return on equity predominantly carried out in proportion to their operations3.
However, most of the cooperatives in Mozambique were established under the act.
no. 9/79 from July 10th. It was approved during the socialist regime. According to the
same document it was expected the cooperatives to play the following role:
• Construction and management of infrastructure.

• Technological innovation and dissemination of experiences and technological
information.
• Provision of extension services.
2
Agricultural and Livestock Act 2006, c. 2. Available at https://goo.gl/CTzuwC (accessed 10/23/2017)
3
General law on cooperatives Act 2009, c. 1., art.2. available at https://goo.gl/jYw2AK (accessed
10/23/2017)
2
Introduction
• Technical assistance and maintenance.

• Organization of educational training and professional training.
• Protect the right to use and own of land, the quality of soil and the environment.
• Organization of access to credit and mobilization of local resources.
• Public and external, improvement of the management of projects and increase of
their rate of return.
• Negotiation of prices for agricultural products.
• Expansion of the commercial network and transportation. And
• The introduction of new elements of competition.
The cooperatives development process was obligatory and had a political orientation
rather than economic or scientific approach (Castel-Branco, 1995).
1.2.3. Non-associated farmers

Include all those who get their income from agriculture activities but are not members
of any cooperatives or association.
1.2.4. Farmers household

Are all households such as the husband or wife are farmers and get their income from
agricultural activities.
1.3. Research methodology

Between September 4th to 27th 2017, a field survey was carried out in Manhica
District in Maputo Province. There were surveys to C&A and to farmers households.
Secondary data were also collected from Government institutions.
The income and farm activities collected is relative to October 2016 to September
2017 (agricultural season in Mozambique).
Because the survey time was short, the interviewers did not have time to confirm the
information given by the farmers through documents, reports or local observation which
means that maybe some of affirmative answers given are not exactly right. The most
affected survey was the Cooperative Performance Index (CPI) where the answers given
by the C&A board are quite different from the ones given by the membership, and this
could be verified analysing the proper documents or reports, but it would require more
time.
Another challenge faced was the unit of measurement for food crops, some farmers
use kilograms, others use different units of measurement as bags without a clear idea how
much it weight, mounts, number of units and boxes, the interviewers had to perform a
short trial to match the average weight with the price.
The questionnaire was prepared by the author and approved by supervisor with
comment from the local advisor. The questions were asked in the local language and
Portuguese by interviewers and supervised by the author and local advisor. When the
interview was over, the author checked the questionnaire carefully for any possible
inconsistency and necessary correction or clarification.
3
The selection of Manhica District as the target area is due to the fact that is an
agricultural based economy area, with more than 79 farmers associations and
cooperatives and non-associated farmers (NonC&A), cash and food crops are also
cultivated in the district.
The area combines several characteristics that are important for agriculture sector
income generation. Is 79Km away from Maputo City, the main agricultural market
destines in the country, the area is crossed by the main national road and a railway line
that connect the capital of the country to production places inside the country.
Manhica District got two sugarcane millers that represent an opportunity for income
to employees and farmers. There are commercial banks and microfinance institution,
input and service providers, city dealers who buy in local markets. The six administrative
Posts that compose the district were included in the farmers household and C&A survey.
1.3.1. Preparatory survey

The questionnaires were prepared by the author in Tokyo, Japan and sent to the
fieldwork survey team in Mozambique and they returned the questionnaires with valuable
comments.
Prior to research start, a pilot study was conducted by the six interviewers who
composed the survey team to test the interviewees level of the understanding to the
questions, how the interviewers translated the questions to the interviewees, determine
the duration of the interview, and validate the issues in the real context. It was an
important exercise because it led to questionnaires update.
Small farmers involved in cash and food crops production organized in C&A and
non-associated farmers were selected because they are the farmers’ organization most
notable forms in the district, most farmers are in those groups, and it was concluded that
these groups would be representative enough to provide information to understand the
small farmers’ socioeconomic dynamics.
The selection of related C&A and farmers was done by Administrative Post and
based on lists provided by the Manhica District Service of Economic Activities. The
selection process considered the availability of respondents and the existence of the
necessary data. The C&A membership were randomly chosen by each organization and
replaced whenever they were not accessible.
1.3.2. Cooperative and associations survey

The C&A survey was conducted at all Administrative Posts (Table 1). 11 C&A were
selected as samples. The questionnaire was divided into general information and
performance of cooperatives and associations.
4
Introduction
Table 1: Number of cooperatives and associations selected

No. of C&A
Administrative Post Total
Cash Crop Food Crop
Maluana 1 1 2
Calanga 0* 1 1
Xinavane 2 0* 2
3 de Fevereiro 1 1 2
Manhica Township 2 1 3
Josina Machel Island 0* 1 1
Total 6 5 11
*C&A crops type not available in the area.
In the general information questionnaire (Annex 1), the main questions were about
organizations information, management, property ownership, income, use of inputs;
access to credit, goods and services; assets ownership and gains held by the organization.
The CPI covered five dimensions, divided into eight categories, which contain
indicator and questions that are bivariate. The sum of affirmative answer in each question
divided by the number of question represent the score in percentage.
1.3.3. Farmer household survey

The purpose of the survey was to get information about farmer’s performance,
background, income and well-being. The households were divided into two groups:
households of which members belong to C&A interviewed previously and households
did not belong to any C&A. The groups were made for both cash and food crops (Table
2).
The farmer household questionnaire covered the following topics: family structure,
education, employment structure, wages, assets holding (land and livestock, agricultural
machinery, means of transport), housing and other facilities (energy, water, etc.) and farm
income (from October 2016 to September 2017).
Table 2: Number of households interviewed

C&A members NonC&A farmers
Administrative Post
Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop
Maluana 10 10 3 3
Calanga 0* 10 1 4
Xinavane 20 0* 1 2
3 de Fevereiro 10 9 4 3
Manhica Township 10 10 4 3
Josina Machel I. 0* 11 2 4
Total 40 30 15 19
* Crops type not available in the area.
Source: Field survey, 2017.
5
The number of interviewed household is different in each area duo to the availability
of farmers for that specific crop type and for interview.
1.4. Plan of study

Following this introductory chapter, Chapter II summarizes the past development
strategies and current social and economic context in Mozambique. It starts from colonial
period, and then the socialist regime and market-oriented regime. It will provide
information about agriculture performance and document poverty and inequality in
Mozambique.
Chapter III describe the study area Manhica District. Farmers groups and crops type,
changes in agricultural production in the district are presented. Chapter IV present the
characteristics of sample farmers groups. Chapter V provides the cooperative
performance index results.
Chapter VI provides an analysis of income among the different farmer's groups as a

consequence of crops type cultivated and key determinants of income like the size of land,
level of education and working time.
Chapter VI discuss the reasons why food cooperatives and associations generate the
lowest income among the farmer's groups in the district. It will point out the role of wage
credit, agrarian politics and market. And it concludes the study synthesizing the findings
from the previous chapter. It will highlight the role of farmers in poverty reduction in
rural areas in Mozambique combined with farmers’ income and social determinants.
6
II. Economy and development
2.1. Agriculture and Development
2.1.1. The Lewis Theory of Development4
2.1.1.1. The Lewis two-sector model

In the Lewis model, the underdeveloped economy consists of two sectors: a
traditional, overpopulated rural subsistence sector characterized by zero marginal labour
productivity. A situation that permits Lewis to classify this as surplus labour in the sense
that it can be withdrawn from the traditional agricultural sector without any loss of output
and a high productivity modern urban industrial sector into which labour from the
subsistence sector is gradually transferred. The primary focus of the model is on both the
process of labour transfer and the growth of output and employment in the modern sector.
Both labour transfer and modern-sector employment Growth are brought about by
output expansion in that sector. The speed with which this expansion occurs is determined
by the rate of industrial investment and capital accumulation in the modern sector.
Such investment is made possible by the excess of modern-sector profits over wages
on the assumption that capitalists reinvest all their profits. Finally, Lewis assumed that
the level of wages in the urban industrial sector was constant, determined as a given
premium over a fixed average subsistence level of wages in the traditional agricultural
sector. At the constant urban wage, the supply curve of rural labour to the modern sector
is considered to be perfectly elastic.
2.1.1.2. The Lewis Model Modified by Laboursaving Capital Accumulation

Criticisms of the Lewis Model, four of its key assumptions do not fit the institutional
and economic realities of most contemporary developing countries.
Most contemporary research indicates that developing countries present the

following characteristics:
• Investment on laboursaving of most modern technological transfer.

• Existence of substantial capital flight.
• Widespread nonexistence of rural surplus labour.
• Growing prevalence of urban surplus labour.
• Tendency for modern sector wages to rise rapidly even where substantial open
unemployment exists.
4
Todaro & Smith, 2011
7
In the most developing countries the capitalist profits are reinvested in more
sophisticated laboursaving capital equipment rather than just duplicating the existing
capital, as is implicitly assumed in the Lewis model. Therefore, all the extra income and
output growth are distributed to the few owners of capital, while income and employment
levels for the masses of workers remain largely unchanged. Although total GDP would
rise, there would be little or no improvement in aggregate social welfare measured, say,
in terms of more widely distributed gains in income and employment.
The modern sector labour market is not competitive as assumed by Lewis.

Institutional factors such as union bargaining power, civil service wage scales, and
multinational corporations’ hiring practices tend to negate competitive forces in modern-
sector labour markets in developing countries.
2.1.2. Agriculture as instrument for development5

Agriculture contributes to development as an economic activity, as a livelihood, and
as a provider of environmental services, making the sector a unique instrument for
development.
Agriculture can be a source of growth for the national economy, a provider of

investment opportunities for the private sector, and a prime driver of agriculture-related
industries and the rural nonfarm economy.
In agriculture-based countries, it generates on average 29% of the gross domestic

product (GDP) and employs 65% of the labour force. Agricultural production is important
for food security because it is a source of income for the majority of the rural poor. It is
particularly critical in a dozen countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, with a combined
population of about 200 million and with highly variable domestic production, limited
tradability of food staples, and foreign exchange constraints in meeting their food needs
through imports.
Agriculture is a source of livelihoods for an estimated 86 percent of rural people. It

provides jobs for 1.3 billion smallholders and landless workers, “farm financed social
welfare” when there are urban shocks, and a foundation for viable rural communities. Of
the developing world’s 5.5 billion people, 3 billion live in rural areas, nearly half of
humanity. Of these rural inhabitants an estimated 2.5 billion are in households involved
in agriculture, and 1.5 billion are in smallholder households.
In using (and frequently misusing) natural resources, agriculture can create good and
bad environmental outcomes. It is by far the largest user of water, contributing to water
scarcity. It is a major player in underground water depletion, agrochemical pollution, soil
exhaustion, and global climate change, accounting for up to 30 percent of greenhouse gas
emissions. But it is also a major provider of environmental services, generally
unrecognized and unremunerated, sequestering carbon, managing watersheds, and
5
The World Bank, 2007
8
Economy and development
preserving biodiversity. With rising resource scarcity, climate change, and concern about
environmental costs, agriculture uses natural resources as it does now is not an option.
Making the farming systems of the rural poor less vulnerable to climate change is
imperative. Managing the connections among agriculture, natural resource conservation,
and the environment must be an integral part of using agriculture for development.
Agriculture is a major source of growth, accounting for 32 percent of GDP growth

on average mainly because agriculture is a large share of GDP in agriculture-based
countries and most of the poor are in rural areas (70 percent). This group of countries has
417 million rural inhabitants, mainly in Sub-Saharan countries. Eighty-two percent of the
rural Sub-Saharan population lives in agriculture-based countries.
Agriculture has a well-established record as an instrument for poverty reduction. It

can also be the leading sector of a growth strategy for the agriculture-based countries.
Two arguments, applied to the agriculture-based countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. The
first is that in many of these countries, food remains imperfectly tradable because of high
transaction costs and the prevalence of staple foods that are only lightly traded, such as
roots and tubers and local cereals. So, many of these countries must largely feed
themselves. Agricultural productivity determines the price of food, which in turn
determines wage costs and competitiveness of the tradable sectors. Productivity of food
staples is thus key to growth. The second is that comparative advantage in the tradable
subsectors will still lie in primary activities (agriculture and mining) and agroprocessing
for many years, because of resource endowments and the difficult investment climate for
manufactures. Most economies depend on a diverse portfolio of unprocessed and
processed primary-based exports (including tourism) to generate foreign exchange.
Growth in both the non-tradable and tradable sectors of agriculture also induces strong
growth in other sectors of the economy through multiplier effects.
Many agriculture-based countries still display anemic per capita agricultural growth
and little structural transformation (a declining share of agriculture in GDP and a rising
share of industry and services as GDP per capita rises).
Rapid population growth, declining farm size, falling soil fertility, and missed
opportunities for income diversification and migration create distress as the powers of
agriculture for development remain fallow.
Policies that excessively tax agriculture and underinvest in agriculture are to blame,
reflecting a political economy in which urban interests have the upper hand. Compared
with successful transforming countries when they still had a high share of agriculture in
GDP, the agriculture-based countries have very low public spending in agriculture as a
share of their agricultural GDP (4 percent in the agriculture-based countries in 2004
compared with 10 percent in 1980 in the transforming countries).
2.1.2.1. Effective agriculture’s instruments for development

Agriculture can be the main source of growth for the agriculture-based countries and
can reduce poverty and improve the environment. This requires improving the asset
position of the rural poor, making smallholder farming more competitive and sustainable,
diversifying income sources toward the labour market and the rural nonfarm economy,
and facilitating successful migration out of agriculture
9
Household assets are major determinants of the ability to participate in agricultural

markets, secure livelihoods in subsistence farming, compete as entrepreneurs in the rural
nonfarm economy, and find employment in skilled occupations. Three core assets are
land, water, and human capital. Yet the assets of the rural poor are often squeezed by
population growth, environmental degradation, expropriation by dominant interests, and
social biases in policies and in the allocation of public goods.
Nowhere is the lack of assets greater than in Sub-Saharan Africa, where farm sizes
in many of the more densely populated areas are unsustainably small and falling, land is
severely degraded, investment in irrigation is negligible, and poor health and education
limit productivity and access to better options.
Enhancing assets requires significant public investments in irrigation, health, and

education. In others cases, it is more a matter of institutional development, such as
enhancing the security of property rights and the quality of land administration. Increasing
assets may also call for affirmative action to equalize chances for disadvantaged or
excluded groups, such as women and ethnic minorities.
Land markets, particularly rental markets, can raise productivity, help households
diversify their incomes, and facilitate exit from agriculture. Facing the aging of farmers,
diversification of rural economies, and acceleration of migrations, well-functioning land
markets are needed to transfer land to the most productive users. It will facilitate
participation in the rural nonfarm sector and migration out of agriculture.
But in many countries, insecure property rights, poor contract enforcement, and
stringent legal restrictions limit the performance of land markets, creating large
inefficiencies in both land and labour reallocation and reinforcing existing inequalities in
access to land.
Safety nets and access to credit are needed to minimize distress land sales when
farmers are exposed to shocks. Land reform can promote smallholder entry into the
market, reduce inequalities in land distribution, increase efficiency, and be organized in
ways that recognize women’s rights. Redistributing underutilized large estates to settle
smallholders can work if complemented by reforms to secure the competitiveness of
beneficiaries something that has been difficult to achieve.
Access to water and irrigation is a major determinant of land productivity and the
stability of yields. Irrigated land productivity is more than double that of rainfed land. In
Sub-Saharan Africa, only 4 percent of the area in production is under irrigation, compared
with 39 percent in South Asia and 29 percent in East Asia.
While land and water are critical assets in rural areas, education is often the most
valuable asset for rural people to pursue opportunities in the new agriculture, obtain
skilled jobs, start businesses in the rural nonfarm economy, and migrate successfully. Yet
education levels in rural areas tend to be dismally low worldwide: an average of four
years for rural adult males and less than three years for rural adult females in Sub-Saharan
Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa.
10
Improving basic rural education has been slower than in urban areas. Where demand
for education is lagging among rural households, it can be enhanced through cash
transfers (as in Bangladesh, Brazil, and Mexico) conditional on school attendance.
However, increasingly it is the quality of rural education that requires the most
improvement, with education conceived broadly to include vocational training that can
provide technical and business skills that are useful in the new agriculture and the rural
nonfarm economy.
Widespread illness and death from HIV/AIDS and malaria can greatly reduce
agricultural productivity and devastate livelihoods. The majority of people affected by
HIV work in farming, and there is tremendous scope for agricultural policy to be more
HIV-responsive in supporting adjustments to labour shocks and the transmission of
knowledge to orphans.
2.1.2.2. Improvement in productivity and sustainability of small holder farming

Improving the productivity, profitability, and sustainability of smallholder farming
is the main pathway out of poverty. A broad array of policy instruments, can be used to
achieve the following:
• Improve price incentives and increase the quality and quantity of public
investment.
• Make product markets work better.
• Improve access to financial services and reduce exposure to uninsured risks.
• Promote innovation through science and technology.
• Make agriculture more sustainable and a provider of environmental services.
• Enhance the performance of producer organizations.
Recent reforms have improved price incentives for agricultural producers in

developing countries, reducing but not eliminating historical policy biases against
agriculture.
With major structural changes in agricultural markets and the entry of powerful new
actors, a key issue for development is enhancing the participation of smallholders and
ensuring the poverty-reducing impacts of agricultural growth. Options differ across the
spectrum of markets.
Reducing transaction costs and risks in food staples markets can promote faster
growth and benefit the poor. Beyond investments in infrastructure, promising innovations
include commodity exchanges, market information systems based on rural radio and short
messaging systems, warehouse receipts, and market-based risk management tools.
Financial constraints in agriculture remain pervasive, and they are costly and
inequitably distributed, severely limiting smallholders’ ability to compete. Financial
constraints originate in the lack of asset ownership to serve as collateral (wealth rationing)
and in the reticence to put assets at risk as collateral when they are vital to livelihoods
(risk rationing).
Driven by rapidly growing private investment in research and development (R&D),

the knowledge divide between industrial and developing countries is widening. Including
11
both public and private sources, developing countries invest only a ninth of what
industrial countries put into agriculture R&D as a share of agricultural GDP. To narrow
this divide, sharply increased investments in R&D must be at the top of the policy agenda.
Many international and national investments in R&D have paid off handsomely,
with an average internal rate of return of 43 percent in 700 R&D projects evaluated in
developing countries in all regions. But global and national failures of markets and
governance lead to serious underinvestment in R&D and in innovation systems more
generally, particularly in the agriculture-based countries. While investment in agricultural
R&D tripled in China and India over the past 20 years, it increased by barely a fifth in
Sub-Saharan Africa (declining in about half of the countries there).
Low investments in R&D and low international transfers of technology have gone
hand in hand with stagnant cereal yields in Sub-Saharan Africa, resulting in a widening
yield gap with the rest of the world.
Both intensive and extensive agriculture face environmental problems but of

different kinds. Agricultural intensification has generated environmental problems from
reduced biodiversity, mismanaged irrigation water, agrochemical pollution, and health
costs and deaths from pesticide poisoning. The livestock revolution has its own costs,
especially in densely populated and peri urban areas, through animal waste and the spread
of animal diseases such as avian influenza. Many less-favoured areas suffer from
deforestation, soil erosion, desertification, and degradation of pastures and watersheds.
2.1.2.3. Enhancement of the performance of producer organizations

Producer organizations are membership-based organizations or federations of
organizations with elected leaders accountable to their constituents. They take on various
legal forms, such as cooperatives, associations, and societies. Their functions can be
grouped in three categories:
• Commodity-specific organizations focusing on economic services and defending

their members’ interests in a particular commodity, such as cocoa, coffee, or
cotton.
• Advocacy organizations to represent producers’ interests, such as national
producers’ unions.
• Multipurpose organizations that respond to the diverse economic and social
needs of their members, often in the absence of local governments or effective
public services.
In the 1960s, many governments of developing-countries initiated cooperative

development programs, often to ensure quotas for cash crops and distribute subsidized
credit and inputs. Cooperatives were largely government controlled and staffed. So,
farmers considered them as an extended arm of the public sector, not as institutions that
they owned. This form of cooperative was rarely successful. Political interference and
elite capture resulted in poor performance and discredited the movement.
12
This situation changed radically in the 1980s. Political liberalization opened

opportunities for producers to become active players through organizations of their own.
Structural adjustment disengaged the state from many productive functions and services.
Contrary to expectation, the dismantling of parastatal agencies led to only limited entry
of private providers, mostly in high potential areas. Smallholders thus turned to producer
organizations to compensate for the withdrawal of state services and the lack of private
alternatives. Where Government interference in cooperatives prevailed, producers often
side stepped them and created associations.
Collective action by producer organizations can reduce transaction costs in markets,

achieve some market power, and increase representation in national and international
policy forums. For smallholders, producer organizations are essential to achieve
competitiveness. They have expanded remarkably rapidly in number and membership,
often in an attempt to fill the void left by the state’s withdrawal from marketing, input
provision, and credit, and to take advantage of democratic openings allowing greater civil
society participation in governance.
Producer organizations’ effectiveness is frequently constrained by legal restrictions,

low managerial capacity, elite capture, exclusion of the poor, and failure to be recognized
as full partners by the state. Donors and governments can assist by facilitating the right
to organize, training leaders, and empowering weaker members, in particular women and
young farmers. However, providing this assistance without creating dependency remains
a challenge.
Producer organizations have expanded rapidly, but existence does not guarantee
effectiveness. For that, they need to face five major challenges, both internal and external
to the organization.
• Resolving conflicts between efficiency and equity.

• Dealing with a heterogeneous membership.
• Developing managerial capacity for high value chains.
• Participating in high level negotiations.
• Globalization and integrated.
• Dealing with a sometimes-unfavourable external environment.
Governments and donors have supported producer organizations, often through

specialized NGOs. Several producer organizations in industrial countries support
organizations in developing countries through NGOs financed by member fees.
However, investing in social capital is not easy. To be effective, support should be

committed for the long term but with a clear phasing-out strategy. Donor and government
support, whether financial, managerial, or technical, can be a double-edged sword,
creating dependency and undermining the organizations rather than empowering them,
depending on how that support is provided.
Although there is no blueprint for the best way to give support, one approach that has
proven effective is to use demand-driven funds, with producer organizations selecting
activities and service providers. Another approach, introduced by the participatory policy
13
generating program, supports producer organizations’ links with universities that can
provide policy research for proposed producer organizations positions.
The African Farmers Academy provides training courses tailored to the needs of
farmer leaders in the areas of agricultural Policy and international and regional trade.
These and other approaches to empower producer organizations require further
experimentation and solid impact analyses to become more effective.
2.2. Mozambique Economic Development strategies

In this section, Mozambique's economic development strategies will be discussed for
e three different periods, namely the colonial period, socialist regime, and the free market
regime.
2.2.1. Under the Portuguese administration (before 1975)

The Portuguese colonial administration structured the Mozambican economy in
order to provide services to two economic powers at that time, Zimbabwe (Southern
Rhodesia) and South Africa (Castel-Branco, 1995; Cortes, 2018).
In the case of South Africa, the services provided were based in the supply of labour
force for the mines, as well as in the use of the train system and port to import and ship
products from regions without access to the sea (Castel-Branco, 1995; Cortes, 2018).
In the case of Zimbabwe (Southern Rhodesia), the currencies came from the use of
the train system and port, which was designed to facilitate the import and export of the
products to this country (Castel-Branco, 1995; Cortes, 2018).
The export of sugar, copra, cotton, cashew nuts and tea were also sources of revenue.
During this period, small and medium-sized enterprises were composed of Portuguese
settlers and Indian traders operating in commercial area in the small and medium industry
that produced for urban centres. Black natives were excluded from economic activities
and most of them were employed in the agricultural sector (Castel-Branco, 1995; Cortes,
2018).
The economy was set up in such a way that the colonial territories like Mozambique
were a source of raw material and foreign exchange for Portugal, and markets for finished
products or consumer goods of small and medium Portuguese industry (Castel-Branco,
1995).
As a consequence, Mozambique's current account balance at that time was always

negative due to the economy dependence on export of raw materials in their raw state and
imports of finished products from the metropolis (Castel-Branco, 1995; Mosca, 2016).
2.2.2. Socialist regime (1975 〜 1986)

When Mozambique became independent there was not native bureaucrats or
businessmen class. Over this year, the main companies and small businesses leave
14
Mozambique. In 1977, the Frelimo government adopt a centralized economy and around
1980 was nationalized almost all the business already (Castel-Branco, 1995; Cortes,
2018).
Around the same time, Mozambique was supporting the fight for the independence
of Zimbabwe and South Africa. Because of that the relationship between Mozambique
and the apartheid regime in South Africa and Zimbabwe was broken and Mozambique
lost the two main source of income (Cortes, 2018).
In 1980 the government adopted the Prospective Indicative Plan (PPI) and it was
composed of 3 essential programs (Castel-Branco, 1995; Cortes, 2018; Mosca, 2015):
• The collectivization of the countryside.

• Industrialization. and
• Education.
The PPI priorities were the rapid growth of physical production and had the following
characteristics:
• State centralized capital accumulation process.

• State centralized business sector investment.
• Other economy sectors were left aside.
• The social structure transformation wasn't the priority.
• Applied a passive macroeconomic and financial management system.
• The fulfilment of production physical goals was more important than economic
efficiency.
The expectation of Mozambique to become a member of the COMECON6 and the

need of financial resources were the main reasons behind the PPI (Castel-Branco, 1995).
2.2.3. Free Market Period (After 1987)

In 1986, Mozambique joined the Bretton Woods Institutions, and in 1987 initiated
the Economic and Social Rehabilitation Plan (PRE/eS). This program aimed essentially
to correct the main mistakes of the previous program (PPI), which were:
• Bad macroeconomic management.

• Distortion of prices structure against agriculture and exports. and
• Discouraging the operation of domestic and foreign private sector.
PRE/eS contemplated the following actions:

• Restore the balance of Mozambique's balance of payments and control inflation
through currency devaluation to encourage exports and contain imports.
• Cut public expenditure and subsidies to companies.
• Privatize the state property.
6
The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, an economic organization from 1949 to 1991 under
the leadership of the Soviet Union that comprised the countries of the Eastern Bloc.
15
• Introduce the principle of cost recovery in essential services provision (such as

health and education) and contain credit to the economy.
State property liberalization and privatization became the focus of the moment as
they were seen as the key solution for stabilizing the economy and attract foreign
investment rather than as elements of a global development strategy (Castel-Branco,
1995; Cortes, 2018; Mosca, 2015).
As the promised results did not glimpse (Table 3), the pressure of multilateral
agencies (The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund) increased to accelerate
the privatization and liberalization of markets for goods and services, financial and capital
markets.
Table 3: Index of some indicators between 1974-1993 (reference year is 1974 = 100,
for export is 1981 = 100)
GDP per Industry Agriculture Export
Year
capita output output revenue
1974 100 100 100 -
1977 - 66 57 -
1981 87 78 61 100
1986 - 33 48 50
1987 50 36 51 56
1989 53 41 56 63
1991 52 32 52 70
1992 49 27 47 60
1993 50 25 51 60
Source: Castel-Branco, 1995.
Starting in 1990, with the approval of the new constitution, liberalization of the
economy began, reducing the role of the State through the privatization process of state-
owned enterprises and cooperatives (Castel-Branco, 1995).
The main beneficiaries of the privatization process were local political elites giving
rise to the emergence of an economic class. From this period onwards emerge a private
sector anchored to the State, where a considerable part has privileged connections with
the political power (Cortes, 2018).
In terms of savings, the economy depends on development cooperation and foreign

direct investment (Castel-Branco, 1995; Abbas, 2013).
According to Castel-Branco (1995), the main characteristics of the Mozambican

economy can be described as follows:
• The pattern of capital accumulation depends on the exploitation of most of the

productive social forces that on one hand provide the labour force to the business
sector below the real cost of its value. On the other hand, it provides food to
wage earners who are bought from the producer at a price below their social cost.
16
• Patterns of accumulation are externally cantered and manifest through

relationships between domestic elites and multinational capital with state
coverage.
• Cross-sectoral links are very weak, reflecting the functioning where each one
functions as an island within the economy, isolated from other sectors within the
economy and with a strong dependence abroad
• The distribution of national income shows great social and regional dispersion
motivated by the pattern of capital accumulation, weaknesses of the intersectoral
links and by the interests of the most powerful capitals that operate in each region
of the country.
• Domestic markets for consumer goods and investment are very small and
fragmented due to:
o Reduced population.
o Low level of economic and investment activity.
o Weak intersectoral relations.
o Strong social and regional differentiation in production and allocation of
resources.
o Low level of aggregate income. And
o Reproduction of a pattern of accumulation that requires the maintenance
of 80% of the population linked to the production of self-consumption in
order to ensure the basic social subsistence of the labour force.
• Poor institutional, human and technological capacity, which imposes enormous
constraints on the ability to define strategies, select objectives and courses of
action, implement the decisions taken and introduce essential transformations in
the economy.
2.3. Economic Structure and Performance of Mozambique

Mozambique has experienced an average economic growth rate of 7% over the last
15 years. However, the GDP per capita and HDI remains quite low. The growth
experienced was not able to transform Mozambique's underdeveloped economy (FMI,
2016; Mosca, 2016).
The high growth rate was due to foreign direct investment in large mineral and gas
projects that are being implemented in the country and the donations upon development
cooperation (Cortes, 2018).
Table 4 presents the evolution of some macroeconomic indicators in Mozambique

where it can be seen that the sustainability of the Mozambican economy tends to worsen
due to increasing public indebtedness and dependence level to the foreign direct
investment and international budgetary assistance to function.
17
Table 4: Macroeconomic indicators

Balance
GDP of the %
GDP Terms Exchange
growth State Balance % Public
Year per of rate
rate budget payments debt/GDP
capita trade (Mzm/USD)
(%) without /GDP
grants
2001 257 12.7 - 36.1 0 - 123.4
2002 263 8.8 - 2.3 -17.3 - 75.8
2003 284 6.5 - 23.8 -13.8 - 74.9
2004 336 7.8 - - -13.2 -17.6 59.7
2005 396 8.7 -0.8 - -7.6 -12.1 70
2006 386 9.9 -0.6 25.74 -11.2 -11.6 46.6
2007 422 7.4 -0.8 23.6 -12.5 -8.6 36
2008 503 6.9 -1.4 23.8 -12.5 -24.2 36.2
2009 463 6.4 -1.7 26.5 -14.8 -11.6 42
2010 419 6.7 -2.1 36.5 -12 -9.1 43.3
2011 526 7.1 -4.1 26.6 -13.5 -12.6 38
2012 602 7.2 -7.8 27.8 -9.1 -42 40.1
2013 620 7.1 -7.6 29.95 -8.2 -39.5 53
2014 624 7.4 -7.0 35 -9.7 -36.2 62.4
2015 626 6.6 -6.6 38 -11.1 -40.5 88
2016 411 3.8 -4.5 50.8 -5.4 -37.9 113
2017 556 4.7 -0.7 58.4 0
Source: Mozambique’s Bank Annual Report, several years.
Mozambique exports all its products in form of raw material, unprocessed and
imports various products including food products such as rice, corn, wheat, etc. (Table
5).
Table 5: Mozambique import and export goods

Exportb Importa
Aluminium Fuels and lubricants
Mineral coal Aluminium oxide
Electricity Medicines
Tobacco Chrome ore
Minerals Rice
Crustaceans Wheat
Corn
Vehicles and machines
Source: INE, 2017ab.
Public sector investment and economy’s credit have a positive and significant effect
on agricultural production and productivity (Abbas, 2015; Mogues, et al., 2012). Table 6
shows the evolution of domestic financing in agrarian sector. It can be noted that the
average of the public expenditure for investment in agricultural sector is quite low and
18
that the private sector do not apply their investments in agricultural sector, thus in overall
the financing for agriculture sector is decreasing.
Table 6: Domestic finance to agriculture sector

Share of public investment
Share of economy credit in
Year expenditure in the
the agriculture sector2
agricultural sector1
2001-2012 22% 8%
2013 10.00% 3.80%
2014 11.00% 2.20%
2015 8.10% 3.40%
2016 9.60% 4%
2017 8.70% -
2018 5.70% -
Source: 1Ministry of Finance (Saveral years), 2Mozambique’s Bank Annual Report
(several year).
Table 7 shows that the agriculture sector currently contributes to the GDP formation
with less than a quarter and with a tendency to decrease. 75% of workforce depends on
agriculture as their source of income (Mosca, 2015; Mosca, 2016). This figure shows that
the labour force productivity is very low. The rural area is practically composed of
farmers and, while in urban areas there is a tendency to reduce the labour force involved
in agriculture.
Table 7: Agriculture sector contribution to economy and labour force distribution

Share of Share of agriculture workers
Share of workers by sector2
Time agriculture by area2
on GDP (%)1 Agriculture (%) Other sectors (%) Urban (%) Rural (%)
96/97 36 85.2 14.8 - -
02/03 29.3 79.9 20.1 - -
04/05 28.3 80.7 19.3 55.8 94.4
08/09 27.9 80.6 19.4 - -
14/15 23.4 74.6 25.4 33.6 90.2
Source: 1Mozambique’s Bank Annual Report, several years; 2INE, several years.
As was saw in Table 4, Mozambique has experienced economic growth in the last 15
years, but in the same period, social indicators (Table 8) kept unchanged, including the
absolute number of people living below the poverty line.
19
Table 8: Social indicators evolution in the past 20 years

Number of Poverty Urban Rural
Population Inequality
Year HDI1 poor people index poverty poverty
(millions) Gini
(millions) (%) index (%) index (%)
96/97 17 - 12.1 69 62 71.3 0.4
02/03 20 0.33 9.7 54.1 51.5 55.3 0.42
08/09 24 0.39 11.1 54.7 49.6 56.9 0.42
14/15 28 0.42 11.8 46.1 37.4 50.1 0.47
Source: MEF (saveral years), 1UNDP (saveral years).
20
III. Manhica District
3.1. Geography and population

Manhiça District is located in the northern region of Maputo Province, 78 Km (1h)
from Maputo City, latitude 25024' south and Longitude 32048' north. It borders with
Bilene District in the North, Marracuene District in the south, the Indian Ocean in the east
and Moamba and Magude Districts in the West. The district consists of Manhica
Township and five administrative posts, namely Maluana, Calanga, 3 de Fevereiro,
Xinavane and Josina Machel Island (MAE, 2005; GDM, 2017).
The district is crossed by the highway number 1 and a railway line that connects
Maputo city to Zimbabwe. The district is also crossed by Incomati river, the main source
of water for irrigation of the fields, for livestock and fishing. It also has several lagoons
and considerable reserves of groundwater. The relief is characterized by the existence of
coastal dunes and alluvial plains below 100 meters of altitude. In the highlands, the soil
is characterized by windy sandy sediments (to the west and along the coast). In the alluvial
plain, along the river Incomati, the soils are clayey, stratified or turbid. In general, the
soils are suitable for agriculture and livestock (MAE, 2005; GDM, 2017).
The total area of the district is about 2,364 Km2 and it is 50 meters above the average
level of the Seawater. In 1999, the district had 236,000 hectares potentially arable. In
2016, sugarcane was produced in 24,820 ha (10.5%), food crops in 56,247 ha (23.8%),
for cattle 55,000 ha (23.3%). The remaining 99,993 ha (42.4%) a small part was destined
for other uses or not exploited (GDM, 2017).
The population and the number of households were 245,829 and 61,457 respectively
in 2014 (GDM, 2017). The 31048 households are farmers, livestock owners, and fishers.
The 9,657 are sugarcane mills employers (Mandlate, 2018). Other households are public
servant, traders, service providers, unemployed, etc. The district capital is Manhica
Township where a large part of services such as commerce, agriculture, retail and
wholesale markets, banking and microfinance services are concentrated. The district is
almost entirely rural except for a small portion in the district capital. The families live in
the highland and the agricultural land are located in the low zone near the Incomati river.
The main market for agricultural products is located in Manhica Township, where
part of the producers from all administrative posts sell their products. The availability of
services and conditions of infrastructures are different among the administrative posts.
The Administrative Post of Calanga has no electricity and Josina Machel Island, only a
small area is electrified.
The transitability between the production sites and the centre of the Administrative
Post is difficult for farmers, which affects the quality of the products, makes the products
transport expensive, and creates barriers for agricultural service providers to approach the
producers in these regions. Only the highway that crosses the district and those that give
access to the sugar factories are paved, the remaining roads of the district are sand roads.
Given the location of the district along Highway, several farmers from other regions move
21
to local markets to sell their products, and buyers from other regions such as Maputo city
also purchase agricultural products here. The main means of transportation for people
within the district are private vehicles such as pickup, minivans or tractor.
Figure 1: Manhica District
Source: CISM, 2013.
3.2. General view on the six Administrative Posts

The Manhica Township is the seat of the district, where political and administrative
power is located, as well as the main institutions that provide services such as commercial
banks, microfinance institutions, the main market for agricultural products, wholesale and
retail trade, commercial network, communication services, transport services, police
headquarters, etc.
The location of the other Administrative Posts relating to the Manhica Township is
described in Figure 1. Table 9 provides basic indicator.
22
Manhica District
Table 9: Basic Indicators

Distance
from
Administrative No of Land size Population density
Manhica
Post households (km2) (in/km2)
Township
(Km)
Manhica
- 17,559 414 212
Township
Maluana 21.3 3,739 452 65
3 de fevereiro 17 17,344 568 109
Calanga 32 7,684 590 26
Xinavane 52.1 10,946 155 245
Josina M Island 54 4,185 194 75
Total 61,457 2,373
Source: GDM, 2017.
The communication between the Administrative Posts is made by private vehicles

type minibus, truck or tractor. Maluana, 3 de Fevereiro and Xinavane are located along
the highway number 1, and communication with Manhica Township is easy, while
Calanga, Josina M. Island and the Maluana agricultural site face difficulties in
communicating with Manhica Township due to the existence of difficult traffic roads, in
the rainy season the transport of products and people reduces considerably.
The administrative structure is composed of a head of the Administrative Post, head

of secretariat and representatives of health, education, economic activities and police
sectors. There is also a board called the Consultative Council of the Administrative Post
(CCAP), composed of traditional leaders and other influential local figures. The function
of CCAP is to advise the head of the Administrative Post, and they meet twice a year.
CCAP members receive no remuneration.
Table 10 present the Manhica District livestock holding by Administrative Posts.
Table 10: Manhica District livestock holding

Number of animals
Administrative Posts Bull Bullock Milky cow Cow Calf Goat Pig
Manhica Township 833 645 51 3428 3126 1295 6129
Maluana 721 805 13 2233 2869 1455 12301
Calanga 543 764 13 3438 2743 1630 10333
Xinavane 779 755 13 1222 3018 1738 8054
Josina Machel Island 1064 1342 13 3834 5146 2043 10520
3 de Fevereiro 815 828 122 2465 3429 2557 15897
Total 4752 5139 225 16617 20330 10718 63234
Source: Manhica District Service of Economic Activities, 2018.
The availability of goods, infrastructure, public and private services is quite different
between areas. The administrative posts of Xinavane and Manhiça Township have a sugar
23
industry each (Table 11), a large part of the population has electricity, there are also
primary, secondary and private schools (Table 12), as well as hospitals with specialized
services (Table 13). Also have commercial banks (Table 14) and commercial and
industrial network (Table 15). The Administrative Post of Calanga has no electricity, in
Maluana, 3 de Fevereiro and Josina Machel Island less than 25% of the households have
electricity, the commercial network is weak, only on 3 de Fevereiro has a secondary
school.
Table 11: Number of industrial units

Administrative Posts Mills Sugar industry Pottery Bakeries Total
Xinavane 1 1 20 15 37
Josina Machel Island 2 0 11 2 15
Calanga 0 0 0 0 0
Maluana 1 0 0 1 2
Manhica Township 3 1 5 9 18
3 de Fevereiro 3 0 37 2 43
Total 10 2 73 29 115
Source: GDM, 2017.
Table 12: Number of educational units

Administrative Posts Primary High school
Maluana 13 0
Calanga 22 0
Manhica Township 23 4
3 de Fevereiro 16 2
Xinavane 10 2
Josina Machel Island 6 0
TOTAL 90 8
Source: GDM, 2017.
Table 13: Number of health units

Administrative Posts Hospital Health Centre Health Post
Manhica Township 1 3 1
3 de Fevereiro 0 5 0
Maluana 0 2 0
Xinavane 1 1 0
Josina Machel Island 0 1 0
Calanga 0 1 0
Source: GDM, 2017.
Table 14: Number of bank units

Administrative
Commercial bank Microfinance Total
Post
Xinavane 2 0 2
Manhiça Township 6 5 11
Total 8 5 13
Source: GDM, 2017.
24
Manhica District
Table 15: Number of commercial units

Super
Administrative Post Wholesales Store Retails Services Total
market
Xinavane 0 4 71 24 0 99
Josina Machel Island 0 0 17 3 0 20
Calanga 0 0 10 2 0 12
Maluana 0 0 30 7 0 37
Manhica Township 1 8 60 26 1 96
3 de Fevereiro 0 0 66 18 0 84
Total 1 12 254 80 1 348
Source: GDM, 2017.
3.3. Cooperatives and associations
3.3.1. Development of Cooperatives and Association

Before 1975, there were two agricultural models in Manhica District. The first was
comprised of large agricultural enterprises producing sugarcane, rice, bananas, citrus and
cattle, owning large share of land, mainly made up of Portuguese, Chinese, and another
foreigner. These produces were sent to Maputo City at the time called Lourenço Marques
and for export. The second model was formed by the native black population engaged in
the cultivation of food, such as maize, sweet potatoes, cassava, etc., for their subsistence,
since the Portuguese were not concerned with food supply for black natives. Few natives
that produced for market sold their output to commercial farmers near the production site.
At that time, there was no legal system or mechanism to organize native farmers and
integrate them into the market.
During the socialist regime, in Manhiça District large agricultural estates companies
belonging to Portuguese and other foreigners were transformed into state-owned
enterprises, others were transformed into private estates, some large estates such as the
Xinavane and Maragra sugar mills, and the Rice Processing Factory, Inácio de Sousa
were kept intact. The small farmers were structured in cooperatives organized in blocks.
The majority of cooperatives and food production associations were created in this period
(Table 16) under a more political rather than economic orientation.
Table 16: Cumulative percentage of existing cooperatives and associations

Percentage of C&A
Founded in Total
Food crops Cash crops
1976 2% 0% 1%
1977 5% 0% 4%
1978 9% 0% 6%
1979 11% 0% 8%
1980 15% 0% 10%
1983 20% 0% 14%
1985 22% 0% 16%
1986 25% 0% 18%
25
Percentage of C&A
Founded in Total
Food crops Cash crops
1987 31% 9% 25%
1989 35% 9% 27%
1990 38% 9% 30%
1991 40% 9% 31%
1992 58% 9% 44%
1993 73% 9% 55%
1994 75% 9% 56%
1996 76% 9% 57%
1998 80% 9% 60%
2000 82% 9% 61%
2001 84% 9% 62%
2002 87% 9% 65%
2003 87% 14% 66%
2004 89% 14% 68%
2005 91% 14% 69%
2006 93% 32% 75%
2007 95% 45% 81%
2008 96% 68% 88%
2009 98% 100% 99%
2011 100% 100% 100%
Under the free market policy Manhica District state farms were privatized, and the
main beneficiaries of this process were the top government and Frelimo single party
leaders who controlled the government. This gave rise to an elite of Mozambicans who
held large tracts of land.
From this period, small farmers are no longer required to meet in blocks. Farmers
maintain the blocks structure, but with more freedom to draw up their own production
plan and request the extension of land to the government. However, with the
implementation of the economic reforms the little support that existed for the small
farmers disappeared. The nature of cooperatives changed, the farmers continued using the
plots in the blocks but planning and farming individually.
In the year 2000, Mozambique was affected by floods that severely affected rural
areas, as a way to respond to the situation and support farmers, the government promotes
the creation and revitalization of agricultural associations as a way to facilitate the
channeling of support to those in need.
By 2006, two events again stimulated farmers to organize themselves into

associations: the introduction of a district credit fund initially called the Local Investment
Initiative Fund (LIIF), which targeted local and disadvantaged actors who could not get
credit from the bank. In the agricultural sector, this fund privileged the associated farmers,
26
Manhica District
which led to a revitalization of old associations and cooperatives that were no longer in
operation and the creation of new associations so that they could be eligible for the fund.
The second phenomenon was the opening of the sugarcane production process for
Outgrowers, associations of small and medium-sized farmers, this was done before only
by the sugar mills themselves and by private investors, mostly foreigners. This
phenomenon also influenced the creation of new associations for the production of sugar
cane or the conversion of some non-associated associations and of farmers that produced
food for the cultivation of sugar cane.
3.3.2. Current condition of associations and cooperatives

Currently, Manhica District has 77 agricultural associations and cooperatives. 55 are
involved in the food crops production and 22 in the cash crops production (sugar cane) as
the main crop. Table 17 summarizes the basic indicators Manhica district associations
and cooperatives.
Table 17: Basic information of Manhica District cooperatives and associations

Average of Average of
o Average
Administrativ N . of male female
Type of crop Membershi
e Posts C&A members members
p /C&A
/C&A /C&A
Food 10 22 60 81
3 de Fevereiro
Cash 8 40 73 114
Calanga Food 8 21 64 86
Josina Machel Food
13 6 32 38
Island
Food 19 37 60 98
Maluana
Cash 2 59 55 114
Manhiça Food 4 13 61 73
Township Cash 10 14 25 38
Food 1 2 8 10
Xinavane
Cash 2 10 23 32
Total 77 24 51 74
Table 18 shows the number of registered agricultural cooperatives and

associations, where 34% of the C&A are not registered, of which these 88% are food
crop associations and Maluana Administrative Post has the largest number of
unregistered associations.
27
Table 18: Number of registered agricultural cooperatives and associations

Number of C&A
Administrative Posts Food crops Cash crops
No Yes No Yes
3 de Fevereiro 2 8 0 8
Calanga 0 8 0 0
Josina Machel Island 2 11 0 0
Maluana 16 3 1 1
Manhica Township 2 2 1 9
Xinavane 1 0 1 1
Grand Total 23 32 3 19
According to the selected sample, the average food crops and cash crops C&A land
size is 120 hectares and 80 hectares. The C&A membership council is usually composed
of the president, secretary, and treasurer, women are less represented than men (Table
19).
The average age of council members is 51 years old for women and 55 years old for
men. Food crops council members are more time in position than cash crops C&A. Men
also have more time in positions than women (Table 19).
Table 19: C&A council’s basic information (sample 11 C&A)

President Secretary Treasurer
Indicator
Female Male Female Male Female Male
Cash Crop
Share 0% 100% 0% 100% 20% 80%
Average age 0 62 0 55 55 61
Average years in the position 0 7 0 7 7 8
Food Crop
Share 33% 67% 33% 67% 83% 17%
Average age 67 72 51 72 60 62
Average years in the position 10 19 8 9 8 13
3.4. Sugarcane production

The sugar mills in Mozambique were established in the early 1900s (SADC Sugar
Digest, 2014). After independence in 1975, all the existing sugar companies were
nationalized and became state property under the socialist system. During the economic
reforms in 1987, the majority of state-owned companies were privatized, including the
sugar companies (Dias, 2013). Currently, there are four sugar cane companies namely
28
Manhica District
Xinavane and Maragra sugar mill, located in Manhica District, Maputo province, and
Marromeu sugar mill (Sena) and Mafambisse sugar mill, located in Sofala province
(SADC Sugar Digest, 2017).
Maragra Sugar SARL was founded in 1968 by Petiz family. After independence, the
company was nationalized and in 1984 stopped its operations. In 1992, under the
privatization program, the company was repurchased by the Petiz family (Sutton, 2014).
Currently, Maragra is 90% owned and operated by Illovo Group, the largest sugar
production group in Africa, which is based in South Africa. Illovo Sugar is a subsidiary
of Associated British Foods plc (ABF) (Illovo Sugar, 2014).
Xinavane sugar mill, is the biggest sugar company in Mozambique, was founded in
1914 by British investors. The estate was taken over by a Portuguese company in the early
1950s and in 1975 the newly independent Mozambican State took a 51% share in the
estate. In 1998 Tongaat Hulett Sugar acquired a 49% stake in Xinavane and took over the
management (Jelsma, et al., 2010). Currently, Xinavane sugar mill is 88% owned by
Tongaat Hulett, which is based in South Africa (Tongaat Hulett, 2013). Table 20 presents
some basic indicator from Maragra and Xinavane sugar mills.
Table 20: Basic indicators of Sugar mills

Maragra mill (Illovo Xinavane mill (Tongaat
Indicator
Group) Hulett)
Illovo (90%) Petiz family Tongaat Hulett (88%) Moz.
Ownership (shares)
(10%) Government (12%)
Headquarter South Africa South Africa
Area under sugarcane Company (6,000) Company (12,000)
(Ha) Outgrowers (3,300) Outgrowers (3,520)
Milling capacity
96,000 250,000
(ton/year)
Production (2015/16) 68,000 ton 168,000 ton
Number of outgrowers 4,064 1983
Permanent Employees 1045 2000
Seasonal employees 3812 4,800
Source: Mandlate, 2018.
The development of small-scale cane Growers was supported by the European Union
and started in 2006 (SADC Sugar Digest, 2014). The small-scale farmers are organized
in associations or are non-associated farmers. In the first years of operation, the company
provides most of the services as technical assistance and inputs and deducts the costs for
these afterward from the harvest revenues (Sonneveld, 2012). Currently, the small-scale
farmers contribute about 18% to the total sugarcane production in the country (SADC
Sugar Digest, 2014).
Maragra is currently implementing two EU funded outgrower development, namely:

The Maragra Smallholder Sugarcane Development Project (MSSDP) (Illovo, 2015b cited
by Mandlate, 2018) and The Maragra Sugarcane Outgrowers Capacity Building Project
(MSOCBP).
29
Xinavane engaged in smallholder sugarcane outgrower schemes in 19987, which

was funded with a grant from the Southern African Development Bank and the
Government of Mozambique (Jelsma, et al., 2010). In a second phase, Macuvulane8 and
Chihenhisse smallholder associations were established in 2005 and 2008 respectively.
The phase III project, officially called the Xinavane Small-Scale Grower Development
Project9 (2007 to 2010), was funded with a grant from the European Union and a loan
from Tongaat Hulett. (Delden, 2016).
7
Not in Manhica District
8
idem
9
When a new association has applied to become an Outgrowers for Xinavane, the company and the
association sign a contract, which is called the Cane Supply Agreement. This agreement allows the
company to give support to the associations in terms of all services and loan, which needs to be paid off in
seven years, and which is used to prepare the land and make other investments in order to start growing
cane (Delden, 2016).
30
IV. Agricultural overview and characteristics of surveyed groups
In Manhica District, as in Mozambique as whole, two climatic seasons predominate.

The first one is hot and rainy (from October to April) and the second is dry and cool (from
April to September). This pattern influences the agricultural season which is divided into
two seasons, as shown in Figure 2.
The district is crossed by Incomati river that divides it into two parts namely: The
upper zone which is characterized by sandy soils, low humidity and fertility, the
vegetation is prairie type and the soils is used more for grazing livestock, for agriculture
are used only in the rainy season for planting corn and peanuts. The lower zone is located
along the Incomati river and is characterized by clayey and fertile soils, suitable for
agriculture throughout the year.
Figure 2: Agricultural season in Manhica District

Year 1 Year 2
October November Dezember January February March April May June July Agost September
First agricultural calendar season Second agricultural calendar season

Hot and rainy season Dry and cold season
Main crops: Maize, beans, peanuts, sweet potatoes, Main crops: Irish potato, sweet potato, sugar
cassava, bananas and pineapples cane, banana, vegetables
Source: The author.
The agricultural sector consists of small farms (98%), medium farms (1.3%) and
large farms (0.1%). Small farms are organized in C&A or NonC&A, they are involved in
the farming of food and cash crops. The medium and large farms focus on cash crops and
livestock.
4.1. Location and household characteristics

Most of cash crops C&A are formed in Xinavane Administrative Post and do not
exist in Calanga and Josina Machel Island. The inverse situation exists about food crops
C&A whose representation is significant in Calanga and Josina Machel Island and do not
exist in Xinavane (Table 21).
31
Table 21: Farmers household distribution

3 de
Surveyed Cala Josina M. Malu Manhiç Xinav Grand
Fever
groups nga Island ana a T. ane Total
eiro
C&A
Cash Crop 20% 0% 0% 20% 20% 40% 100%
Food Crop 18% 20% 22% 20% 20% 0% 100%
NonC&A
Cash Crop 27% 7% 13% 20% 27% 7% 100%
Food Crop 16% 21% 21% 16% 16% 11% 100%
Women show strong association with C&A-food and weak association with
NonC&A and cash crops. The age of farmers ranges from 29 to 90, the average is 55
years. The relationship between farmers and the head of the household shows that wife
and female household head are significantly associated with food crops C&A, while
males household head are significantly not associated with food crops C&A and strongly
associated with NonC&A cash and food crops. The average household size varies from 6
to 8. Farmers who are members of C&A are the least literate, while NonC&A farmers show
a positive and meaningful association with formal education (Table 22).
Table 22: Household information

Relationship with
Gender Education
household head
Aver size of
Surveyed
age of househ Fem No
groups Fema Ma Male For
Age old ale Wife Form
le le HH mal
HH al
C&A
Cash Crop 57.7 6.7 40% 60% 22% 62% 16% 60% 40%
Food Crop 54.9 5.7 82% 18% 42% 20% 38% 64% 36%
NonC&A
100
Cash Crop 59.4 7.5 0% 0% 100% 0% 20% 80%
%
Food Crop 51.4 6.2 5% 95% 0% 95% 5.3% 21% 79%
Total 55.9 6.3 46% 54% 24% 55% 21% 52% 49%
HH: household head.
4.2. Cultivated crops and market

Table 23 presents the main cultivated crops, harvested area and average productivity
in the last 3 agricultural seasons.
32
Agricultural overview and characteristics of surveyed groups
Table 23: Harvested areas (ha) and productivity

Harvested area (ha) Average yield
Crops
2014/2015 2015/16 2016/17 (ton/ha)
Corn 23081 9424 10309.25 1.4
Rice 13 10 0 2
Beans 6181 3181 1149.5 0.45
Peanut 1848 1913 5432.24 0.3
Cassava 5102 3576 2730.4 9
Sweet potato 2698 7798 3309.8 7.5
Tomato 137 83 0.5 9
Onion 0 100 0 7.5
Cabbage 97 100 98 10
Other vegetables 219 206 1120 6
Banana 88 573 71.25 7.6
Pineapple 34 42 42 7
Irish potato 26 25 0 11
Sugar cane (Outgrowers) 3750 3823 3823 65
Sugar cane (Xinavane
12000 12000 12000 80
mill)
Sugar cane (Maragra mill) 6000 6000 6000 75
TOTAL 61,274 48,854 46,086
Source: Manhica District Service of Economic Activities, 2016 and 2017.
The most cultivated crops by the sample farmers are maize, sweet potatoes, sugar
cane, cassava, cabbage, beans, and bananas. Sugar cane and banana are considered as
cash crops (Table 24). 97.7% of households have between 1 and 3 crops, the remaining
2.3% cultivate between 4 and 9 crops per household (Table 25).
Farmers from cash crops C&A show a fairly strong positive association with farming
1 crops/household, while the famers from food crops C&A are considerably more
associated with farming 2 crops /household and less associated with 1 crops/household,
on the other hand NonC&A-food crops are more associated with 3 to 9 crops/household.
Table 24: Share and number of households

No of households
Percent of Cash & Food &
Crop Cash & Food &
households Non- Non-
Cooperative Cooperative
cooperative cooperative
Corn 59.5% 25 6 34 13
Sweet
35.9% 9 3 29 6
Potato
Sugar Cane 26.7% 40 15 0 3
Cassava 21.4% 3 1 22 2
Beans 13.0% 4 2 5 6
Cabbage 11.5% 0 0 6 9
Banana 9.2% 10 0 1 1
33
Table 25: Number of crops farmed per household

Number of crops 1 2 3 4 6 9 Total
Share of households (%) 38.2 30.5 29.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 100.0
The Association test showed that the output destination and the type of crop are
strongly associated, and that the destination of sugar cane is the sugar mill.
The cabbage is more associated with local markets and less to the consumption, the
banana is more associated with the wholesale in town and less to consumption.
The sweet potato is sold to primary collectors and wholesale in town, cassava is sold
to primary collectors only.
Maize is consumed at home, beans are sold in local markets. Other crops have as
destination more common the wholesale in town or the local Market with the exception
of the rice that is destined to consumption (Table 26).
Table 26: Share of productions and destine

Production destine
Crops Primary
wholesaler Local Total
type collector (in Miller Consume
in town market
the field)
Sugar
0 100.0% 0 0 0 100.0%
Cane
Tomato 66.7% - 0 0 33.3% 100.0%
Onion 25.0% - 25.0% 50.0% 0 100.0%
Cabbage 29.4% - 23.5% 47.1% 0 100.0%
Banana 50.0% - 41.7% 8.3% 0 100.0%
Sweet
40.4% - 34.0% 10.6% 14.9% 100.0%
Potato
Cassava 71.4% - 10.7% 0 17.9% 100.0%
Corn 20.5% - 17.9% 12.8% 48.7% 100.0%
Peanut 0 - 50.0% 33.3% 16.7% 100.0%
Beans 17.6% - 11.8% 47.1% 23.5% 100.0%
Irish
0 - 0 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%
potato
Lettuce 40.0% - 0 60.0% 0 100.0%
Cucumber 50.0% - 0 50.0% 0 100.0%
Pepper 33.3% - 0 66.7% 0 100.0%
Carrot 50.0% - 0 50.0% 0 100.0%
Rice - - 0 0 100.0% 100.0%
34
4.3. Land ownership and working hours on the farm

NonC&A cash and food farmers have on average of 23.6 ha and 9.2 ha of land. Their
cultivated acres are significantly larger than that of C&A cash and food with 3.2 ha and
1.4 ha.
The C&A are the main sources for obtaining agricultural land for associated farmers,
some NonC&A farmers obtained their land through C&A, which means that they have
established some sort of partnership so that they could use the land but they are not
necessarily members. On the other hand, NonC&A farmers obtain their land through
inheritance, meaning that it is their private property (Table 27).
Table 27: Number of farmers and size of land

Median land
Factor Factor categories No famers
size (ha)
Cooperative 100 1
Farmers grouping (1)
Non-cooperative 34 6
Cash Crop 65 3
Type of crop (2)
Food Crop 69 1
C&A-Cash 50 1.75
NonC&A-Cash 15 7
Interactions (1 &2)
C&A-food 50 0.7
NonC&A-food 19 4.7
Table 28: Share of plots owned by farmers

Source of land
Surveyed Total
Offered Inherited Bought Rented Association Legally
groups
C&A-cash 13.5% 50.0% 3.8% 5.8% 26.9% 0 100%
C&A-food 0 24.0% 2% 0 64.0% 10% 100%
NonC&A-cash 5.6% 61.1% 11.1% 5.6% 16.7% 0 100%
NonC&A-food 10.5% 63.2% 15.8% 5.3% 0 5.3% 100%
The working days and hours is significantly different between the groups. NonC&A
farmer’s work on average more days and hours per week than the C&A farmers. On the
other hand, C&A-cash farmers also work significantly more hours than C&A-food (Table
29).
Table 29: Number of working days and hours per week

Average no of days/ Average no of hours/
Surveyed groups
week week
C&A-cash 4 17
C&A-food 3 11
NonC&A-cash 5 34
NonC&A-food 5 35
35
4.4. Credit, inputs and extension service

Concerning the use of agricultural inputs, small farmers in the district are
characterized by low use of agricultural inputs. 99% of small farmers use seeds taken
from the previous crop. Fertilizers are used only for cash crops, such as sugar cane.
In general, most of the farmers interviewed stated that they did not have access to
credit and did not use agricultural inputs.
However, in Manhica District, a number of microfinance institutions are present and

there is also a mechanism for financing through local governments with low-interest rates
and no guarantee requirements or technical-financial requirements. It may indicate that
some of the respondents or C&A farmers have access to credit services. On the other
hand, there is a widespread practice from farmers to always state that they do not have
the financial resources has a strategy to get some support.
For cash crops farmers who have contracts with sugar mills or with private investors
is aware that their partners use inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides. And they are also
aware that these costs are deducted at the end of the campaign. However, cooperatives do
not have accurate knowledge of the products applied and their quantities, hence they have
responded that they do not use inputs.
Manhica District serves farmers through the public agricultural extension sector
coordinated by District Service of Economic Activities. There are currently at least two
agricultural technicians and a cattle technician at each administrative post.
The average number of farmer to serve per month for each extension technician is
more than 400. In the course of their activities, extension technicians face several
challenges, such as the lack of transportation means, lack of technical training to respond
the challenges posed by farmers.
The high number of farmers to serve affects the quality of the assistance. The two
sugarcane factories that exist in the district have private extension service that helps
sugarcane farmers.
4.5. Assets holdings

The small farmers farming food crops use rudimentary instruments such as the hoe
and the ax, the animal traction is used for farming, however, the share of households that
use is quite low.
The main machineries used by the small farmers are tractors, plow, grids and motor
pumps, however the availability of these to the farmers is quite scarce. The most common
means of transportation are tractor trailers, minibus, bicycles and motorized.
Table 30 shows the average distribution of durable goods by the surveyed farmers.
There are significant differences in the average number of radios, television, solar panel,
36
fan, and mobile phone. Non-associated farmers hold considerably more radios than food
crops associated farmers. The cash crops non-associated farmers hold on average more
television, and food crops non-associated more solar panel than cash crops associated
farmers. Cash crops non-associated farmers have considerably more fans than all other
groups. Non-associated farmers have on average more mobile phones than the associated
farmers.
Table 30: Average number of owned durable goods

Sewing mobile
Surveyed Radio Gene Sol fan Freezer
TV machin phone
Groups s rators ar s s
es s
C&A-cash 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.6 0.0
C&A-food 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 1.7 0.0
NonC&A-cash 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.9 3.5 0.9
NonC&A-food 1.3 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 2.7 0.1
Table 31 shows the average distribution of means of transportation by farmers. There

are significant differences in the average number of motorcycles and vehicles. NonC&A-
food farmers have more motorcycles than the C&A-food. NonC&A-cash farmers have
more vehicles than all other groups.
Table 31: Average number of owned means of transportation

Bullock Motor
Surveyed Groups carts
Bicycles
Cycles
Carts Tractors Vehicles
C&A-cash 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1
C&A-food 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NonC&A-cash 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0
NonC&A-food 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1
Table 32 shows the average number of livestock owned per farmer, where it is noted
that NonC&A farmers possess considerably more bulls than C&A-cash farmers, more
cows, and chicken than all C&A. NonC&A-cash farmers have more calf than C&A-cash,
more pigs, and piglets than C&A farmers.
Table 32: Average number of livestock holding

Mother
Surveyed Groups Bull Cow Calf Piglet Goat Chicken Duck
Pig
C&A-cash 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.7 3.4 2.1
C&A-food 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.2 1.7 4.2 2.0
NonC&A-cash 1.7 2.3 1.5 2.4 2.4 2.5 12.5 6.7
NonC&A-food 1.6 5.0 2.1 3.5 2.3 2.3 13.5 3.7
37
4.6. Irrigation
The agriculture in the survey area is predominantly rainfed. Irrigation is concentrated
in sugar cane crop, which is farmed mainly by large and medium farms. It is followed by
vegetables with less than 4% of the total irrigated area. The available types of watering
are spraying, gravity and capillarity. 60% of the sample farmers do not irrigate, 17.6%
use gravity irrigation, 32% use capillary irrigation, and only 2.3% uses spray irrigation.
In general, the distribution of plots by irrigation types does not present significant
differences, the exception of gravity irrigation where food crops farmers are less
associated with, while non-associated food crops farmers show a positive and significant
association with gravity irrigation. Table 33 shows the distribution of plots according to
the type of irrigation and groups surveyed.
Table 33: Percentage of plots and the type of irrigation used

Irrigation types
Surveyed groups No Watering Watering by Sprinkler
irrigation by gravity capillarity irrigation
C&A-cash 37.2% 34.8% 40.5% 33.3%
C&A-food 42.3% 17.4% 33.3% 0.0%
NonC&A-cash 7.7% 17.4% 14.3% 33.3%
NonC&A-food 12.8% 30.4% 11.9% 33.3%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
4.7. Employment and income

Most of small farmers use family labor. However, NonC&A-food farmers and
sugarcane farmers often resort to seasonal workers.
Monetary income of households comes from agriculture, fishing, livestock, ceramics,

services (concentrated in Manhica Township), trade, and wage labor in non-farm sector,
and remittances mainly from the emigrants in South Africa. The Xinavane and Maragra
sugar mills, the Inácio de Sousa factory, public institutions and large farms are home to
just over 7,000 workers in the district. Wage labor is more concentrated in Xinavane, 3
de Fevereiro, and Manhica Township, while Calanga, Josina Machel Island and partly
Maluana depend more on subsistence activities in the agricultural, fishing and livestock
sector. Livestock farming is characterized by being practiced by many small farms
scattered throughout the district.
The distribution of household members over 18 years old by occupation does not
present significant differences, except for non-associated cash crop farmers, which has a
significant number of wage earners with all other groups (Table 34)
38
Table 34: Average number of household members (more than 18 years old) by source
of income
Rise
Emplo Une Self-
Surveyed Farmi Live Tra Fish
yed mplo emplo
groups ng stoc ding eries
worker yed yed
k
C&A-cash 2 1 1 1 2 0 1
C&A-food 1 2 1 1 0 2 1
NonC&A-cash 2 1 1 2 1 4 2
NonC&A-food 1 2 1 0 1 0 1
Table 35 shows other sources of income that farmers' relatives have. In general, non-
farm income is on average well above the national minimum wage in the agricultural
sector (3,298.00mzm in 2016), which may be a source of motivation for labor to move
from the agricultural sector to non-agricultural sector.
Table 35: Number of earners and average income

No. of Mean
Source of income Std. Deviation
beneficiaries (mzm)
Remittances 20 2,350.00 1,655.13
Pension 9 1,172.22 1,688.58
Not farm income 67 6,964.77 4,740.46
4.8. Housing
All farmers have their own house, and in general, these are covered with zinc plate,
the walls are made of a block of cement or clay and the floor is cemented. Table 36 shows
the percentage of households selected according to housing characteristics.
Table 36: Percentage of households

Type of roof Type of wall Type of floor
Cem Woo
Con Gr Cem
Surveyed ent d Clay Ree Not
crete Zinc ass ente
groups bloc and block d Cement
slab (%) (% d
k zinc (%) (%) ed (%)
(%) ) (%)
(%) (%)
C&A-cash 2 98 - 50 32 18 86 14
C&A-food - 100 0 50 2 36 12 96 4
NonC&A-cash - 93 6.7 80 6.7 13 0 100 0
NonC&A-food - 100 0 68 0 21 10 94.7 5.3
39
4.9. Access to water, electricity and cooking fuel

C&A-cash farmers show a positive and significant association with unprotected tap
water and well, and C&A-food farmers have as their main source of water protected well
(Table 37). 54% of farmers do not have electricity, among this 76 % are C&A farmers.
Firewood is the source of energy for cooking for all farmers, NonC&A farmers also use
Coal as a source of energy (Table 38).
Table 37: Share of household that get water for domestic purpose
Source of water for domestic purpose
Surveyed
Protected Unprotected Unprote Protected Piped Total
groups
well tap water cted well tap water water
C&A-cash 4% 12% 48% 36% 0% 100%
C&A-food 54% 0% 6% 40% 0% 100%
NonC&A-cash 13.3% 0% 26.7% 53.3% 6.7% 100%
NonC&A-food 36.8% 5.3% 21.1% 36.8% 0% 100%
Table 38: Share of households using cooking fuel

Surveyed Source of cooking fuel
groups Firewood Charcoal Gas Kerosene Electricity
C&A-cash 100.0% 16.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
C&A-food 98.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
NonC&A-cash 100.0% 46.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7%
NonC&A-food 100.0% 47.4% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0%
40
V. Cooperatives and associations performance index
Member of cooperative and association during survey
The cooperative performance index method was originally developed by The United State
Overseas Cooperative Development Council’s (OCDC) and United States agency for
International Development (USAID) in the book Measuring Cooperative Success.
Measurements for Tracking Indicators of Cooperative Success, by Dr. John W. Mellor
(2009). And adapted to Rwanda’s reality by USAID/Higa Ubeho.
41
It intended to capture the actual performance of cooperatives based on measurable

indicators and to pave the way to improved governance, planning, accountability,
production, and market integration.
The tool covers five areas of cooperative development. These five areas are broken
down into strategic questions intended to tease out subtle differences between nascent,
growing and mature cooperatives. The five key dimensions are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: CPI dimensions

Legal status,
cooperative
planning, and
strategy
Membership Management
and member structure and
retention accounting
strategy system
Market Production and

linkages and quality of
relationships inputs
Source: The author adapted from Nkuranga & Wilcox, 2013.
1) Legal Status & Cooperative Planning and Strategy
This dimension measures how the cooperative is administratively managed. It also

assesses the process and status of cooperative planning in seeking to understand a
cooperative’s planning by looking at strategic, business and project planning.
2) Management Structure and Accounting System
Do administrative and operations manuals exist? The second dimension looks at two
major systems within a cooperative: management and accounting. The CPI seeks to
analyse how the cooperative approaches their human resource management system and
how it is managed financially. The CPI also assesses the financial status of the cooperative
from the perspective of adequate capitalization, member financial commitment, financial
feasibility and financial management procedures. Human resource management and
42
Cooperatives and associations performance index
general management The CPI focuses substantially on the issue of systems and how
cooperatives are building institutional strength.
3) Production & Quality of Inputs
This dimension measure organizational performance and practices adopted by the

cooperative to improve its productivity and business performance.
4) Market Linkages and Business Relations
Facilitating market linkages, access to alternative markets and developing

relationships with key actors in the value. The CPI sought to analyse how and to what
extent cooperatives are developing their business strategies and how cooperatives are
implementing those strategies.
5) Recruitment & Member Retention Strategy
This dimension covers topics which look at the members’ responsibilities within the
organization and cooperative members who consider themselves to be ‘user-owners’. The
CPI also specifically seeks to tease out the cooperative’s approach to membership
strategies and retention strategies.
The questions are bivariate and the sum of positive answer in each question represent
the score. The total score for a cooperative performance is calculated as it shows in Table
39. The cooperative scores are then broken down into three classes based on their
indexing scores as it shows in Table 40.
Table 39: CPI composition and determination

No. of
Dimensio CPI
Category questions/ CaPI1 (%) DPI1 (%)
n (%)
Indicator
1.1. Legal (∑No of Yes)
6
1 Legal status *100/6
Status & 1.2.
(DPI1+DPI2+DPI3+DPI4+DPI5)/5
Cooperati Cooperati
(CaPI1.1+CaPI
ve ve
(∑No of Yes) 1.2)/2
Planning planning 9
*100/9
and and
Strategy administra
tive
2.1.
2
Human
Managem (∑No of Yes)
Resource 7
ent *100/7
Managem
Structure (CaPI2.1+CaPI
ent
and 2.2)/2
2.2.
Accounti
Financial (∑No of Yes)
ng 11
manageme *100/11
System
nt
43
No. of
Dimensio CPI
Category questions/ CaPI1 (%) DPI1 (%)
n (%)
Indicator
3
Productio
(∑No of Yes)
n& 6 CaPI
*100/6
Quality
of Inputs
4.1.
4 Market Cooperati (∑No of Yes)
5
Linkages ve *100/5
(CaPI4.1+CaPI
and Production
4.2)/2
Business 4.2.
(∑No Yes)
Relations Market 6
*100/6
Linkages
5.1.
5 Membersh (∑No of Yes)
8
Recruitm ip *100/8
ent & Strategies (CaPI5.1+CaPI
Member 5.2. 5.2)/2
Retention Training (∑No of Yes)
3
Strategy of *100/3
Members
1
CaPI- Category performance index, DPI – Dimension performance index.
Source: The author.
Table 40: CPI Classes

Cooperative Performance Index
Early transition to growth Mid-transition to growth Model
0-10% 11-20% 21-49% 50 – 70% more than 70 %
Source: The author adapted from Mellor, 2009.
In terms of legal status, cooperatives have made a significant effort to legalize their
status. C&A-cash are less integrated into unions of C&A, while more than 60% of C&A-
food do not have a bank account and the Unique Tax Identification Number10 (Annex 2).
C&A have constraints on planning and administrative procedures, showing more
difficulties in financial management training, budget reporting, availability of action
plans, business plan and administrative principles guide (Annex 3).
Both C&A perform poorly in terms of human resources management and financial
management (Annex 4 and Annex 5), production and quality of inputs, more than 50%
10
NUIT in Portuguese is the taxpayer´s single identification number comprising 9 digits.
44
Cooperatives and associations performance index
of food production cooperatives said they have adopted new technologies in the last
campaign, and that its members are trained in the use of agricultural inputs as well as train
other members (Annex 6).
The market linkages and business relations dimension are the ones where
cooperatives have more difficulties, the contract with sugar companies is the only
criterion fulfilled by 67% of cooperatives producing cash crops (Annex 8).
Figure 4: Cooperatives and associations performance on the CPI five dimensions
Dimensions scores
Legal Status &
Planning and Strategy
80%
70% 62%
60% 52%
50%
Recruitment & 40% Management
Member Retention 24% 30% 35% Structure and
20%
Strategy 10% Accounting System
25% 36%
0%
2%
17%
21%
40%
Market Linkages and Production & Quality
Business Relations of Inputs
Cash Crop Food Crop
With regard to retention and members training, C&A have no strategy. This may be
due to the poor services provided to the members as lack of incentive based on
performance. More than 50% of associations and cooperatives does not conduct inquiry
on the needs of the members (Annex 9), does not train members and does not have a
training fund (Annex 10).
In over all the C&A presented a very weak performance having C&A-cash
registered a CPI = 14% which means that it belongs to category early transition to growth,
subcategory 2. The other C&A registered a CPI between 29 % and 36% which means that
they belong to the category early transition to growth, subcategory 3.
45
Most of the C&A covered by the survey performed only well for the legal status
indicator, which actually represents the initial phase of association's constitution, such as
obtaining the legal authorization by the government to operate as C&A, and drawing up
other documents such as statutes, regulations, etc. In all other dimensions the C&A have
weak performance which shows that most of them do not perform or perform very poorly
the activities planning and the accounts registration. It also reveals that these C&A do not
produce according to market demand and that they are not connected to the markets or
that they do not have a business strategy.
Even for the sugarcane C&A that have contracts with the sugar mills, these show that
they do not have any domain of the contracts or play a relevant role in the production
process. This pattern reveals that these farmers got together or better join their plots so
that they can obtain a larger area and become eligible to sign sugarcane farming contracts
with sugar mills.
Because these C&A have not developed the principles of Cooperativism. They do
not have clear strategies of membership retention and motivation as well as the
reinforcement of teamwork.
According to Table 16, these organizations have been constituted on average more
than 10 years ago. However, their stage of development remains very low. It is suggested
that there has not been a structural transformation of these organizations over time. The
origin of the associations in Mozambique, motivation to associate and excessive
dependence on the government and external financing for implementation of their plans
can explain the poor performance of these organizations and the weak integration of new
skilled members.
46
VI. Income and its determinant factors
6.1. Income distribution

The variable farm household income did not meet the requirements for parametric
tests even after transformation, this is the reason why non-parametric statistics was
conducted to assess whether the distribution of farm household income was same across
C&A and NonC&A farmers for cash and food crops.
A Mann-Whitney U Test revealed significant difference in the farm household

income distribution of C&A (Md=3,337.50, n= 91) and non-C&A (Md= 9,158.20, n=
34), U=2,406.50, z=4.782, p-=.000, r=.20 (the effect size is small according to Pallant,
2016). Significant difference in the farm household income distribution was also recorded
among food crop (Md=1,692.33, n= 60) and cash crop (Md= 7,168.79, n= 65), U=920,
z=-5.104, p-=.000, r=.20.
47
Income and its determinant factors
The Kruskal-Wallis Test revealed that the interaction between famers grouping and
type of crops was statistically significant (C&A-food, C&A-cash, NonC&A-food, and
NonC&A-cash), x2(3, n=125) =54.263, p=0.000. The Table 41 shows the median farm
income recorded by each group.
Table 41: Median farm household income recorded

Median farm
Surveyed groups Sample
income(mzm)
C&A-food 41 968.75
C&A-cash 50 7.168,79
NonC&A-food 19 6.160,00
NonC&A-cash 15 22.323,47
Total 125
Source: Field survey, 2017
A Mann-Whitney U Test was conducted to assess whether the difference in farm

income among surveyed groups were statistically significant or not. The Table 42 show
that NonC&A-cash famer’s median farm income is higher and significant when compared
with all other groups. The test revealed no significant difference among NonC&A-food
and C&A-cash famers. C&A-food recorded the lowest median farm income and the
difference to all other groups is significant.
48
Table 42: Independent samples Mann Whitney U Test summary

Compared groups N U Z P R2
C&A.food - NonC&A.food 60 637.5 3.941 0.000 0.26
C&A.cash - C&A.food 91 392 -5.085 0.000 0.24
NonC&A.cash - C&A.food 56 16 -5.393 0.000 031
C&A.cash - NonC&A.food 69 481 0.89 0.935 0.11
C&A.cash - NonC&A.cash 65 689 4.987 .000 0.27
NonC&A.cash - NonC&A.food 34 31 -3.868 0.000 0.34
6.2. Farm household income determinants and relationship with surveyed groups
A Mann-Whitney U Test was used to assess whether the distribution of farm
household income is same across the following factors: Location, Gender, Relationship
with the household head and education. Correlation was used to assess the relationship of
farm household income with the following factors: age, not farm income, size of land
owned, size of household, number of days and hours working in the farm per week.
The outcome from the testes showed that the distribution of farm household income
across Location (Administrative Posts), gender, education and relationship with the
household head is different. The relationship with size of land owned, number of hour
and days working in the farm per week and non-farm income was also significant.
6.2.1. Location
The distribution of farm household income was different across the Administrative
Posts (Kruskal-Wallis Test, x2(5, n=101) =45.082, p=0.000). The Administrative Post of
Maluana recorded a median farm household income 1,155mzm(n=26), that is significant
low when compared with Xinavane (Md=7,168.7mzm, n=23), 3 de Fevereiro
(Md=8,041.66mzm, n=21) and Josina Machel Island (Md=7,336.45, n=17)(Figure 5).
Figure 5: Farm household income distribution across Administrative Posts
49
Table 21 show that Cash crops are significantly strong associated with Xinavane
Administrative Post while food crops are more associated with Calanga and Josina
Machel Island, x2(5, n=134)=37, p=0.000, Cramer’s V=0.53.
The interaction between famers grouping and type of crops showed that the majority
of famers in Xinavane are under C&A-cash, in Calanga and Josina Machel Island are
under C&A-food, x2(15, n=134)=63.1, p=0.000, Cramer’s V=0.35.
6.2.2. Gender
The female farm household income distribution (Md=1,692.33mzm, n= 54) is
significantly low than male farm household income distribution (Md=7,168.79mzm, n=
71), U=2,852, z=4.673, p=0.000, r=0.19 (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Farm household income distribution across gender
Females are more significantly large associated with C&A while males are equally
represented in C&A and NonC&A, x2(1, n=134) =34, p=0.000, phi=0.51. On other hand
females are significantly medium associated with food crops and less with cash crops
while males revealed more association with cash crops and less with food crops, x2(1,
n=134) =12.19, p=0.001, phi=-0.30.
The interaction between famers grouping and type of crops (Figure 7) was significant
and showed that females are largely more associated with C&A-food and males are more
related with NonC&A, for C&A-cash both are equally represented, x2(3, n=134) =52.2,
p=0.000, Cramer’s V=0.62.
50
Figure 7: Distribution of farmers by gender
6.2.3. Education
The farm household income distribution across education categories is different for
p<0.1. Famers with no formal education recorded a median farm household income
4,877.08mzm (n=62) and famers with formal education recorded 6,625.00 mzm (n=63),
U=2,317.50, z=1.805, p=0.71, r=0.12 (Figure 8).
Figure 8: Farm household income distribution across famers education categories
No formal education farmers are significantly largely associated with C&A while
farmers with formal education revealed more association with NonC&A, x2(1, n=134) =
17.421, p=0.000, phi=0.36. While the association of education and type of crops is not
significant.
The interaction between famers grouping and type of crops (Figure 9) was significant
and showed that C&A-food are more associated with no formal education and NonC&A-
51
food and NonC&A-cash are related with formal education, for C&A-cash both are equally
represented, x2(3, n=134) =17.585, p=0.001, Cramer’s V=0.36.
Figure 9: Distribution of farmers by educations category
6.2.4. Relationship with the household head

The distribution of farm household income is different across relationship with
household head categories. The male household head farm household income distribution
(Md=7,168.79, n=73) is significantly higher than wife’s (Md=1,329, n=24) and female
household head (Md=1,744.83, n= 28)
.
Figure 10: Farm household income distribution according to famers relationship
with household head
52
The wife and female household are significantly more associated with C&A while
male household head is largely associated with NonC&A, x2(3, n=134) =41.6, p=0.000,
Cramer’s V=0.49. With regard to type of crop factor males are significantly related with
cash crops and less with food crops, while the other groups are not significantly but more
associated with food crops, x2(3, n=134) =14.9, p=0.002, Cramer’s V=0.32.
The interaction between famers grouping and type of crops (Figure 11) was
significant. It confirms that wives, mothers and females’ household famers are moderated
associated with C&A-food and males household head are more related with NonC&A
either for food or cash crop. Regarded C&A-cash males household head are more
represented then others categories but the differences are not significant, x2(9, n=134)
=64.2, p=0.000, Cramer’s V=0.36.
Figure 11: Share of famers in the sample
6.2.5. Non-farm household income

The relationship between farm household income and non-farm household income
(Figure 12) was investigated using spearman moment correlation coefficient. There is a
small positive correlation between the two variables, r=0.338, n= 63, p<0.01, with high
levels of non-farm household income associated with high levels of farm household
income.
53
income
The relationship between farm household income and non-farm household income
among groups of farmers, type of crops and interaction between both was investigated.
The result showed that farm household income and non-farm household income are not
correlated for groups of farmers, and interaction between groups of farmers and type of
crops. However, there is a small positive correlation between the two variables for food
crops farmers, r=0.465, n= 30, p<0.05, with high levels of non-farm household income
associated with high levels of farm household income.
income for food crops farmers
54
The food crop farmers own a median farm household income of 1,692.33mzm (n=60)
and is significantly lower than cash crop farmers median farm household income 7,168.79
(n=65).
6.2.6. Size of land owned

The relationship between farm household income and size of land owned (ha) (Figure
14) was investigated using spearman moment correlation coefficient. There is a large
positive correlation between the two variables, r=0.728, n= 123, p<0.01, with big size of
land associated with high levels of farm household income.
Figure 14: Relationship between farm household income and size of land owned by
household
Size of land owned revealed itself to be one of the strongest predictors for any factor
or interaction among factor. Almost 50% of farm household income for type of crops and
cooperatives can be attributed to size of land owned. Table 27 and Figure 15 show that
non-associated famers and cash crops own larger median size of land compared with
C&A-food owns the smallest size of land per household.
55
Table 43: Correlation between Farm household income and Size of land owned by
household
Size of land owned by household
Factor Categories Variable Correlation Sig. (2-
N Rho
Coefficient tailed)
Famers C&A .673** 89 0.000 0.45
**
grouping (1) NonC&A .571 98 0.000 0.33
Type of crop Cash Crop .678** 65 0.000 0.46
Farm **
(2) Food Crop .736 58 0.000 0.54
household
C&A-Cash .571** 50 0.000 0.33
income *
Interactions NonC&A-Cash .559 15 0.030 0.31
**
(1)&(2) C&A-Food .580 39 0.000 0.34
NonC&A-Food .612** 19 0.005 0.37
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).*. Correlation is significant
at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Figure 15: Distribution of land (ha) across famers
6.2.7. Working days and hour

The relationship between farm household income and the number of hour that the
farmers spent farming per week (Figure 16) was investigated using spearman moment
correlation coefficient. There is a medium positive correlation between the two variables,
r=0.544, n= 119, p<0.01, with more hours spent farming per week associated with high
levels of farm household income.
56
Figure 16: Relationship between farm household income and number of hours spent
farming per week
The relationship between farm household income and the number of day that the
farmers spent farming per week (Figure 17) was investigated using spearman moment
correlation coefficient. There is a medium positive correlation between the two variables,
r=0.591, n= 119, p<0.01, with more days spent farming per week associated with high
levels of farm household income.
Figure 17: Relationship between farm household income and number of days spent
farming per week
The relationship between farm household income and number of days and hours
spent working on farm among groups of farmers, type of crops and interaction between
57
both was investigated. The result showed that farm household income and number of days
and hours spent working on farm are correlated for C&A, type of crops and C&A-food,
with more days and hours spent working on farm associated with high levels of farm
household income.
Table 44: Correlation between farm household income and no of days and hours spent
working on farm by household
Number of days worked Number of hours worked in
in a week a week
Facto Farmers Vari Cor
r group able . Cor.
Sig. N rho Sig. N Rho
Coe Coef.
f.
Fame C&A .56** 0.00 86 0.31 .48** 0.00 86 0.23
rs
group
NonC&A 0.22 0.21 33 0.05 -0.02 0.91 33 0.00
ing
(1)
Farm household income
Type Cash
.43** 0.00 60 0.18 .45** 0.00 60 0.20
of Crop
crop Food
.65** 0.00 59 0.42 .69** 0.00 59 0.39
(2) Crop
C&A-
0.27 0.07 45 0.07 0.16 0.28 45 0.03
cash
Intera NonC&A
0.08 0.77 15 0.01 0.179 0.52 15 0.03
ction -cash
(1)&( C&A-
.56** 0.00 41 0.31 .56** 0.00 41 0.31
2) food
NonC&A
0.27 0.27 18 0.07 -0.08 0.75 18 0.01
-food
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Source: Field survey, 2017.
58
VII. Conclusion
This chapter will present the main facts that affects agriculture and farmer’s
organizations performance in Mozambique. The pattern of capital accumulation in
Mozambique, path dependence and economic policies plays a key role on this sector
performance.
7.1. Capital accumulation pattern

The Mozambique’s capital accumulation has always been located abroad. First the
Portuguese who were dependent on the revenue from South Africa and Zimbabwe as well
as the export of a few commodities. Second, the Government of Mozambique during the
socialist regime depended on the financing of Eastern Europe countries and the Russia.
Third the Mozambican Government during the free market period was supported by
foreign direct investment and development cooperation.
The different development models adopted in Mozambique over the time always
ignored small farmers as a possible source of capital accumulation for the local economy.
First through the Portuguese who banned the involvement of local indigenous in
economic activity. Second, the Mozambican Government in the socialist period
privileged the companies and large cooperatives managed by the state as the main means
for capital generation and development, and during the free market period the priority
was the recovery and maintenance of the macroeconomic balance in this sense were
adopted policies which damaged the local agrarian sector and led few industries to the
bankruptcy.
The deepening of the economy's dependence on foreign direct investment and

development cooperation has led the government to paying more attention to mega-
projects of exploitation of mineral resources, which are little job-creating and contribute
little to the economy due to the use of laboursaving technology and high skilled workers,
and, marginalized local industry and agriculture.
Development cooperation funds account for a significant share of the state budget
and are mostly used to support Urban Bias policies (consumption’s subsidies), high
salaries for public servants, primarily for central level staff where more than 50% of the
budget is retained.
Wage policies have led to more investment in service sectors in urban areas, which
has resulted in the availability of more jobs at higher wages than in rural areas. This has
led to a migration pattern of skilled and non-skilled labour from rural to urban areas,
resulting in widespread increases in unemployment and informal economy rates in urban
areas, and the withdrawal of necessary labour force in rural areas.
Given that the local agricultural sector is not part of development options, with the
exception of some commodities such as sugar, tobacco, cotton and cashew, hence public
and private investment, as well as credit to the economy, does not have the agricultural
sector as its target. As a result, farmers continue to make use of labour-intensive
59
techniques, the use of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, improved seeds and irrigation are
practically insignificant.
Mozambique imports a considerable number of agricultural products, on the other

hand, has agreements with neighbouring countries to make food customs disarmament
more flexible, these policies are not in coordination with those of the agricultural sector,
adversely affecting the local products trading through the low prices of imported products,
and the blocking of small producers' access to markets.
7.2. Famers cooperatives and associations development

The way in which associations and cooperatives were formed affected their financial
and management independence, as well as the quality of their membership and leadership
(mostly composed of traditional leaders). After the abandonment of socialist policies and
the adoption of free market policies by the Government of Mozambique, the associations
and cooperatives were abandoned by the state and negatively affected by the economic
policies implemented during the PRE/eS as a consequence of this scenario they are not
part of the options for development despite accounting for 75% of the country's
workforce. In terms of policies for small farmers Mozambique has only two decrees that
guide citizens on how to organize themselves in associations or cooperatives, while for
agricultural commodities there are legislation that regulates their relationship with the
public sector, with the market, regulates the import and export of products of the same
category and defines the credit and investment policy.
Cooperatives and agricultural associations are strongly associated with categories of

determinants factors that contribute little to production, productivity and income
generation.
Factors such as financing (investment and credit), value chain (availability of inputs,
marketing, transport and communication, prices), public services (agricultural research
and extension services), public and economic policies have been detrimental to the
agrarian sector in particularly small farmers.
When Mozambique became independent, the socialist government took over state-
owned enterprises and cooperatives as the country's main development engine,
channelling much of the financial, material and human resources to these sectors and
ignoring other sectors. At this point, family farmers were excluded from the development
process and compulsively compelled to group together in parcels called blocks. This
action marks the beginning of Small Producers' Cooperativism and is characterized by a
forced grouping, without specific economic criteria and goals, which did not obey any
rule of composition.
Since farmers at the time did not lack land, and that the government did not channel
resources to stimulate and develop the blocks, it was concluded that the blocks were more
constituted to serve with a political and non-economic organizational unit.
Many of the farmers who made up the blocks did not see these organizations as
belonging to them but rather as an extension of the state of which they did not invest their
resources in the block, but rather they hoped that the state would channel the resources.
60
Conclusion
Another important aspect is related to the change of the System of individual production
for the collective system, this change requires investment in collective production plans
and other assets that the producers did not have.
In the Manhica district, much had been established for the culture of men emigrating
to South Africa or working on sugar cane plantations locally, which meant that the blocks
were mostly composed of women. However, the leaders of the blocs who played a similar
role with that of the president of the association were local leaders mostly linked to the
state apparatus.
The blocks were composed of mostly illiterate members without any specific training
or qualification since individuals with skills worked in the state apparatus or in state-run
enterprises where wages were highest.
These organizations, besides being political units, had as objective to produce for
their own subsistence because the state did not invest in them, for that they use
rudimentary instruments, agriculture was of dry land and the destination of the product
was food. The other objective of the blocks was that in the long run all farmers would be
transformed into operators and that there would be no people attached and who depended
on the land.
Cooperatives have always cultivated subsistence crops that do not require much
labour and inputs such as rainy corn, cassava, and sweet potatoes. While emerging non-
associated farmers, often with their own funds, from government or NGOs, invest more
in crops with higher profits such as vegetables and more recently Cana saccharine.
Starting in 1987 with the liberalization of the economy and privatization of state
institutions. The state abandons investment and credit the production of food crops, at the
same time it opens the domestic market for foreign production and applies
macroeconomic rigor.
With the privatization of state properties, a new economic class emerges in

Mozambique, constituted by high individualities and the country's development
investments are channelled into this class again small producers are excluded from the
process of capital accumulation and development.
At this time, due to the Civil War that was taking place, there was a great
concentration of population in urban areas, and part of the agricultural production in rural
areas was paralyzed. The government starts to receive food aid and aid funds for
cooperation that apply them largely in urban areas.
The cost of living improves in urban areas but worsens in rural areas which
encourages migrations to urban areas, citizens who emigrated because of the war remain
in the cities and do not return to the countryside. The state's investment in food production
in state cooperatives contributed to more affordable prices for agricultural products.
Large estates companies in Manhica District was transformed into commercially

emerging private farms. In 2006, farmers are allowed and stimulated to produce and
61
supply sugar cane to sugar millers. This was a beginning of a new process in which some
farmers and C&A begin to migrate from food crops to cash crops or farming both.
Manhica District as good characteristics to develop commercial agriculture. It is

close to Maputo and Matola City two main consumers destines in the country, and after
independence always had at list three companies that together employs more than 10
thousand employees. This generate a huge demand for food on one hand and availability
of wages which are far higher than C&A-food farm household income and can be used to
support farming.
7.3. Farm household income and its determinants factors

Previously was demonstrated that Non-cooperatives and cash crops generates higher
income then cooperative and food crops and that NonC&A-cash famer’s farm household
income is higher followed by NonC&A-food and C&A-cash famers. C&A-food recorded
the lowest farm household income.
Location (Administrative Posts), gender, education and relationship with the

household head, size of land owned, working hour and days in the farm and non-farm
income are the determinant factors for farm household income generation.
Xinavane, 3 de Fevereiro and Josina Machel Island. At the first two areas, there are
many cash crops famers and C&A, average size of land and easy access to market
contribute positively for famers income. For Josina Machel Island, the food crops
productivity in this area is higher than in all others, and in the dry season access to farms
and markets is easy. Maluana and Calanga recorded the lowest income this is duo to
difficult access to farming places, for Maluana the average sizes of land for both crops
low and in Calanga most of farmers only focus on food crops for their livelihood.
Female farmers recorded far low farm household income than males. One of the main
reason for that is women are strongly concentrated on C&A-food, while males are more
focus on cash crops either on C&A or NonC&A. Males farmers who are household head
also got higher farm household income than wife’s and female household head farmers.
Education showed a weak impact on farm household income, even though farmers
with formal education recorded slightly than farmers with no formal education. Here cash
crops are to be the main contributors for this difference, this can be attribute to the fact
that small farmers suppling sugar cane to the miller is a new scheme and the famer with
little of schooling take advantage in the process than the ones who cannot read and write.
Small farmers have non-farm household income as a source to finance farming

activities this is way it has a positive correlation, which means that high levels of non-
farm household income associated with high levels of farm household income. However,
food crops farmers low non-farm household income not affecting that much the farm
household income for this group of famers.
Size of land sowed is strongly and positively related with farm household income.
NonC&A farmer’s larger areas while C&A-food owns the smallest size of land per
62
Conclusion
household. And probably combined with lack of assets might be one of the main reason
for low income recorded by C&A-food.
The more days and hour the farmers spent working on farm higher is the farm
household. C&A farmer spent on average less time on farm than NonC&A, this can be
attributed to farmers aging, technology used who require too human power, lack of
finance to ire works and also duo the fact that this groups e composed by mainly by wife’s
and women household head farmers who have others daily tasks apart from farming.
7.4. Cooperative and association performance

As was pointed out by CPI Index, the cooperatives performance is quite low, and it
was confirmed by farm income analyses that the membership generates quite low farm
household income, and for C&A-food it is below minimum wage for agricultural in 2016.
It was also demonstrated that C&A a more associated with categories of determinant
factor which doesn’t contribute that much for farm income generation.
It was also pointed out that development policies in Mozambique have always
undermined small scale farmers who are always excluded from development programs
and the economic policies defined by government most of time affect them negatively.
Hence, the farmer's cooperatives and associations do not substantially reduce the
vulnerability of membership, and, do not contribute to improving membership's economic
standard of living and reduce poverty.
Cooperatives and associations works more as social schemes where individuals with
less ability to integrate economically and politically into society resort to as a way to
access to some means of livelihood or strengthen their ability to defend their rights and
benefit from public and non-public services and goods.
63
Reference
Abbas, M., 2013. Determinantes do crescimento economico em Mmocambiique no

periodo 2000-2010. In: E. e. livreiros, ed. Economia de Mocambique: Um mix de
populismo economico e mercado selvagem. Maputo: Escolar Editora, pp. 73-140.
Abbas, M., 2013. Investimento. In: E. Editora, ed. Economia de Mocambique 2001-
2010. Maputo: Editores e Livreiros, Lda, pp. 259-283.
Abbas, M., 2015. A Macroeconomia e a Producao Agricola em Mocambique. In: L.

Editores e Livreiros, ed. Sector Familiar Agrario e Desenvolvimento em Mocambique.
Maputo, Mocambique: Escolar Editora, pp. 99-134.
Act, A. a. L., 2006. Centro de apoio a informacao e comunicacao comunitaria.

[Online] Available at: https://goo.gl/NgWuFw [Accessed 23 10 2017].
Arndt, C. et al., 2012. EXPLAINING THE EVOLUTION OF POVERTY: THE

CASE OF MOZAMBIQUE. American Journal of Agriculture and Economics, I(870), p.
19.
Castel-Branco, C., 1995. Opções Económicas de Moçambique 1975-95: Problemas,

Lições e Ideias Alternativas. I ed. Maputo: Brazao Mazula.
CISM, 2013. Manhica HDSS Mozambique, Manhica: Centro de Investigacao em

Saude da Manhica.
Cortes, E. R. d. O., 2018. Velhos amigos, novos adversarios. As Disputas, Aliancas

e Reconfiguracoes Empresariais na Elite Poilitica Mocambicana, Lisboa: Instituto de
Ciencias Sociais. Universidade de Lisboa.
Cunguara, B., Garret, J., Donovan, C. & Cassimo, C., 2013. Analise situacional,
constrangimentos e oportunidades para o crescimento agrario em Mocambique, Maputo,
Mocambique: Direccao de Econmia do Ministerio da Agricultura, Mocambique.
Delden, A. V., 2016. Environmental Sustainability in the Sugar Sector of

Mozambique, Netherlands: University of Utrecht.
Dias, P., 2013. Analysis of incentives and disincentives for sugar cane in
Mozambique, Rome: Technical notes series. MAFAP, FAO.
FMI, 2016. Relatorio do corpo tecnico sobre consultas de 2015, Washinton: Fundo
Monetario Internacional.
GDM, 2017. Plano Estrategico de Desenvolvimento do Distrito 2015-2024,

Manhica, Provincia de Maputo: Governo do Distrito de Manhica.
Illovo Sugar, 2014. Mozambique Socio-Economic Impact Assessment -Internal

Management Report, London: Corporate Citizenship.
64
INE, 1997, 2004,2009 and 2015. Inquerito ao orcamento familair. Relatorio
domodulo da forca de trabalho, Maputo: Instituto Nacional de Estatistica.
INE, 2010. Projeccoes da populacao total urbana e rural da Provincia de Maputo

2007-2040 , Maputo: Instituto Nacional de Estatistica.
INE, 2017a. Estatisticas do Comercio Externo Importacoes, Mocambique 2015-

2016, Maputo: Istituto Nacional de Estatistica.
INE, 2017b. Estatisticas do Comercio Externo Exportacoes, Mocambique, Maputo:

Istituto Nacional de Estatistica.
Jelsma, I., Bolding, A. & Slingerland, M., 2010. Smallholder Sugarcane Production
Systems in Xinavane, Mozambique, Wageningen.: Wageningen University.
Junior, A., Dada, A. Y., Ibrahimo, M. & Mosca, J., 2015. Associacoes de Pequenos
Produtores do Sul de Mocambique: Constrangimentos e Desafios. In: L. Ediitor e
Livreiros, ed. Agricultura familiar e desenvolvimento em Mocambique. Maputo,
Mozambique: Escolar Editora, pp. 135-187.
MAE, 2005. Perfil do Distrito de Manhica, Provincia de Maputo, Maputo:

Ministerio da Admninistracao Estatal.
Mandlate, C. L., 2018. Determinants of Farmers’ Participation in Outgrowers

Schemes in the Sugarcane Sector of Mozambique,, Saga: Saga University.
MASA, 2014. Anuario de Estatisticas Agrarias 2012-2014, Maputo: Ministerio de

Agricultura e Seguranca Alimentar.
MEF, 1997, 2003, 2009 2015. Pobreza e bem estar em Mocambique, Maputo:
Ministerio de Economia e Financas. Direccao de Estudos Economicos e Financeeiros.
Mellor, D. J. W., 2009. Measuring Cooperative Success: New chalenges and

Opportunities in Low-and Middle-Income Countries. I ed. US: OCDC and USAID.
Ministry of Finance, 2001-2018. Orcamento Cidadao, Maputo: Ministerio das

Financas. Direcao Nacional do Orcamento.
Mogues, T., Benin, S. & Woldeyohannes, S., 2012. Public Expenditures in

Agriculture in Mozambique:: What Investments are Required for Technical Change, and
What Drives Investment Decisions?, Maputo: MSSP working paper 3, International Food
Policy Research Instituute (IFPRI).
Mosca, J., 2015. Agricultura Familiar em Mocambique: Ideoligias e Politicas. In: E.

e. Livreiros, ed. Sector Familiar Agrario e Desenvolvimento em Mocambique. Maputo:
Escolar Editora, pp. 50-98.
Mosca, J., 2016. Politicas Publicas e Agricultura em Mocambique. 1st ed. Maputo:
Escolar Editora, Editores e Livreiros, Lda..
65
Nkuranga, T. & Wilcox, K., 2013. Cooperative Performance Index: Field Results
and Analysis. 1 ed. Rwanda: USAID and CHF International.
Pallant, J., 2016. SPSS Survival Manual. A step by step guide to data analysis using
IBM SPSS. 6 ed. Beskshire: McGraw Hill Education.
SADC Sugar Digest, 2014. You Guide To The Sugar Industry. Anual SADC Sugar
Gigest, 23 12, p. 37.
SADC Sugar Digest, 2017. YOUR GUIDE TO THE SOUTHERN AFRICAN

SUGAR INDUSTRY. SADC SUGAR DIGEST, 23 12, p. 37.
Sonneveld, E., 2012. Sugarcane contract farming with smallholders in Xinavane,

Mozambique: Neo-colonialism or in Xinavane, Mozambique: Neo-colonialism or
developmentopportunity? A case study in association management, day-to-day
interactions and livelihood strategies, Wageningen: Wageningen University.
Sutton, J., 2014. Mapa Empresarial de Moçambique, London: International Growth

Centre..
The World Bank, 2007. World Development Report 2008. Agriculture for
Development. 1st ed. Washinton DC: The World Bank.
Tongaat Hulett, 2013. Integrated Annual Report 2013- Year Ended 31 March, South
Africa: Tongaat Hulett..
Uaiene, R., 2015. Caracterizacao do Sector Familiar em Mocambique. In: E. e.

Livreiros, ed. Sector Familiar Agrario e Desenvolvimento em Mocambique. Maputo:
Escolar Editora, pp. 23-49.
UNDP, 2003, 2009, 2015. Mozambique - Human Development Reports. [Online]

Available at: https://goo.gl/TeZn89 [Accessed 05 10 2017].
United Nations, 2009. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 18 December

2009, 64/136. Cooperatives in social development. New York, United Nations, p. 3.
66
Annex
Annex 1: General infomations about cooperative and associations
Administrative Post:
Locality:
Interviewer name:
Interviewee name:
Q1. General infomations

Organization name Formation year
Total membership Number of Women
Land size (ha) Used land size
Goods assets Tax type paid (ISPS, ISPC, IRPC,)
Q2. Management board

Position Name Age Year in position
President
Secretary
Treasurer
67
Q3. C&A Income from own farm (season 2016/2017)
Average To whom did you sell your
Plan Sown % of home
Irrigati Yield selling product? 1- primary collector
Crops area area Season Variety consumpti
on type (ton/ha) price (in the field), 2-miller, 3-
(ha) (ha) on
(Mt/Kg) wholesaler in town, 4- others
1st season 16/17
2nd season 16/17
Q4. Inputs and services

Seeds Fertilizer Services
Contracted area
Season Price Amount Price Cost Fully repaid? If not
(ha) Amount (Kg) Type Tipo
(Mt/kg) (Kg) (Mt/kg) (Mt/ha) explain the reason
Urea yes/no
1 (Oct16-Mar17) NPK yes/no
Other yes/no
Urea yes/no
2 (Apr17-Sep17) NPK yes/no
Other yes/no
Q5. Ownership of Agricultural Machineries

Payment Mode Rent to others
Number
Price when Current 1= cash down, 2= Install In case of 3 & 1= With operator, 2
Item
HP/ Year of Rental

purchased Unit value payment, 3= Taking bank loan, 4, interest rate Income per With operator &
Capacity purchase rate
(Mt) (Mt) 4= Taking informal loan, 5= per month year (Mt) fuel, 3= only
(Mt/ha)
donation (%) Machineries
68
Q6. Livestock holding
Current Stock Sale or Purchase during 2016 Eggs
Num Num
Type Number Current value per animal sold purchased Average price per animal Production sales Unit price
Bullock
Cow
Calf
Mother Pig
Piglet
Goat
Chicken
Duck
Q7. Debt and Credit

7.1. Loan from formal Institutions (Banks, Government, Cooperative) in 2016
Type Borrowed Repaid
Name of Interest Interest Outstanding Actual
of Amount (Mt)
Institution Month Year rate(%/month) rate(%/month) Month Year Amount (Mt) usage
loan
7.2. Debt from Informal Souces (friend, family, employer,moneylender)

Borrowed Repaid Outstanding
Occupation Amount Interest
Collateral Amount Actual usage
of lender Month Year (Mt) rate(%/month) Month Year (Mt)
69
Cooperatives and associations performance Index Indicator
Annex 2: Percentage of cooperatives and associations and legal status indicator situation
Legal status Indicators
33% 40% 40%
67% 60% 67%
100% 83% 100% 83% 100% 100%
67% 60% 60%
33% 40% 33%
0% 17% 0% 17% 0% 0%
Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop
Is the C/A integrated into any Does C/A have registration Does C/A have a statute and/or Does C/A have meeting Does C/A have a bank account? Does C/A have a tax
union of certificate? internal regulations? calendars, meeting reports, identification number?
cooperatives/associations? account reports, etc.?
No Yes
Annex 3: Percentage of cooperatives and associations and planning and administrative procedures situation
Cooperative planning and administrative Indicators
0%
17% 20% 20% 17%
33% 40% 40% 40%
60% 60% 50% 50% 50%
67%
83%
100% 100% 100%
83% 80% 80% 83%
67% 60% 60% 60%
40% 40% 50% 50% 50%
33%
17%
0% 0%
Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop
The cooperative Is the action plan The board members The board members Does the C/A prepare Does the C/A have a Does the C/A have a Do C/A board Are there
prepares financial voted on by General have been trained in have been trained in an annual budget? short term action long term business members administrative
reports. Meeting? basic financial budgting and report plan? plan? management and/or operational
management? writing? No Yes commitee participate guiding principles?
in board meetings?
70
Annex 4: Percentage of cooperatives and associations and human resource management situation
Human Resource Management Indicators
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
17% 17%
33% 40% 33% 33%
67%
80%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
83% 83%
67% 60% 67% 67%
33%
20%
0%
Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop
Evaluations and incentives Does your cooperative have Does the cooperative have Does the cooperative have Does staff have Do employees have clear Are grievances and conflict
are based on performance? an operational manager? a paid accountant? any other paid staff? performance agreements job descriptions and resolution procedures in
No Yes with the cooperative? contracts? place?
Annex 5: Percentage of cooperatives and associations and financial management situation

Financial management Indicators
0%
20% 20% 17% 20% 20% 20% 17% 20% 20%
33% 33% 33% 40%
50%
83% 83%
100% 100%
80% 80% 83% 80% 80% 80% 83% 80% 80%
67% 67% 67% 60%
50%
17% 17%
0%
Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop
Supervisory board The profit is Financial reporting is The past 2 years was Financial approval Have cleary have account books conduct regular Conduct regular
have any training in communicated to timely and audited? profitable ? seilings? documented financial ? internal audits? external audits
this matter? members? procedures?
No Yes
71
Annex 6: Percentage of cooperatives and associations and production and quality of inputs indicator situation
Production & Quality of Inputs Indicators No Yes
17% 0% 17% 0% 0%
33% 33% 20%
40%
60%
80%
83% 100% 100% 83% 100% 100%
67% 67% 80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
In the last agricultural Does C/A have cooperative Does the C/A provide Does the C/A marketing The C/A has a contract to Does the C/A have the
campaign the C/A adopted members been trained on training and technical committee provide market benefit from inputs and capacity to distribute inputs
new technologies or use of input? support on improved information to its members? services to members?
techniques production methods to its
members?
Annex 7: Percentage of cooperatives and associations and production situation

Cooperative Production Indicators
0% 0% 0% 0%
20% 20% 20%
33% 33% 40%
100% 100% 100% 100%

80% 80% 80%
67% 67% 60%
Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop
Does your C/A production satisfy Does your C/A procure members's Does your C/A add value to members' Does the C/A collect and markets Did the C/A production increase due to
market needs? products? production? products on behalf of its members? market demand?
No Yes
72
Annex 8: Percentage of cooperatives and associations and market linkages situation
Market Linkages Indicators No Yes
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
17% 20% 17% 20%
33% 33%
67%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
83% 80% 83% 80%
67% 67%
33%
Does your cooperative update Has your cooperative developed Does your cooperative have Does your cooperative have a Does your cooperative adjust its Does the cooperative have a
its market study to meet client marketing materials, business contract with clients? market plan? production to market? marketing committee?
expectations? cards, name plaque for
exhibitions, office signposts,
etc.?
Annex 9: Percentage of cooperatives and associations and membership strategies situation

Membership Strategies Indicators
0% 0%
17% 20% 20%
33% 33% 33%
60% 60%
83% 80% 83% 80% 80%
100% 100% 100%
83% 80% 80%
67% 67% 67%
40% 40%
17% 20% 17% 20% 20%
0%
Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop
Is there clearly defined Is there a strategy for Is there a regular survey of Have member needs been Have all members paid the Does your C/A provide Does your C/A have an Did membership increase in
membership criteria? member recruitment? members' needs? integrated into planning initial share? bonus to active members? accurate record of member your C/A in past 3 years?
process? activities?
No Yes
73
Annex 10: Percentage of cooperatives and associations and training of members situation
Training of Members Indicators
0% 0% 0% 0%
20%
40%
100% 100% 100% 100%

80%
60%
Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop Cash Crop Food Crop
Do C/A member formed train other members? Does the C/A conduct To T for potential member-trainers? Does the C/A have a training fund?
No Yes
Source: Field survey,
74

A Case Study of Manhiça District

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Case Study of Manhiça District

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Role of Farmer’s Cooperatives and Associations in Poverty

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Japan International Cooperation Agency

Professor OKAMOTO Ikuko, my supervisor and my co-supervisor Professor

Graduate School of Regional Development Studies

The Role of Farmer’s Cooperatives and Associations in Poverty Reduction in

A Case Study of Manhiça District

SAMUGE Sergio de Nascimento Valia

Mozambique is an agriculture-based economy with a history of high poverty rates,

Collective action by farmers organizations can reduce transaction costs in markets,

Farmers organizations’ effectiveness is frequently constrained by legal restrictions,

Legal Status &

4. Income and its determinant factors

Location (Administrative Posts), gender, education and relationship with the

Compared Median income Eta

 Cooperatives performance is low

Declaration of Authorship ....................................................................................... i

Abstract ................................................................................................................... iii

Table of Content ................................................................................................... viii

List of Figures ....................................................................................................... xiii

List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................ xiv

II. Economy and development ................................................................................ 7

III. Manhica District ............................................................................................. 21

IV. Agricultural overview and characteristics of surveyed groups .................. 31

V. Cooperatives and associations performance index ........................................ 41

VI. Income and its determinant factors............................................................... 47

VII. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 59

Table 1: Number of cooperatives and associations selected ..................................... 5

Figure 1: Manhica District ...................................................................................... 22

C&A: Cooperative and Associations

1.1. Background and Objectives of the Study

Mozambique is an agriculture-based economy employing more than 75% of the

• Low investiment in agriculture sector: only 1% of public expenditure (2001 to 2011),

According to United Nations (2009), Cooperatives, in their various forms, promote

To achieve this purpose the following activities were conducted:

1) Analyse of activities performed by cooperatives and association.

2) Estimation of agricultural income for both member and non-members of cooperatives

3) Determination of factors that affect farmers performance and income.

1.2.1. Farmers’ Associations

1.2.2. Farmers’ Cooperatives

• Construction and management of infrastructure.

• Technical assistance and maintenance.

1.2.3. Non-associated farmers

1.2.4. Farmers household

1.3. Research methodology

1.3.1. Preparatory survey

1.3.2. Cooperative and associations survey

Table 1: Number of cooperatives and associations selected

1.3.3. Farmer household survey

Table 2: Number of households interviewed

1.4. Plan of study

Chapter VI provides an analysis of income among the different farmer's groups as a

2.1. Agriculture and Development

2.1.1. The Lewis Theory of Development4

2.1.1.1. The Lewis two-sector model

2.1.1.2. The Lewis Model Modified by Laboursaving Capital Accumulation

Most contemporary research indicates that developing countries present the

• Investment on laboursaving of most modern technological transfer.

The modern sector labour market is not competitive as assumed by Lewis.

2.1.2. Agriculture as instrument for development5

Agriculture can be a source of growth for the national economy, a provider of

In agriculture-based countries, it generates on average 29% of the gross domestic

Agriculture is a source of livelihoods for an estimated 86 percent of rural people. It

Agriculture is a major source of growth, accounting for 32 percent of GDP growth