# Food Systems Profile – Zambia. Catalysing the sustainable and inclusive transformation of food systems

Mark Fynn, Céline Dutilly, Munguzwe Hichaambwa, Brion Mulenga, Geoffrey Chomba, Cristina Soriani, Freddie Mubanga, Claire Orbell, Kanika Garg, James Tefft, et al.

► To cite this version:

Mark Fynn, Céline Dutilly, Munguzwe Hichaambwa, Brion Mulenga, Geoffrey Chomba, et al.. Food Systems Profile – Zambia. Catalysing the sustainable and inclusive transformation of food systems. FAO; European Union - Cirad, 32 p., 2022, 978-92-5-135800-9. 10.4060/cb8716en. hal-05182849

HAL Id: hal-05182849

https://hal.science/hal-05182849v1

Submitted on 23 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike 4.0 International License
# FOOD SYSTEMS PROFILE - ZAMBIA

Catalysing the sustainable and inclusive transformation of food systems

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Zambia
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

© Crayon Smith (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
# FOOD SYSTEMS PROFILE - ZAMBIA

Catalysing the sustainable and inclusive transformation of food systems

Published by

the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
and

the French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development
and

the European Union

Rome, Montpellier, Brussels, 2022
Required citation:

FAO, European Union and CIRAD. 2022. Food Systems Profile - Zambia. Catalysing the sustainable and inclusive transformation of food systems. Rome, Brussels and Montpellier, France. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb8716en

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the Centre de coopération Internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD) or the European Union (EU) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by CIRAD, FAO or EU in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of CIRAD, FAO or EU.

ISBN 978-92-5-135800-9

© FAO, 2022

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode).

Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with the required citation: "This translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original English edition shall be the authoritative edition."

Disputes arising under the licence that cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by mediation and arbitration as described in Article 8 of the licence except as otherwise provided herein. The applicable mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules and any arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

**Third-party materials.** Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The risks of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.

**Sales, rights and licensing.** FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through publications-sales@fao.org. Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request. Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: copyright@fao.org
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

# FOOD SYSTEMS PROFILE
ZAMBIA

Zambia is a landlocked country in southern Africa that has a total area of 752 612 km² and population of 18.4 million people (UNdata, 2020). It borders eight countries, which serve as markets for its exports, including maize. The country is experiencing a major demographic shift and is one of the youngest countries in the world by median age. This demographic shift is increasing pressure on its food system, as well as demand for jobs, health and social services. The western and southern parts of the country are prone to drought, with limited crop potential, while high rainfall in the north makes for leached soils. The central agroecological zone has the strongest agricultural prospects.

## Key messages

Zambia has made positive strides in enhancing its food system, as indicated by the following:

* **improving trends in the nutritional status of children** under five years old since 2000/2001, and decreasing prevalence of undernourishment between 2009 and 2018;

* continuing to increase agricultural production, driven by **land expansion, adoption of improved seed varieties and sustainable land preparation** methods;

* attained and maintaining the status as a **net surplus producer and exporter of maize** in the southern Africa region and a positive agricultural trade balance; and

* continued **rise in production of oilseed crops** (e.g. soybeans, groundnuts and sunflower) in response to growing demand, including for stock feed in the country and the region.

Challenges remain in ensuring sustainable food systems in the country:

* **agriculture makes a low and declining contribution to GDP** (3 percent in 2019, down from 9 percent in 2010);

* **rural poverty is persistently high**, with the most recent estimate at 76.6 percent in 2015;

* agricultural production **diversification remains low**, due to continued **maize-centric policies**;

* **high malnutrition levels**, particularly among **children**, with 35 percent of them being **stunted**;

* territorial and socio-economic **inequities between urban and rural regions** in terms of **infrastructure and provision of basic services**, and also based on **gender**;

* **high deforestation rates**, mostly driven by **agricultural land expansion, charcoal production and timber extraction, threaten biodiversity** and compromise the country's **climate change mitigation potential**; and

* heavy reliance on **rainfed agricultural production** makes the food system increasingly **vulnerable to climate shocks**.

To make its food systems more sustainable, Zambia could consider formulating and implementing policies to do the following:

* promote **agricultural diversification** away from maize, to include other crops and food commodities;

* encourage consumption of **healthy foods** and improve availability of **nutrition information and education**;

* improve the provision of **basic services and infrastructure**, particularly in rural areas;

* offer **incentives for rural investment** in agricultural production and value addition, such as processing; and

* promote adoption of **climate-smart agricultural practices** to build resilience in food production.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

## Food systems assessment methodology and process

This brief is the result of a collaboration between FAO, the European Union, CIRAD in close collaboration with FAO experts. It was implemented in Zambia during May to August 2021. The methodology used for preparing this brief is the result of a global initiative of the European Union, FAO and CIRAD to support the sustainable and inclusive transformation of food systems. This assessment methodology is described in detail in the joint publication entitled *Conceptual framework and method for national and territorial assessments: Catalysing the sustainable and inclusive transformation of food systems*. (David-Benz et al., 2022).

The assessment integrates qualitative and quantitative data analysis with participatory processes by mobilizing public, private and civil

society stakeholders. The approach includes interviews with key stakeholders and a consultation workshop to refine systemic understanding of the food system and discuss potential levers to improve its sustainability. The assessment process thus initiates participatory analysis and stakeholder discussion on the strategic opportunities and constraints to sustainable transformation of food systems. The approach assesses the actors and their activities at the core of the system, together with their interactions along the food chain as well as the environments directly influencing their behaviour. Conditioned by long-term drivers, these actors generate impacts in different dimensions that in turn influence drivers via a number of feedback loops (see Figure 1).

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1. Analytical representation of the food system**</figcaption></figure>

**Source:** Conceptual framework and method for national and territorial assessments: Catalysing the sustainable and inclusive transformation of food systems. David-Benz et al., 2022.

The approach involves a detailed understanding of the key challenges along the four dimensions

of sustainable and inclusive food systems: (i) food security, nutrition and health; (ii) inclusive
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

economic growth, jobs and livelihoods; (iii) sustainable natural resource use and environment; and (iv) territorial balance and equity. Aimed at identifying critical issues affecting the sustainability and inclusivity of food systems, the assessment is both qualitative and quantitative in nature. Critical challenges and key food systems dynamics are specified in the form of **Key Sustainability Questions** (KSQs), whose answers (see schematic representations

for all KSQs) help identify **systemic levers** and areas of action that are essential to bring about desired **transformations in food systems**.

This approach is designed as a preliminary rapid assessment for food systems and can be implemented over a period of 8–12 weeks. The methodology has been applied in more than 50 countries as a first step to support the transition towards sustainable food systems.

## National context: key figures

<table><thead><tr><th>Indicators</th><th>2000</th><th>2010</th><th>Current status</th><th>Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Population growth rate</td><td>2.7%</td><td>2.9%</td><td>2.9%</td><td>Minimal change in growth rate; remained constant since 2010</td></tr><tr><td>Percent rural population</td><td>65%</td><td>61.5%</td><td>55.4%</td><td>Steady decline of rural population</td></tr><tr><td>Urban population growth rate</td><td>3.5%</td><td>4.0%</td><td>4.1%</td><td>Accelerating growth in urban population</td></tr><tr><td>GDP/capita</td><td>USD 345</td><td>USD 1 489</td><td>USD 1 501</td><td>Sharp rise between 2000 and 2010 and marginally afterwards</td></tr><tr><td>Agriculture, forestry and fishing value added (% of GDP)</td><td>16.15%</td><td>9.42%</td><td>2.73%</td><td>Steady decline of contribution of agriculture, forestry and fishing to GDP</td></tr><tr><td>Employment in agriculture (% of total employment)</td><td>70.88%</td><td>64.33%</td><td>49.64%</td><td>High rates of employment in agriculture, but it is sharply declining; related to value added, indicates low agricultural productivity</td></tr><tr><td>Inflation rate</td><td>26.0%</td><td>8.5%</td><td>15.7%</td><td>Sharp variations: three-fold decline between 2000 and 2010 followed by two-fold increase between 2010 and 2020</td></tr><tr><td>Access to electricity</td><td>16.7%</td><td>22%</td><td>43.1%</td><td>Significant increase in the past two decades</td></tr><tr><td>Access to safe drinking water</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Urban</td><td>N.A.</td><td>N.A.</td><td>90%</td><td>Significant disparity between rural and urban populations</td></tr><tr><td>Rural</td><td></td><td></td><td>53%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Access to health facilities (% of households within 5 km radius of health facility)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Urban</td><td>N.A.</td><td>N.A.</td><td>92%</td><td>Access to health facilities is a challenge for a larger percentage of the rural than urban population</td></tr><tr><td>Rural</td><td></td><td></td><td>57%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Forest coverage (%)</td><td>62.5%</td><td>62%</td><td>60%</td><td>Rising trend in deforestation</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Sources:** Ministry of Agriculture, Government of the Republic of Zambia and IFAD (2021); ZDHS 2018 (Zambia Statistics Agency, Ministry of Health and ICF, 2019); World Bank (2019b).
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

© Patrick Dugan (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
## Key figures & trends in food production, consumption and trade

Food crop production in Zambia is dominated by maize, which accounts for 79 percent of total output of major food crops (see Figure 2). Supply exceeds domestic requirements, making the country a major exporter of the commodity in southern Africa. Production of key food crops and meat has generally been increasing, in tandem with the population (see Figures 3 and 4).

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2. Percentage share of total production for major food crops**</figcaption></figure>

Source: Chapoto and Subakany (2019).

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3. Production trends of selected crops in comparison with population**</figcaption></figure>

Source: FAOSTAT.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4. Animal-based food production trends in comparison with population**</figcaption></figure>

Source: FAOSTAT.

Domestic production of other food commodities such as wheat, fruit and vegetables, fish, dairy and edible oils, falls short of consumption. Rising incomes and changing diets are slowly shifting consumption from maize to other starchy foods, such as bread and rice, and to animal-source proteins, such as beef. This has contributed to a steep rise in beef production to meet the

increase in demand. Gaps in the supply of these commodities are met through imports from the region and overseas. Annual fish consumption in 2016 was estimated to be well above annual domestic production (Namonje-Kapembwa and Samboko, 2017), with imports covering this deficit. Figure 5 shows that the country's fish imports increased significantly between 2010 and 2016.
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5. Trends in fish production and imports in Zambia**</figcaption></figure>

**Sources:** Namonje-Kapembwa and Samboko (2017) and COMSTAT Data Hub.

Zambia meets part of its food supplies through imports, dominated by cereals, fruits and vegetables, vegetable oils and fats in terms of volume. With increased cereal production, imports of these goods, while fluctuating, have trended lower since 2006. Imports of vegetables and fruits are increasing, as the rise in production lags growing demand. Imports of vegetable oils and fats have trended upward trend since 2001 (see Figure 6).

In summary, according to FAO data (FAOSTAT), 84 percent of the available food in terms of calories is supplied from local production, while approximately 9 percent is from destocking and nearly the same amount from imports. Cereals

(mainly maize), roots and tubers constitute 69 percent of available food, as measured by calories, oil crops and vegetable oils 14 percent, meat 5 percent, sugar and sweeteners 5 percent, other animal products 2 percent, fruit and vegetables 1 percent, fish and seafood 1 percent, and others 3 percent. A trend analysis of food expenditure patterns from 1996 to 2015 showed that wealthier households spent more on animal protein, whereas poorer households spent twice as much on vegetables (Chisanga and Zulu-Mbata, 2018). Food expenditure patterns among high-income households, primarily in urban regions, reflect growing earnings and rapid urbanization.

As noted, maize is dominant and though dietary diversity is low, there is some divergence within the population. According to a discussion paper by Mwanamwenge and Harris (2017), based on available data from 2014, less than a quarter of children aged 6–23 months had received food from four or more food groups, indicating low dietary diversity among this group. Other findings detailed in the paper were that people in rural areas had lower dietary diversity scores than those in urban areas, and that the scores were also lower for poorer households compared with wealthier ones. In addition to poverty, as noted in the paper, other factors that contribute to low dietary diversity in Zambia are “(un)availability of diverse foods on farms or in the market, and of consumer preferences for different foods and food groups”.

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6. Trends in food imports of Zambia (1961–2016)**</figcaption></figure>

**Source:** FAOSTAT.
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

Characterisation of the dominant actors of the Food System

Figure 7 shows a schematic representation of the main food system actors in Zambia. Approximately 85 percent of the food crops in the country are produced by smallholder farmers (Crop Forecasting Survey Data: Ministry of Agriculture, 2020). Small-scale traders purchase most of the crops from smallholder farmers, accounting for 39 percent of all crop purchases in 2019, according to the Rural Agricultural Livelihoods Survey (Chapoto and Subakany, 2019). The Food Reserve Agency (FRA)<fnref n="1" /> accounted for 25 percent of purchases from smallholders, mostly maize for strategic reserves and to stabilize market prices. Purchases by other buyers were large-scale traders (19 percent); processors (10 percent); other households (6 percent); and institutions and exporters (approximately 0.5 percent each).

Exotic fruits are largely produced by commercial farmers; this sector also produces high-value exotic vegetables for export. Commonly consumed vegetables for the domestic market are mainly produced by smallholder farmers. Commercial producers predominate in the supply of beef, dairy, pig, sheep and poultry products for processing, while small-scale producers have a larger share of the market for traditional poultry and goats. The Government, through the Zambia Development Agency (ZDA),<fnref n="2" /> views agroprocessing as a vehicle to increase income and give the poor access to food. Most related ventures, however, involve large-scale maize and wheat milling companies, stock-feed manufacturers, edible oil producers, and meat and dairy processors. Only small-scale maize milling and oil extraction

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7. Schematic representation of key food system actors in Zambia**</figcaption></figure>

Source: Authors.

<footnote n="1">¹ The FRA is intended to manage sustainable strategic food reserves for national food security and has an additional crop marketing mandate. (https://fra.org zm/?page_id=2863).</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² The Zambia Development Agency (ZDA) is a quasi-government body under the Ministry of Commerce, Trade & Industry, with a leading role in economic development, promoting and facilitating trade, investment and enterprise development. It also is tasked with enhancing the country's investment profile to increase capital inflows, capital formation and employment creation, and expand the micro, small and medium enterprise sector (https://www.zda.org zm/index.php/about-v-4/).</footnote>
are commonly carried out in rural areas, with
these services provided in the communities for
a fee (Zambia Development Agency, undated).

Informal food markets offer crucial opportunities for livelihoods and income generation, especially for women, young people and the less educated. These markets play a critical role in linking

the urban poor to buyers of fruit, vegetables,
legumes and meat products. Available data
show that the informal sector accounts for
65 percent, 57 percent and more than 90
percent, respectively, of the urban market
share of staples, meat and livestock products,
and fruit and vegetables. (Hichaambwa,
2012 and Hichaambwa et al., 2009).

Key challenges to the achievement of the core sustainable food systems goals

Key Sustainability Question 1: Why does Zambia have a high prevalence of malnutrition and seasonal food security challenges despite significant public investment in agricultural input and output subsidies?

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8. Schematic representation of the drivers and impacts of food insecurity and nutrition in Zambia</figcaption></figure>

Sources: Authors based on data from APRI (2020) (Mofya-Mukuka and Singogo, 2020); ZDHS 2018 (Zambia Statistics Agency, MoH and ICF, 2019); SOFI 2021 (FAO et al., 2021); African Union, 2017, 2020.

Zambia faces formidable challenges in meeting
its global commitments related to food security
and nutrition. Recent data show that the prev-
alence of moderate or severe food insecurity in
the total population is at 51.4 percent, affect-
ing some 9.2 million people (FAO, et al., 2021).
Additionally, approximately one million children
under 5 years are stunted, with prevalence of
32.3 percent in 2020, slightly higher than the
29 percent average for the Africa region. Mean-
while, the prevalence of obesity among adults
(18 years and older) was 8.1 percent - some

600 000 people in 2016. Among women of repro-
ductive age (15–49 years), anaemia prevalence
was at 31.5 percent, meaning that 1.6 million
women were affected in 2019 (FAOSTAT and
Zambia Statistics Agency; Ministry of Health and
ICF, 2019). Figures 9 and 10 show the trends in
the prevalence of child stunting and of under-
nourishment respectively. The overall trends of
the nutritional status of children under 5 years
have been improving since 2000/2001. Similarly,
the prevalence of undernourishment decreased
between 2009 and 2018.
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

© Biodiversity International (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
These improvements, however, have not been rapid enough for Zambia to be able to meet its targets, and the country is off-track in its effort to achieve Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 on ending hunger and all forms of malnutrition by 2030. Similarly, the African Union has indicated that Zambia is not on track towards achieving the food security and nutrition targets and commitment of the Malabo Declaration by 2025 (African Union, 2020).

These levels of unsatisfactory nutrition and food security prevail, despite high public expenditure on agricultural input subsidies through the Farmer Input Support Programme and food price subsidies, mainly through interventions by the Food Reserve Agency (World Bank, 2021). Under the Farmer Input Support Programme, the Government distributes subsidized agricultural inputs to small-scale maize producers and provides a guaranteed minimum price at which the Food Reserve Agency buys maize, cassava and sorghum from farmers (see Key Sustainability Question 2).

Several interacting factors contribute towards food insecurity and malnutrition in Zambia. The Zero Hunger Strategic Review (IAPRI and WFP, 2018) identifies policy incoherence as one of four key gaps that hinder progress towards achieving zero hunger in Zambia by 2030. It proposes a revision of the 2008 Nutrition Policy to update and align it with more recent frameworks, such as the SDGs, the country's Vision 2030 and the Seventh National Development Plan.

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 9.** Trends in nutritional status of children, 1992–2018</figcaption></figure>

Sources: 2018 Zambia Demographic and Health Survey (ZDHS) (Zambia Statistics Agency, Ministry of Health and ICF, 2019).

The Seventh National Development Plan, covering 2017–2021, which was aimed at reaching the country's long-term objective of becoming a prosperous middle-income country by 2030, had a narrow implementation focus and poor targeting of nutrition and food security programmes. In addition to these shortcomings, the Plan was further hindered by socio-economic drivers, such as rising inflation and currency depreciation, and demographic drivers, such as high population growth and rapid urbanization.

Moreover, rapid urbanization, accompanied by a rise in supermarkets and fast food chains and access to convenience (ultra-processed) foods (Harris *et al.*, 2019), is changing dietary habits of urban consumers, resulting in increasing fat consumption associated with non-communicable diseases.

Climate shocks, through more extreme weather events, such as prolonged droughts and increasing incidence of flooding, have compounded the challenges for smallholder farmers, reducing their asset base and capacity for investment and adoption of innovation, as well as their productivity.

The combination of these factors and drivers can be attributed to the low productivity, limited diversification in agricultural production and low incomes, leading to a reduction in purchasing power, limited choices and low dietary diversity (see Figure 8).

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 10.** Prevalence of undernourishment 1992–2019</figcaption></figure>

Sources: Zambia Food Security and Nutrition Report (Mofya-Mukuka and Singogo, 2020).
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

**Lever: Combining a broad range of policy instruments, which promote the development of diversified nutrition-sensitive value chains that are commercially viable.**

The use of a combination of policy instruments across different sectors (e.g. agriculture, education, health and commerce) could address the narrow focus and implementation of food security and nutrition policy and programming.

Interventions that focus on increasing the **production and commercialization** of nutritious food could incentivize activities within nutrition-sensitive **value chains**. According to the Fill the Nutrient Gap Zambia study (WFP, 2020), the daily cost of a nutritious diet (based on estimates of the cost of meeting nutrient requirements using locally available foods) for a household of five is about 33 Zambian kwacha (ZMK) (USD 1.43). That is almost three times the cost of an energy-

only diet and unaffordable for about half of all households, particularly those in rural areas. Accordingly, promotion of mass production and commercialization of a diverse range of nutrient-rich foods, such as legumes, fruits, vegetables and livestock, could improve nutrition outcomes.

Some pre-conditions for the successful implementation of these initiatives are **policy consistency and coherence** across different sectors and over time; and prioritizing the development of diversified input and output markets and access to processing technology and infrastructure to promote value addition.

Some existing programmes, such as “First 1 000 Most Critical Days” can provide insights through monitoring the supply and consumption of a wider range of food through a nutritious food balance sheet, which could help to reduce incidences of food and nutrition insecurity.

**Key Sustainability Question 2: What are the constraints to sustainable diversification of the food production system in Zambia despite stakeholder recognition of its importance?**

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>Figure 11. Schematic representation of the drivers and impacts of low agricultural diversification</figcaption></figure>

Source: Authors.
In key policy documents over the years, the importance of diversification to agricultural sector growth and increasing its contribution to food and nutrition security has been noted and emphasized. The Farmer Input Support Programme, which traditionally only targeted maize inputs, added rice in the 2010/11 season and sorghum, cotton, and groundnuts in the 2012/2013 season (Mason, Jayne and Mofya-Mukuka, 2013) to enhance diversification. The electronic version, introduced in 2015/16, allows beneficiaries to get any desired inputs, including for livestock production, and is seen as a way to increase agricultural diversification. Other efforts in this direction, including projects and programmes of limited scale in many parts of Zambia as part of climate-smart agriculture strategies for increased productivity, resilience and diversity, have had significant local success.

Based on RALS data for 2012, 2015 and 2019, Simpson's Diversity Index<fnref n="3" /> for agricultural diversification in Zambia in accordance with values of production of maize and other staples, legumes, fruits and vegetables, cash crops and livestock products - increased marginally from 0.38 to 0.42 and again to 0.48, respectively. Low diversification in Zambia is closely associated with undeveloped agricultural supply chains, which are inadequately supported by policy and institutional efforts.

The main drivers of low agricultural diversification are the Farmer Input Support Programme subsidy programme, which has historically targeted mostly maize production through maize seeds and fertilizer, and the Food Reserve Agency crop purchases, of which 90 percent is maize. This combination tends to encourage production and marketing of maize, rather than other food commodities. These two programmes together account for 50 to 80 percent of annual public spending in the sector, leaving very little for key drivers of agricultural growth and diversification (see Figure 12). Additionally, the national budget allocation for

agriculture has been decreasing, from 9.3 percent in 2015 to 3.7 percent in 2020. These figures are well below the African Union's Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) commitment of at least 10 percent, and reduces the resources available for diversification.

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 12. Farmer Input Support Programme Food Reserve Agency share of agriculture budget (2012–2020)**</figcaption></figure>

Sources: IAPRI, Various years.

In addition, the potential for agricultural diversification is constrained in some areas by low seasonal rainfall, especially in agroecological zones I and IIB, in the southern and western parts of the country. These zones receive less than 1 000 mm of annual rainfall.<fnref n="4" /> Only limited agricultural commodities are adapted to these environments, which account for about 12 percent of the land area.

Limited access to land and poor land tenure security, which discourages long-term investment, constrain the number of agricultural commodities produced per household. Limited availability of technology for adding value also hampers market supply, including nutritious and traditional foods. This is exacerbated by poor nutrition education of actors in the supply chain – consumers, in particular. A widely held notion among stakeholders that adequate or surplus maize production equates to food security tends to limit efforts and resources at all levels – from national to household – in producing a variety of foods for diverse and nutritious diets.

<footnote n="3">³ Simpson's Diversity Index measures diversity, taking into account the number of species present and the relative abundance of each species. As species richness and evenness increase, so diversity increases, with 1 representing infinite diversity and 0, no diversity.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Further details on the agro-ecological zones are available at https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/presentation_zambia.pdf.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

Key impacts of low agricultural diversification are poor dietary diversity, low or stagnant smallholder farm incomes and reduced resilience to shocks, such as climate change, market risks, and pest and disease outbreaks. These factors contribute to malnutrition and other related health problems. (World Bank, 2019a; Mofya-Mukuka and Hichaambwa, 2018).

**Lever: Increase availability of resources to invest in important drivers of agricultural growth and diversity, and offer more efficient smart subsidies<fnref n="5" />**

Increasing resources for key agricultural growth drivers – research, extension, and irrigation – and developing rural infrastructure, such as roads and power systems, would result in a more productive and diverse agriculture sector. An improved research and extension system, better-equipped to support productivity and diversification, as well as nutrition messages, would help boost the

adoption of agroecological practices (including climate-smart agriculture) in a gender-equitable manner. This would significantly contribute to sustainable utilization of natural resources and the environment, and enhance resilience to shocks. Sustainable production of a variety of commodities linked to markets would contribute to increased smallholder incomes and enhance their ability to purchase more nutritious foods.

Diversified agricultural commodities would need sustainable linkages to local, national, regional and international input and output markets. Sensitization of consumers to the nutritional values of neglected foods, such as cowpeas, would create demand for these commodities and encourage sustained production. Men and women alike in households need exposure to nutritive-sensitive agriculture and the possibility to consume diverse nutritious foods from their own production.

**Key Sustainability Question 3: What are the reasons for territorial and socio-economic inequities among different actors across value chains in the Zambian food system?**

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>Figure 13. Schematic representation of the territorial and socio-economic inequities dimension of the food system in Zambia</figcaption></figure>

Source: Authors.

<footnote n="5">⁵ Smart subsidies are designed to target the poor and favour market-based solutions in input supply, aiming to promote pro-poor economic growth through increasing competition, economic efficiency and empowerment of farmers.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

Lessons can be drawn from specific programmes and activities from within the country along with learning from global best practices. Some in-country examples are the Smallholder Productivity Promotion Programme and initiatives of the Scaling Up Nutrition programme, which exemplify the role of home gardens in improving household dietary diversity (NFNC, 2021).

Despite efforts to foster inclusive and equitable growth and development, territorial and socio-economic inequities still pose a challenge to the food system of Zambia (see Figure 13). Disparities are most obvious between rural and urban areas and across gender. Rural areas are characterized by high poverty rates and a lack of basic infrastructure and services (e.g. clean, safe drinking water, health facilities, electricity, schools, markets, roads, and extension services).

As rural areas are sparsely populated, investing in capital-intensive infrastructure may not be deemed economically viable. This is further exacerbated by the country's high public debt, which has reduced the fiscal space. In addition, lack of decentralization in development planning and programme implementation has hampered infrastructure and service delivery in rural areas. For example, only 58 percent of rural households have access to clean water, compared to almost 92 percent in urban areas (Zambia Statistics Agency, Ministry of Health and ICF, 2019). Only 14 percent of rural households have access to electricity, compared to more than 80 percent in urban areas (World Bank, 2019b). Such inequities negatively affect food production and consumption. Limited infrastructure has led to low value addition, implying fewer jobs for the young people It has also increased the labour burden for women, who have to fetch water from distant places and gather wood as cooking fuel, reinforcing gender inequities. This also means women have limited time to prepare nutritious meals and provide the necessary care for children, which has contributed to child malnutrition. These territorial and socio-economic imbalances have led to high rural poverty; the

most recent available estimate (for 2015) of poverty in rural areas was 76.6 percent of the population, versus 23.4 percent in urban areas (CSO, 2016) (see Figure 13). As a majority of rural households make their living from agriculture, the high rural poverty rates imply that rural food systems are disproportionately affected.

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>Figure 14. Poverty trends in Zambia</figcaption></figure>

Sources: CSO (2016) and World Bank (2019).

Notwithstanding regional differences, extreme poverty is highest among female-headed households (60 percent in rural areas and 15 percent in urban areas) (United Nations, 2015). These disparities have also led to high rural maternal mortality, malnutrition, limited economic opportunities and migration of young people to urban areas in search of jobs. Young people account for 60 percent of the total labour force. Currently a majority of them are unemployed and economically inactive (Population Council and UNFPA, 2018). This problem is more acute in rural areas where only 39 percent of the young people are employed, compared with 60 percent in urban areas (CSO and Ministry of Labour and Social Security, 2018). In addition, inequities along the value chain mean producers receive lower margins than those downstream, mostly driven by the number of intermediaries. In the goat value chain, for example, smallholder producers made, on average, a gross margin of about ZMK 120 (USD 7.45) per goat sold to a trader, compared with ZMK 180 (USD 11.20) obtained by traders and processors (Namonje-Kapembwa, Chiwawa and Sitko, 2016).
<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

## Lever: Incentivise agro-based investments in rural areas

To ensure incentives for infrastructure in rural areas, **backbone infrastructure**, such as water supply systems, roads, communication networks and electricity, must be developed and financial services need to be improved in rural areas to facilitate business needs to be improved.

Specific incentives could include facilitating access to land and favourable credit terms along with flexible repayment plans. This would foster an environment to attract investment in improving production and processing technologies, increasing productivity, product quality and value addition in rural areas. These incentives would spur the proliferation of agroprocessing enterprises at various

scales, including rural cottage industries, which, in turn, would help to facilitate the commercialization of smallholder agriculture and the development of small and medium-sized enterprises. **Rural cottage industries**,<fnref n="6" /> being **off-takers of raw materials** from smallholder farmers, could serve as markets for local agricultural production. Leading to smallholder **commercialization** and **local job creation**. In-country examples, such as the government-implemented **farm block programme**, can provide insights for planning such initiatives.

It is worthwhile noting, however, that even with other incentives in place, the **slow pace of infrastructure development**, limited basic amenities and services in rural areas (extension, safe drinking water and health services), may still be barriers to agricultural investment.

<footnote n="6">⁶ Cottage industries refer to small-scale, farm-level or backyard processing and value-adding enterprises that use low-cost equipment.</footnote>
## Key Sustainability Question 4: What are the reasons for the increasing vulnerability of the food system to climate change and environmental degradation?

The food system of Zambia is dependent on rich natural capital (land, forest, water and biodiverse ecosystems), but it is unsustainable, resulting in the depletion of these assets. Combined with climate change and events, such as droughts and floods, this exacerbates the vulnerability of much of the rural population (Thurlow, Zhu and Diao, 2012).

Since independence in 1964, **hybrid maize and input subsidies** to support production have been a major feature of the country's cornerstone agricultural policy. This rainfed staple crop is cultivated in half of the harvested area and approximately 1.2 million smallholder households depend on maize for their livelihoods (Mulenga, Wineman and Sitko, 2017). These households are thus vulnerable to economic and ecological fluctuations affecting production.

While the most recent Farmer Input Support Programme subsidies programme has boosted maize yields and acreage (see Figures 15 and 16), by targeting “vulnerable but viable” farms, it is effectively excluding the very small (those with holdings less than 0.5 ha) and most vulnerable households.

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 15.** Maize acreage, yield and production indices (1960–2018)</figcaption></figure>

Source: FAOSTAT.

In addition, while fertilizers have raised the carrying capacity of the land, misapplication associated with soil acidity on the majority of maize fields, and reduced fallow periods of shifting cultivation (the “chitemene” system), among other factors, have resulted in a loss of soil fertility and related productivity (Burke, Jayne and Sitko, 2012).

This is reinforced by climate change. Modelling under future climate conditions (Ngoma et al., 2020) shows that the combination of reduced rainfall, increased temperature and drought events is likely to cause insufficient soil moisture, crop loss and reduction in agricultural production. It is also projected to affect forest cover, livestock population and length of the growing season, and increase water stress. Production of heat- and drought-sensitive crops, such as maize, is expected to decline in all provinces – ranging from 20 percent in the Northwestern province, to 77–82 percent in the Copperbelt and Muchinga provinces (Hunter et al., 2020). At the household level, the costs of reduced production of maize are estimated to range from USD 1.50 to USD 28 per person, up to USD 169 per household in the Southern province (Hunter et al., 2020).

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 16.** Harvested areas and share of maize acreage (1960–2018)</figcaption></figure>

Source: FAOSTAT.
<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

**Maize predominance does not favour adaptive capacity of food system actors.**

In addition to its high water requirement compared to indigenous crops such as millet and sorghum (Hunter et al., 2020), the lack of crop and genetic diversity (hybrid maize) increases vulnerability to pest and disease outbreaks (Keneni et al., 2012). Conservation agriculture and agroforestry are the most widely promoted climate-smart agriculture practices in Zambia. Despite this, there remains a need to increase the preparedness of small-scale farmers for pests or flood events, and to further support local innovation for climate-change adaptation, which is necessary to build resilient systems.

**Forests cover approximately 60 percent of the total land area of Zambia.**

Since the 1990s, Zambia has experienced significant deforestation attributed to land clearance, charcoal production, unsustainable fire management and timber extraction. Deforestation has accelerated at an alarming rate in recent years, with a net annual loss rising from 35 000 ha between 1990 and 2010, to some 188 000 ha in the past decade (FAO, 2020).

This deforestation has accompanied the expansion in areas under maize cultivation, resulting from the most recent Farmer Input Support Programme along with increases in the production of oil crops and a rising cattle population (see Figure 15). Both have been driven by the agro-industry sector supplying transformed food and animal-based products to the growing urban population (see Figure 4). The area of groundnut cultivation has doubled in the period and areas used to cultivate soybeans have increased even more dramatically to reach the same acreage as groundnuts (see Figure 17). Some 85 percent of soybeans are supplied by commercial farms, but emergent farmers have also adopted the crop, driven by a commercially oriented regional value chain and supported by favourable prices relative to maize.

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 17. Oil crops acreage and percentage of forest/total area (1990–2018)**</figcaption></figure>

Source: FAOSTAT.

While this may represent an economic opportunity in the short term for a limited number of food system actors, the medium-term environmental impact may be wider.

Deforestation is compromising the country's climate change mitigation potential, as it accounts for 87 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions (CIAT and World Bank, 2017). It also affects the resources provided by forest ecosystems, such as wild meat and fuelwood, which rural livelihoods depend on.

Soybean production is characterized by high use of irrigation, which, together with the agro-industry sector, is responsible for the depletion of water resources. Notably, most smallholders do not have access to irrigation.

The total internal renewable water resources per capita of Zambia has declined significantly to 4,947 m³/person/year as of 2014, down from 17 886 m³/person/year in 1962 (World Bank, 2020). Projections indicate that, on aggregate, the changes in rainfall and temperature will reduce water availability by approximately 13 percent from the most recent (observed) levels of approximately 97 km³ to approximately 84 km³ by the end of the century. By mid-century, there will be a reduction in future availability of water resources in the Zambezi, Kafue, Luangwa, Chambeshi-Luapula, and Rufubu river basins.
The vulnerability of water resources is expected to increase as cumulative demands for irrigation

agriculture and other uses by mid-century will put significant pressure on water resources.

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /><figcaption>Figure 18. Schematic representation of environmental vulnerability of the food system in Zambia</figcaption></figure>

Source: Authors.

## Lever: Improve the adaptation capacity to climate change and livelihoods resilience of small-scale farmers through crop diversification

There is a need to develop different climate adaptation strategies across different sectors (agriculture, livestock, water, forestry, etc.) to support the protection and restoration of natural capital and biodiverse ecosystems (see Figure 18). One solution is to identify suitable alternative livelihoods and diversify production away from maize, in particular, **through a wider use of indigenous species of cereals** (such as finger millet and sorghum), **tubers** (cassava) and **vegetables**, in association with trees. Increased agricultural biodiversity could provide a buffer against crop vulnerability to climate change and related pests and diseases, and improve food and nutritional security.

At the production level, a primary condition for promoting traditional crops is to recover traditional genetic resources (seeds) and reconsider selection criteria based on their capacity to be associated with other plants, and their nutritional quality. A potential solution is to create linkages between genetic banks, research institutions and farmers through agricultural extension services. **Involving smallholder farmers in the genetic and agronomic research process** could help to increase farmers' knowledge about growing such crops.

## Consumption trends and habits must evolve
and align with the potential redeployment of these traditional crops if this is to succeed. It is important to tailor the commodity chain - from food processing to marketing - to offer transformed products and ensure "readoption". That would make it possible for
<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

producers to access markets to sell traditional
crops and develop home-grown processing.
Lessons can be drawn from the Good Food
Logo programme, which promotes the
nutritional properties of cassava, sorghum
and millet among Zambian consumers.

Traditional crops are endangered by herbicides, which constitute a substantial barrier to move back to crop association (for example, between beans and maize). Many of the organizations that promote conservation farming in the

country are supporting herbicide use as a way
to manage weeds. Agroecological approaches
could be promoted as an alternative, along
with water conservation practices.

Finally, key adaptation measures entail
focusing on water efficiency through drip-
irrigation techniques, catchment conservation
programmes, and enhanced access to
improved water sources. Meanwhile,
carbon farming can offer a significant
contribution to climate change mitigation.

Transition to Sustainable Food Systems

The agriculture and food system is the backbone
of the economy of Zambia, providing food,
employment and income to the majority
of households in rural and urban areas.
Agriculture is, however, under-diversified
and productivity is low, resulting in a lack of
dietary diversity and poor nutrition outcomes.
Additionally, farmers are exposed to greater
market risks and weather-related shocks. The
food system as a whole remains vulnerable.
Enhancing sustainability requires action to
**improve agricultural diversification**, accelerate
**improvements in food security and nutrition**
outcomes, address **territorial imbalances**
**and inequalities** among food system actors,
**and improve resilience to climate and other**
**environmental shocks**.

Zambia could benefit from the allocation of
sufficient resources to the agricultural and allied
sectors and investment in the key drivers of
growth in a more strategic and targeted manner.
More resources should be allocated to research
and development, training and extension, and
rural infrastructure. Priority should be given
to environmental sustainability and climate
resilience in implementing programmes
and activities to transform the food system.
These efforts could be boosted by reducing
the proportion of annual public spending on
ineffective subsidies – for maize production
and marketing, in particular – and developing

incentives or subsidies that encourage more
diversified crop and livestock production using
sustainable agricultural practices.

Several strategic and policy documents collective-
ly articulate the different aspects of a sustainable
food system in Zambia, including the multi-sectoral
Seventh National Development Plan (2017-2021),
the Economic Recovery Plan (ERP), the Sec-
ond National Agricultural Policy (2016-2021),
and the National Agricultural Investment Plan
(2013-2021). Implementation of these policies
and strategies, however, needs invigoration and
a focus on key levers of change to bring about
sustainable food system transformation.

Success in implementation requires effective
coordination, backed by improved monitoring
and evaluation of steps taken. Progress has been
made in coordinating interventions and activities
in the nutrition sector coordination at all levels,
led by the National Food and Nutrition Commis-
sion. Similar coordination and implementation
mechanisms across the food system would also
help to achieve improved outcomes.

Transformation of the food system in
Zambia requires deepening this initial
assessment to build on the insights gained
and to identify and adapt interventions that
seize opportunities and address systemic
constraints to the desired impact.
<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

© Georgina Smith/WorldFish (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
References

**African Union.** 2017. *Inaugural Biennial Review Report to the AU Assembly on implementing the June 2014 Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation for Shared Prosperity and Improved Livelihoods.* The 2017 Progress Report to the January 2018 Assembly.

**African Union.** 2020. *Biennial Review Report to the AU Assembly on implementing the June 2014 Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation for Shared Prosperity and Improved Livelihoods.* The 2nd Report to the February 2020 Assembly.

Burke, W.J., Jayne, T.S. & Sitko, N.J. 2012. *Can the FISP more effectively achieve food production and poverty reduction goals? Food Security Research Project Policy Synthesis No. 51.* Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.

**Central Statistical Office (CSO).** 2016. *2015 Living Conditions Monitoring Survey Report.* Government of the Republic of Zambia. Lusaka.

**Central Statistical Office (CSO) and Ministry of Labour and Social Security.** 2018. *2018 Labour Force Survey Report.* Government of the Republic of Zambia. Lusaka, Zambia.

Chapoto, A. & Subakany, M. 2019. *Rural Agricultural Livelihoods Survey, 2019.* Lusaka, Zambia.

Chisanga, B. & Zulu-Mbata, O. 2018. *The changing food expenditure patterns and trends in Zambia: Implications for agricultural policies.* Food Security, 10:721–740.

**CIAT & World Bank.** 2017. *Climate-smart agriculture in Zambia.* CSA Country Profiles for Africa Series. International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Washington, D.C.

**COMSTAT.** Data Hub. https://comstat.comesa.int

**FAO.** 2020. *Global Forest Resources Assessment.* Rome., FAO. 186 p.

**FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO.** 2021. *The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021. (SOFI) Transforming food systems for food security, improved nutrition and affordable healthy diets for all.* Rome, FAO. 240 p. (also available at https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb4474en/)

**FAOSTAT.** Food balances (2014). http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS

**FAOSTAT Data.** https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data

Harris, J., Chisanga, B., Drimie, S. & Kennedy, G. 2019. *Nutrition transition in Zambia: changing food supply, food prices, household consumption, diet and nutrition outcomes.* Food Security, 11:371–387

Hichaambwa, M. 2012. *Urban consumption patterns of livestock products in Zambia and implications for policy.* IAPRI Working Paper No. 65. Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute (IAPRI). Lusaka, Zambia.
Hichaambwa, M., Beaver, M., Chapoto, A. & Weber, M. 2009. *Patterns of urban food consumption and expenditure in Zambia: an overview report Based on the CSO/MACO/FSRP Food Consumption Survey in Urban Areas of Lusaka, Kitwe, Mansa and Kasama, 2007–2008.* IAPRI Working Paper No. 43. Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute (IAPRI). Lusaka, Zambia.

Mwanamwenge, M. & Harris, J. 2017. *Agriculture, food systems, diets and nutrition in Zambia: sustainable diets for all*. Discussion Paper, IIED/Hivos.

Hunter, R., Crespo, O., Coldrey, K., Cronin, K. & New, M. 2020. *Research highlights – Climate change and future crop suitability in Zambia*. University of Cape Town, South Africa, undertaken in support of Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP) Phase 2. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Rome.

Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute (IAPRI) & World Food Programme (WFP). 2018. *Zambia Zero Hunger Strategic Review Report*. Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute. Lusaka, Zambia.

Keneni, G., Bekele, E., Imtiaz, M. & Dagne, K. 2012. *Genetic vulnerability of modern crop cultivars: causes, mechanism and remedies*. International Journal of Plant Research 2(3): 69–79

Mason, N.M., Jayne, T.S. & Mofya-Mukuka, R. 2013. *A review of Zambia's agricultural input subsidy programs: targeting, impacts, and the way forward*. IAPRI Working Paper No. 77. Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute (IAPRI). Lusaka, Zambia.

Ministry of Agriculture. 2020. *The Crop Forecasting Survey of the 2019/2020 Agricultural Season and the Food Balance Status for the 2020/2021 Marketing Season*. Lusaka, Zambia.

Ministry of Agriculture, Government of the Republic of Zambia and IFAD. 2021. *Report of Final Programme Evaluation – Smallholder Productivity Promotion Programme*. Ministry of Agriculture, Government of the Republic of Zambia and International Fund for Agricultural Development. Lusaka, Zambia.

Mofya-Mukuka, R. & Hichaambwa, M. 2018. *Livelihood Effects of Crop Diversification: A Panel Data Analysis of Rural Farm Households in Zambia*. Food Security, 10 (6) 1449–1462.

Mofya-Mukuka, R. & Singogo, F. 2020. *Zambia food security and nutrition report*. Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute (IAPRI). Lusaka, Zambia.

Mulenga, B.P., Wineman, A. & Sitko, N. 2017. *Climate trends and farmers’ perceptions of climate change in Zambia*. Environmental Management, 59:291–306.

Namonje-Kapembwa T., Chiwawa, H. & Sitko, N. 2016. *Value chain analysis of goats in Zambia: challenges and opportunities of linking smallholders to markets*. IAPRI Working Paper No. 117. Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute (IAPRI). Lusaka, Zambia.

Namonje-Kapembwa, T. & Samboko, P. 2017. *Assessing the profitability of small-scale aquaculture fish production in Zambia*. IAPRI Working Paper No. 123. Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute (IAPRI). Lusaka, Zambia.
**Ngoma, H., Lupiya, P., Kabisa, M. & Hartley, F.** 2020. *Impacts of climate change on agriculture and household welfare in Zambia*. SA-TIED Working Paper #132.

**National Food and Nutrition Commission (NFNC).** 2021. *FSA stakeholder interviews* (unpublished).

**Population Council & United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).** 2018. *State of the youth in Zambia: education, unemployment, and poverty reduction*. Policy Brief, Lusaka, Zambia.

**Thurlow J., Zhu T. & Diao X.** 2012. *Current climate variability and future climate change: estimated growth and poverty impacts for Zambia*. Review of Development Economics, (3) 16:394–411

**United Nations.** 2015. *Zambia country analysis summary report*. United Nations, Lusaka, Zambia.
http://zm.one.un.org/sites/default/files/un_country_analysis_report.pdf

**UNdata.** Zambia. *Environment and infrastructure indicators*. http://data.un.org/en/iso/zm.html

**World Bank.** 2019a. *Productive Diversification of African Agriculture and its Effects on Resilience and Nutrition*. Heumesser, C., and Kray, H. A., eds. The World Bank Group, Washington DC.

**World Bank.** 2019b. *Access to electricity – Zambia*. The World Bank Group, Washington DC. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS?locations=ZM

**World Bank.** 2020. *Population, total - Zambia*. The World Bank Group, Washington DC.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=ZM

**World Bank.** 2021. *Zambia's Farmer Input Support Program and Recommendations for Re-designing the Program*. The World Bank Group, Washington DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/35801

**World Food Programme (WFP).** 2020. *Fill the Nutrient Gap Zambia – Summary Report*. Lusaka and Rome. https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000131212/download/?_ga=2.53084961.888956369.1637862181302437277.1637862181

**Zambia Development Agency.** Undated. *Agro-Processing Sector Profile*. Lusaka, Zambia.

**Zambia Statistics Agency, Ministry of Agriculture & Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute.** 2012. *Rural Agricultural Livelihoods Survey, 2012*. Lusaka, Zambia.

**Zambia Statistics Agency, Ministry of Agriculture & Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute.** 2015. *Rural Agricultural Livelihoods Survey, 2015*. Lusaka, Zambia.

**Zambia Statistics Agency, Ministry of Health Zambia & ICF.** 2019. *Zambia Demographic and Health Survey 2018*. Lusaka, Zambia, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: Zambia Statistics Agency, Ministry of Health, and ICF.
Acknowledgements

The following people contributed to this note: Mark Fynn, Celine Dutilly, Munguzwe Hichaambwa, Brian Mulenga (consultants); Geoffrey Chomba (FAO/Zambia); Iva Stamenova, Cristina Soriani (EU Delegation/Zambia); Freddie Mubanga (NFNC/Zambia); Claire Orbell (CIRAD); Kanika Garg, James Tefft, Patrick Herlant (FAO).

Editing and formatting: Rex Merrifield, Alan Cooper, Polly Butowsky
<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

© Jeff Walker/CIFOR (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

© Felix Clay (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>