The document discusses using innovation platforms to improve goat markets and farming systems in Zimbabwe. Key points: - Innovation platforms bring together farmers, traders, processors, researchers and others to identify challenges and opportunities to improve goat production and marketing. - Objectives are to improve market efficiency, reduce transaction costs, promote productivity-increasing technologies, and build local innovation capacity. - Results included dramatically reduced goat mortality rates (from 25% to under 10%), higher prices for farmers, and investments in improved feeding and health practices. - Other actors like NGOs and the government also increased support like building sale pens and improving veterinary services. The approach transformed the system from crop-focused to more livestock-focused and

1. By Andre van Rooyen, Sabine Homan Kee-Tui,
Patricia, Thabani Dube & Allan Majuru.
Commercializing the Goat sector
in Zimbabwe

2. How can we engineer better lives for people
in water-scarce environments?

3. • Focused our work at the level of the farmer, their
world, how they operate and make decisions.
Working hypotheses:
(i) poorly developed markets (for livestock products and
services) are the main constraint limiting the
intensification of small-scale farming systems;
(ii) only when farmers engage in markets will they invest
in more productive management technologies.

4. It facilitates dialogue between the main local market players to collectively
identify challenges and opportunities to improve production and
marketing of livestock.
Farmers, input suppliers, traders, transporters, processors,
wholesalers, retailers, research and development
fraternity, regulators and policy makers
Platforms are established around local specific production and marketing
systems, and ideally merge into larger networks for improved coordination
of livestock commercialization processes (geographical, institutional).
The Innovation Platform

5. Identify and implement strategies that will improve market
efficiency and reduce transaction costs along the value chain,
thereby increasing the efficiency of the overall system,
allowing more money to flow to the producer and increasing
the incentive for improved farming practices.
Identify and promote technologies that will improve
agricultural production at the household level - and thereby
increase productivity and eventually profitability.
Develop local capacity to innovate, analyze challenges and
opportunities – reduce risk and increase potential income.
Ensure the real questions/issues are asked and addressed
Ensure that processes are pursued and not only technologies
or commodities.
Objectives of the IP

6. Structure of the IP
Farmer
Trader
Processor
R&D Community
Wholesaler
Retailer
Consumer
Input Supplier
Regulators

7. Development
Process
Activities &
Outputs
Time
Establish IP and
define roles and
responsibilities
Workshop
Workshop
Workshop
Workshop
Workshop
Activities implemented
by members
Activities implemented
by members
Activities implemented
by members
ProjectDriven
StakeholderDriven
Activities implemented
by members
Sustainability M&E
M&E
M&E
M&E
Set Impact
Indicators
Functioning of the Innovation platform

8. Development trajectories and a conceptual model
of rural/agricultural development

9. Concept: Generic scheme of value chain functions
(micro level)
Specific
Inputs
Provide
- equipment
- inputs
Production
Produce
Harvest
Dry etc.
Trans-
formation
Classify
Process
Pack
Trade
Transport
Distribute
Sell
Con-
sumption
Prepare
Consume
Basic functions in a value chain
Product flow
Information flow
Flow of money from the consumer

10. Inputprovision
VC
FunctionsVCActors
goat
production
Transformation Retailing Consumption
Intermediary
trade
Urban
Consumer
Rural
Consumer
RDC/EMA
Urban
butchery
Mapping Goat VCs
Local agro-
dealers
VCSupportServices
Traders
NGOs
Vet/DLPD
ARIBANK:credit access
Local
Middlemen
Local
schools,hospi
tals
New
national,regi
onalmarkets
Smallholder
Farmer
Rural
butchery
Small holder
farmers
Stock
feed/
fodder
crops
Supermarket &
restaurants
Abattoir
LPD,VET, CARE, World
Vision, ORAP , ICRISAT: Input
supply, capacity dvpt, market
linkages
RDC/Urban council

11. Input provision
VC
Functions
Goat
Production
Transfor-
mation
Retailing
Consump
-tion
Intermediary
Trade
Challenges/Opportunities for Goat VCs
Poor local input supply/use (pvt/gvt)
High input/raw material prices
Feed shortages
Poor infrastructure (roads, markets, water)
Poor information flow and communication
VCChallenges
Pen fattening
Use of auction as
trading platform
High demand for
(quality)
livestock
Interest in feed /fodder/suppl. feed
Opportunities
Availability of
abattoirs
Use of contracts when doing business
Poor support services (livestock, vet)
No access to proper credit facilities
Gvt input subs.
harm agrodealers
Collective action (formation of cooperatives to reduce transaction costs)
Potential for
agro-dealer net
Policy support
Droughts
Provision of credit facilities
Improvement
in production
practices
Diversification
Change in market demand

13. And a few words on the process…
• Found a strong entry point – contextualize the
work in the farmers reality
• Goats represent food and income – buy food,
pay for education and human health
• Bottlenecks in goat production and marketing
– Very high mortality rates because of poor
nutrition, animal health and housing.
– Very limited support systems.
– Absence of functional markets

14. The development process
• Built markets and reduced transaction costs along the value
chain, involved many other players.
• Functional markets resulted in dramatic increases in
prices… increased from < $12 to $60 between 2008 and
2014 at the formal market. Farm gate price is $23!
• This drove significant investments in goat management and
the way farmers made decisions;
– Mortalities dropped from 18-25% to less than 10%!
• Farmers are reinvesting in goats
– Increased diversity in crops/feed
• True to complex systems, other role players started
investing too. NGOs built 19 more sale-pens in
Matabeleland; dip tanks, vet inputs supply etc.

15. Goat mortalities and sales 2006: 25%

16. Turnover at Nhwali Goat Auction
in the first year after dollarization (2009)

17. Sources of income in Gwanda District

18. H/h expenses and agricultural investments
Seed
1%
Others
0%
Livestock feed
11%
Livestock health
2%
Food
44%Hired labour
9%
Education
20%
Health
2%
Social events
2%
Transport
7%
Rented
grazing
2%

19. Farmers Investing in Improved
Feed Technologies
Nhwali Shashe Sign
Graze residues in fields 71. 73.3 ns
Cut & carry leaves, grass, pods 66.7 17.8 p < 0.01
Feed leguminous crop residue 35 2.2 p < 0.01
Commercial feeds 22.2 6.7 p < 0.05
Grazing reserves 24.4 2.2 p < 0.01
Feed cereal crop residue 8.9 6.7 ns
Produce forages 11.1 2.2 p < 0.05
Treat crop residues 11.1 0 p < 0.05

20. Farmers Investing in Goat Health Practices
(2012)
Nhwali Shashe Sign
Traditional methods 53.3 44.4 ns
Vaccination 40 26.7 ns
Dosing 33.3 13.3 p < 0.05
Dipping 33.3 11.1 p < 0.05

21. Sources of cash to purchase
stock feed – invest in agriculture…
Sold livestock
55%
Income from non
farm activities
36%
Given by family
member/friend
6%
Borrowed
3%

22. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
jan feb mar apri may jun jul aug sept oct nov dec
death sold/exchange slaughter lost/strayed predators
Goat mortalities and sales 2012: 10%

23. Data from Value Chain Analysis showing the profit per animal for farmers when using
the different marketing channels now available in Gwanda, Zimbabwe.
(FG = Farm practice at
farm gate;
Impr FG = Improved
production sold at
farm gate;
Impro MKT =
Improved market;
Impro MKT_Price =
Improved market with
price incentives for
quality;
Good MKT_Price =
Potential best case
scenario.)

24. Woman are very active and proud participants

25. Farmers “buy food security” with income
from livestock sales!

26. School uniforms are sold at livestock markets!!

28. Complex systems theory
• Complex systems consist of many (layers,
tiers) of interacting subsystems
• Synergies between subsystems: the system is
larger than sum of the individual sub systems
• No central coordination - complex systems are
self regulating with many and complex
feedback loops

29. Folke et al. (2003) defined four clusters of factors that interact
across temporal and spatial scales that increase the resilience of
SES
A word on Resilience
• Learning to live with change and uncertainty
• Nurturing diversity in its various forms
• Combining different types of knowledge for learning
• Creating opportunity for self-organization and cross-scale
linkages

30. Places to Intervene in a System
(in increasing order of effectiveness) Donella Meadows (1999)
12. Constants, parameters, numbers
(such as subsidies, taxes, standards)
11. The sizes of buffers and other
stabilizing stocks, relative to their
flows
10. The structure of material stocks
and flows (such as transport
networks, population age structures)
9. The lengths of delays, relative to
the rate of system change
8. The strength of negative feedback
loops, relative to the impacts they
are trying to correct against
7. The gain around driving positive
feedback loops
6. The structure of information flows
(who does and does not have access
to what kinds of information)
5. The rules of the system (such as
incentives, punishments, constraints)
4. The power to add, change, evolve,
or self-organize system structure
3. The goals of the system
2. The mindset or paradigm out of
which the system—its goals,
structure, rules, delays,
parameters—arises
1. The power to transcend paradigms

31. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Probabilityofexceedence(%)
% grain requirement met
Control
Micro-dose
Mz_muc
100%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Probabilityofexceedence(%)
% DM requirement met
Control
Micro-dose
Mz_muc
100%
Risk management & diversification

32. Livestock water productivity (LWP)
The ratio of beneficial livestock related products
and services to the water depleted as a result of
animal keeping.

33. Framework for assessing livestock-water productivity

34. Gains from market development/participation
Situation Gross margin
analysis (usd)
Linear Programming
(LINGO) (usd)
Base state at farm gate 89.24 120.29
Improved management at farm
gate
125.92 135.12
Improved management at market 301.79 321.80
Improved management with price
differentiation at market
418.90 448.56
Extremely good management
with price differentiation at
market
847.50 1 420.00

35. Amount of water used to raise a goat per year!
Calculated using Peden 2006
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
1 2 3 4 5 6
m3Waterused
Total Water Req Annual Water Req

36. Increasing system efficiency through reduced
animal mortality
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
Meat/Feedused
Feedused(ton/anum)&Meatkg
Reducing Mortality
Feed used in Y20 Meat kg Meat/Feed Used

37. Reducing mortality and the impact on
livestock LWP
0.00000
0.00010
0.00020
0.00030
0.00040
0.00050
0.00060
0.00070
0.00080
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
LivestockWaterProductivity
Reducing Mortality

38. • Find workable entry points and system leverages
– Ensure the entry points used are valid and contextualized.
• Create the incentives for investments: markets
– Real change is a function of decision making and changing behavior
rather than the mere adoption of technologies
• Technology-based interventions or Process-oriented R&D
– Its not bad science – its good science poorly implemented
– Putting technologies in context of livelihood systems
• Water vs. System level entry points
– You don’t have to work with water to have an impact on water
• Sometimes improving existing systems have no/little impact,
we need to facilitate the transformation of systems
– From crop focused systems to livestock focused systems
What are the lessons learnt?

39. Places to Intervene in a System
(in increasing order of effectiveness) Donella Meadows (1999)
12. Constants, parameters, numbers
(such as subsidies, taxes, standards)
11. The sizes of buffers and other
stabilizing stocks, relative to their
flows
10. The structure of material stocks
and flows (such as transport
networks, population age structures)
9. The lengths of delays, relative to
the rate of system change
8. The strength of negative feedback
loops, relative to the impacts they
are trying to correct against
7. The gain around driving positive
feedback loops
6. The structure of information flows
(who does and does not have access
to what kinds of information)
5. The rules of the system (such as
incentives, punishments, constraints)
4. The power to add, change, evolve,
or self-organize system structure
3. The goals of the system
2. The mindset or paradigm out of
which the system—its goals,
structure, rules, delays,
parameters—arises
1. The power to transcend paradigms

40. Conclusions
• Using sound theory, hypotheses, process thinking, the correct entry points,
system leverages and incentives, we can improve the efficiency of crop
livestock systems (in terms of income, reducing risk and WUE/LWP)
• We can impact on water without making it the “entry point” because water
as such may not provide sufficient incentive for changes in behavior.
• System and process oriented R&D strategies are required to bring about
lasting positive change.
• Transforming crop-focused mixed systems to livestock-based crop livestock
systems with functional markets will be a real option in the face of climate
change.
• Improving market access and overall systems efficiency will improve income,
and feedback mechanisms will increase sustainability while increasing
diversity (in commodities and markets), knowledge sharing and capacity to
self-organize will increase resilience.