How savings groups and marketing clubs are the basis of resilience in agricultural and rural businesses

In almost all African countries, first – hand knowledge on sustainable rural and agricultural financing is in the hands of rural savings groups and marketing clubs at informal agriculture markets. Since agriculture is the mainstay of these economies, saving and lending practices tend to revolve around agriculture-related economic drivers. To a large extent, the performance of savings groups is tied to the seasonality of agricultural commodities.

eMkambo

Agriculture commodity-based savings groups in Sakubva market, Mutare – Zimbabwe

Given the reluctance of formal financial institutions to invest in rural areas and informal agriculture markets, it is highly likely that 80% of the food consumed in rural and urban areas is financed by rural savings groups and marketing clubs in agriculture markets. As an extension of informal agriculture markets and rural economies, these informal financial institutions are also referred to as community-based financial institutions (CBFIs). Given the broadening definition of ‘community’ in line with communication technology and social media, CBFIs are increasingly assuming a new identity.

The oldest forms of CBFIs are rotating savings and credit associations (ROSCA) and accumulating savings and credit associations (ASCAs). Most CBFI models are user-owned and user-managed. They are common among rural households and informal agriculture markets in the absence of institutional finance. While some models remain informal, some have legal structures and are registered with different authorities such as the savings and credit cooperative societies (SACCOs).

In eastern and southern Africa these informal financial institutions exist alongside formal financial sector structures. Similar to West Africa, these structures go by many names: Chilimba (Zambia), Chilemba (Uganda), Chiperegani (Malawi), Chama (Kenya & Tanzania), Ungalebo/Stokvel (South Africa), Xitiques (Mozambique) and mukando (Zimbabwe). They have become foundations of savings group models being promoted by various NGOs. The way many microfinance institutions (MFIs) are structured borrows a lot from these savings schemes in terms of social capital and group practices.

Recognizing the importance of savings group models in reaching unbanked remote rural households, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) has in the past 10 years supported financial inclusion using these models in six countries: Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Uganda, Tanzania and Zambia. In Lesotho, IFAD’s Rural Financial Intermediation Programme (RUFIP) supported Catholic Relief Services’s (CRS) savings and internal lending communities (SILC) methodology as a community-based approach to address financial inclusion of marginalized populations. The RUFIP worked with CARE and CRS in Lesotho to address cases of overlapping and duplication of effort. Due to outreach mapping, CRS had to redeploy its field staff in areas where CARE had no presence.

The Village Development Committees (VDCs) model has been introduced in Malawi and eventually linked to Opportunity International Bank of Malawi. In Tanzania, IFAD-funded programmes include the Agricultural Marketing Systems Development Programme; and Market Infrastructure, Value Addition and Rural Finance Programme. In Uganda the intervention is known as Programmes and Project for Financial Inclusion in Rural Areas (PROFIRA). Catholic Relief Services and CARE have also taken a leading role. For Zambia, savings group’s networks like Save-NET have gone a long way in addressing the challenge of financial inclusion in remote rural areas.

Savings groups and agriculture markets

In Zimbabwe, savings group’s models have naturally evolved and increased in both rural and urban areas following economic decline and slow growth. Farmers and traders have not stopped innovating because banks have collapsed. Most of these groups are organized around individual contributions ranging from labour, foodstuff to money. These resources are accumulated and given to one person at a time until the whole cycle is finished. The same routine normally occurs in subsequent cycles. With time the groups increasingly focus on monetary contributions and some eventually become informal finance schemes that are efficient in financial intermediation. A significant proportion of food in the market travels on the rails of informal savings groups which oil the exchange of money between farmers, traders and consumers. The following analysis focuses on Mbare Agriculture market where informal savings played a fundamental role in moving food from farmers to the market and to consumers during the month of April 2015 as in other months.

April 2015 Mbare Agriculture Market Analysis

A total of 4292 farmers supplied 41 types of agricultural commodities to Mbare Agricultural Market during the month of April 2015 generating a collective Estimated Revenue (ER) of $ 1,790,611.00, an increase from March’s E R by 14%. All these being equal, each farmer took home an average Estimated Revenue of $ 417.20 which is about the same amount if not more than what is earned by formally employed people in Zimbabwe.

Table 1: produce supplied to the market

eMkambo2

Table 2: Produce Classes supplied to the market

0123

The above table shows all commodities supplied to the market, quantity (in respective units of measurement and tonnage) and the ER for each product type.

Table 3: E R by produce class

eMkambo3

At almost US$59 000, wild fruits are a significant player in the market and most of these fruits come from rural districts like Buhera, Muzarabani and Gokwe, among others.

Chart 1: E R Share per produce class

eMkambo4

Table 4: E R by Province

emkambo5

Table 5: E R by District

emkambo6emkambo7eMkambo 7

Table 6: Top Ten E R earning produce

emkambo8

In Zimbabwe, April is the peak month for most field crops like groundnuts which is why they scored more than onions and apples. Potatoes are often low in the farmers market because they usually go directly into the wholesale market which is a different market.

Table 7: Gender disparities

emkambo9

As in all other months, in April the farmers market was dominated by men more than women. Efforts are underway to address this gender disparity.

Some of the recommendations and lessons

Savings Groups (SGs) have played and continue to play a major role in addressing rural and agricultural finance. Some of the lessons and recommendations include:

  • Linking community-based financial institutions to the formal financial sector requires fulfilment of some preconditions for success. Formal financial institutions have to understand the context in which potential lenders and savers operate (rural areas and dynamic markets).
  • Aggregating community-based financial institutions is critical in order to better access formal sector services while creating effective market engagement through economies of scale.
  • Enhancing digital financial services infrastructure may play a key role in expanding the scope for financial inclusion among the unbanked.       However, lessons from some countries indicate digital financial inclusion is not as inclusive as claimed because even among professionals usage is limited.
  • Linking the informal financial sector with other government and NGO programmes that provide additional financial and non-financial services such as adult literacy programmes creates empowered groups good for business with formal sector service providers.

One word of caution

Resilience is often compromised where development partners and NGOs try to be in the forefront of financial inclusion programmes ahead of local financial institutions or the private sector. In some communities of Zimbabwe, group members have refused to pay back loans due to the fact that a donor had injected some capital into a community-based financial institution. Those who refused to pay felt that since it was donor money there was no need to repay.

 

More information:

Charles@knowledgetransafrica.com / charles@emkambo.co.zw

Clever@knowledgetransafrica.com / clever@emkambo.co.zw

tafadzwa@knowledgetransafrica.com / tafadzwa@emkambo.co.zw

tenjiwe@knowledgetransafrica.com / tenjiwe@emkambo.co.zw

farai@knowledgetransafrica.com / farai@emkambo.co.zw

wilson@knowledgetransafrica.com / wilson@emkambo.co.zw

tembie@knowledgetransafrica.com / thembi@emkambo.co.zw

tariromk@knowledgetransafrica.com / tariro@emkambo.co.zw

Laizah@knowledgetransafrica.com / laizah@emkambo.co.zw

Website: www.emkambo.co.zw / www.knowledgetransafrica.com

eMkambo Call Centre:

0771 859000-5

0716 331140-5 / 0739 866 343-6

Advertisements

How can we use evidence to translate awareness into new agricultural practice?

More than 20 African countries were represented at a rural and agricultural finance conference held in Harare, Zimbabwe from 10 to 12 June 2015. A fundamental question that grabbed all participants is: How can we use existing knowledge to improve rural and agricultural financing? Tons of publications and suggestions have been produced and continue to be produced on issues affecting African agriculture. Everyone knows that agriculture is central to African economies yet the sector receives less finance from banks. About 500 million smallholder farming families (more than 2 billion people) rely on agricultural production. About 75% of the population in Africa reside in rural areas and depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. In the SADC region, agriculture contributes between 4% and 27% of GDP and approximately 13% of overall export earnings in the member countries. It is estimated that the continent’s agricultural output could more than triple from USD 280 billion to USD 880 billion by 2030 if farmers were able to access finance they need to expand both the quality and quantity of their produce. Yet even in countries where non – performing loans are below 10%, financial institutions are reluctant to finance agriculture. In the face of existing evidence, why can’t we find solutions to obvious challenges?

Fighting perceptions with evidence

Since there seems to be a perception problem around rural and agricultural financing, how do we use evidence to correct all these perceptions? It looks like all the knowledge in Africa is not helping us in solving some of these key challenges. While social media is supposed to make the invisible more visible, at individual level we seem to be drowning in too much information such that we can’t assist each other. Building awareness has to be complemented with exploration of alternatives. For how long are we going to continue answering research questions with more research?

One of the myths uncovered during the Harare conference is the perception that rural communities do not save money. The power of rural communities to save is revealed by how they continue participating in agriculture markets. Participants concurred that fixing the market is an alternative route to ensuring rural and agricultural financing in African countries. While formal banks tend to move money from communities or markets to the stock market, community savings groups have smart ways of locking money in the communities leading to growth.

 

 

Evidence from the market

All participants in the conference concurred about the supreme role of agriculture markets in stimulating and sustaining rural and agriculture finance. The analysis below is a solid testimony to the power of agriculture markets:

Mbare, Harare wholesale market analysis – April 2015

A total of twelve agricultural commodities were supplied to Mbare wholesale market during the month of April 2015 generating an estimated revenue (ER) of $ 1,475,657.00 an increase from March’s figure of $ 987,460.00 by 49.43%.

Table 1: E R by Produce type, tonnage and percentage share of total ER

eMkambo

Graph 1: produce supplied in tons.

eMkambo

Table 2: E R by province

eMkambo2

Chart 1: E R share by province

eMkambo

Table 3: Estimated Revenue (E R) by district

eMkambo

All the districts mentioned above would not have received such respective incomes if there was no market. More farmers and rural people can benefit if markets are improved.

 

More information:

Charles@knowledgetransafrica.com / charles@emkambo.co.zw

Clever@knowledgetransafrica.com / clever@emkambo.co.zw

tafadzwa@knowledgetransafrica.com / tafadzwa@emkambo.co.zw

tenjiwe@knowledgetransafrica.com / tenjiwe@emkambo.co.zw

farai@knowledgetransafrica.com / farai@emkambo.co.zw

wilson@knowledgetransafrica.com / wilson@emkambo.co.zw

tembie@knowledgetransafrica.com / thembi@emkambo.co.zw

tariromk@knowledgetransafrica.com / tariro@emkambo.co.zw

Laizah@knowledgetransafrica.com / laizah@emkambo.co.zw

Website: www.emkambo.co.zw / www.knowledgetransafrica.com

 

eMkambo Call Centre:

0771 859000-5

0716 331140-5

0739 866 343-6

Why injecting money in agriculture markets is the best way of financing rural areas

In many African countries such as Zimbabwe, banks, micro finance institutions and insurance companies are concentrated in urban areas. With 70% of the population living in rural areas, it follows the majority have no access to financial services. Many banks no longer have functional branches in rural areas. Since the bulk of commodities flowing into urban food markets like Mbare (Harare), Sakubva (Mutare), Garikayi (Gweru), eMalaleni (Bulawayo), Chikonohono (Chinhoyi) come from rural areas, injecting money into these markets is the only way of financing rural areas.

eMkambo

While banks still think financing agriculture should target the farmer as the main recipient of the loan, in Zimbabwe there is enough evidence showing that when traders have money, such money end up with farmers in Mutoko, Chipinge, Murewa, Gokwe, Mhondoro, Mwenezi, Muzarabani and many other rural areas which supply commodities to the people’s market. The table below shows amounts of revenue that migrated from Mbare Agriculture market to diverse rural areas in Zimbabwe from January to March 2015:

Expected Revenue (E R)
DISTRICT JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH TOTAL PERCENTAGE
MHONDORO $ 146,649.00 $ 208,704.62 $ 239,892.20 $ 595,245.82 14%
MUTASA $ 165,442.50 $ 213,380.30 $ 195,112.60 $ 573,935.40 13.43%
MUREHWA $ 171,134.00 $159,165.28 $ 226,284.17 $ 556,583.44 13.03%
MUTOKO $ 120,120.50 $ 117,674.62 $  262,207.32 $ 500,002.44 11.70%
MAKONI $ 195,809.00 $ 145,415.43 $ 94,543.88 $ 435,768.31 10.20%
HARARE $ 155,941.00 $ 165,076.10 $ 112,571.19 $ 433,588.29 10.15%
GOROMONZI $ 106,773.00 $ 94,851.08 $ 87,401.60 $ 289,025.68 6.76%
WEDZA $ 49,203.00 $ 56,567.17 $ 51,870.09 $ 157,640.26 3.69%
SHAMVA $ 32,143.00 $ 43,531.23 $ 42,642.94 $ 118,317.17 2.77%
MARONDERA $ 50,061.00 $ 35,486.92 $ 24,544.79 $ 110,092.71 2.58%
CHIMANIMANI $ 22,160.00 $  30,221.60 $  54,737.00 $ 107,118.60 2.51%
MAZOWE $ 37,577.00 $ 25,955.85 $ 33,528.07 $  97,060.92 2.27%
NYANGA $ 17,592.00 $ 11,394.33 $ 28,874.44 $ 57,860.77 1.35%
BUHERA $  1,056.00 $  7,217.25 $ 35,558.00 $  43,831.25 1.03%
U M P $ 11,634.00 $ 15,060.98 $ 12,741.99 $ 39,436.97 0.92%
SEKE $  9,940.00 $  7,899.40 $  940.70 $ 18,780.10 0.44%
BINDURA $  8,625.00 $  5,746.33 $4,323.65 $ 18,694.98 0.44%
MASVINGO $ 3,756.00 $ 7,320.63 $  6,231.00 $17,307.63 0.41%
CHIKOMBA $  9,159.00 $ 1,166.40 $ 3,676.40 $ 14,001.80 0.33%
CHIRIMUHANZU $  168.00 $     – $  13,063.32 $ 13,231.32 0.31%
GOKWE SOUTH $  840.00 $   434.50 $ 11,700.00 $ 12,974.50 0.30%
ZVIMBA $ 5,351.00 $ 1,238.79 $  2,886.88 $ 9,476.67 0.22%
CHIPINGE $  672.00 $  5,020.54 $ 3,598.00 $   9,290.54 0.22%
BEIT-BRIDGE $   – $    – $  8,856.00 $ 8,856.00 0.21%
CHEGUTU $  5,225.00 $ 631.75 $ 2,928.60 $  8,785.35 0.21%
GURUVE $  838.00 $ 871.18 $  4,989.80 $ 6,698.98 0.16%
CHIREDZI $ 1,396.00 $ 1,089.90 $   3,690.00 $  6,175.90 0.14%
GWERU $  1,200.00 $ 1,613.20 $   – $  2,813.20 0.07%
MUTARE $   – $   200.00 $  2,191.52 $ 2,391.52 0.06%
MT DARWIN $  195.00 $   761.28 $ 720.00 $  1,676.28 0.04%
RUSHINGA $  – $  – $ 1,584.00 $  1,584.00 0.04%
MUDZI $   84.00 $   – $  1,440.00 $ 1,524.00 0.04%
GUTU $    – $   581.28 $   614.00 $ 1,195.28 0.03%
KADOMA $   816.00 $   – $    – $  816.00 0.02%
ZAMBIA $   – $   – $ 780.00 $  780.00 0.02%
ZAKA $   225.00 $     – $   – $   225.00 0.01%
KWEKWE $  – $  164.00 $   – $ 164.00 0.00%
MAKONDE $   – $    – $  120.00 $  120.00 0.00%

TOTAL

$ 1,331,785.00 $ 1,364,441.93 $ 1,576,844.15 $ 4,273,071.08 100%

At US$ 595,245.82, Mhondoro district took away the largest share from Mbare market between January and March 2015. Mutasa, Murewa and Mutoko completed the list of districts that cloaked more than half a million dollars ($573,935.40, $556,583.44 and $ 500,002.44 respectively). All this income went back to stimulate the rural economy. Very few banks and micro finance institutions will be willing to extend such amounts of money to rural farmers.

Interestingly, Mbare agriculture market was also able to extend funds to what are normally considered low potential districts like Chimanimani ($107,118.60), Buhera ($43,831.25), Masvingo ($17,307.63), Gokwe South ($ 12,974.50), Chipinge ($ 9,290.54), Beitbridge ($ 8,856.00), Guruve ($ 6,698.98) and Chiredzi ($6,175.90). Also visible on the market were Mt Darwin, Rushinga, Mudzi and Gutu district where ttere are no banking services for farmers and rural artisans.

Availability of a ready market as a finance model in its own right

Zimbabwe has reached a stage where the market is a key determinant of success or failure. Availability of a market has become a finance model in its own right. If a market enables a farmer to meet the cost of production and remain with a profit from a particular market, such a market is as good as a finance model. If financial institutions and development partners are keen to finance agriculture they should do it via the market. By doing so, they will be financing production plus profit as illustrated in this scenario:

If a farmer takes 60kg of butternuts to the market at a production cost of $50 and sells the commodity at $65,s/ he gets $15 profit (30% plus profit). If you multiply that by 10 (months) = $150 which the farmer can re-invest in the land to increase production. Let us compare this farmer with another farmer who obtains a loan to produce butternuts. The farmer produces 60kg butternuts at a production cost of $50 and if s/he gets $15 profit, $10 goes to loan repayment and s/he is left with $5 x 10 (months) = $50. This farmer is trapped in poverty since s/he will continue borrowing.

If you want farmers to grow, encourage them to grow products that meet market standards and expectations. Extending loans to traders specializing in potato means the money will end up with farmers who specialize in potato production. These traders go and buy from farmers at prices that cover costs, leaving farmers with enough to increase production. Strong relationships are also created between farmers and traders because farmers will be assured of income while traders are assured of good quality products.

If a financial institution extends $10 000 to traders in Mbare, farmers end up with the $10 000 while traders will start selling commodities worth $10 000 which can end up growing to $13 000. On the other hand, the farmer has bought inputs worth $10 000 from the input supplier toward continued production. The trader has enough money to go back and buy from the farmer while the farmer continues to produce. Through a multiplier effect, the initial $10 000 injected in the market will generate business worth more than $30 000. Where a financial institution gives $10 000 directly to a farmer and the farmer buys inputs, chances are that the market won’t be able to buy the farmer’s produce because traders have no money. The farmer is unable to go back for more inputs because produce has not been bought. The whole chain collapses at once.

Financing rural areas through the market increases the multiplier effect of money more than would happen if funding is given to farmers without a clear sense of market dynamics. The market can easily direct financiers who to give loans. Those who bring commodities to the market and participate in the market clearly receive loans while those not participating cannot do so ahead of market actors. This is an example of a viable rural finance model.

Another variation of this model is target financing informed by the market calendar. In most cases traders order as per demand using market trends. They allow the market to be an assessor for the farmer. This is about financing the crop not the farmer. Often it is difficult for a commodity to introduce itself to the market and immediately start competing against commodities that will have established themselves in the market and have chosen their companions.

Financing via market as a national imperative

Injecting money in the market should be a national strategic imperative. If banks inject $5 million today, by year end it will be $150 million due to short cycle crop calendars and the diversity of commodities which will drive the multiplier effect of the injected money. Small pockets of money from micro finance institutions are important for short term problem solving but a strategic intervention at national level should see banks thinking big and using the market as a powerful business institution. Seventy percent (70%) of money injected in Mbare market can end up with farmers in Mutoko, Murewa, and Manicaland and Mashonaland West provinces. Sixty percent (60%) of money injected in Bindura market will end up with farmers surrounding Bindura market. The same for money injected in Masvingo, Mutare, Gweru and other areas, which ends up in the pockets of farmers in those areas. If bakeries can agree to sell a loaf of bread for a dollar for many years, why can’t banks agree to introduce one financial package for agriculture market towards reviving Zimbabwean agriculture? Unfortunately, each bank tries to create its own product and group of people to finance without looking at the bigger picture. Financial institutions urgently need to upgrade their skills so that they can be able to see both the fish and the water.

More information:

Charles@knowledgetransafrica.com / charles@emkambo.co.zw

Clever@knowledgetransafrica.com / clever@emkambo.co.zw

tafadzwa@knowledgetransafrica.com / tafadzwa@emkambo.co.zw

tenjiwe@knowledgetransafrica.com / tenjiwe@emkambo.co.zw

farai@knowledgetransafrica.com / farai@emkambo.co.zw

wilson@knowledgetransafrica.com / wilson@emkambo.co.zw

tembie@knowledgetransafrica.com / thembi@emkambo.co.zw

tariromk@knowledgetransafrica.com / tariro@emkambo.co.zw

Laizah@knowledgetransafrica.com / laizah@emkambo.co.zw

Website: www.emkambo.co.zw / www.knowledgetransafrica.com

 

eMkambo Call Centre:

0771 859000-5

0716 331140-5

0739 866 343-6

How farmers learn from emergent practices than best practices

While many organisations design top-down training and ‘capacity building’ programmes for farmers and rural communities, a recent eMKambo survey has shown that farmers and traders learn more from emergent practices than ‘best’ practices. In some areas, social media is exacerbating this trend. Using their own intelligence, farmers observe and organize what is going on around them. They don’t just apply what they hear from advertisements or any kind of self-promotion. They learn by reflecting on what they observe, calling up memories and creating new narratives from new patterns.

eMKambo recently gathered views from a cross section of farmers around Zimbabwe in relation to maize seed varieties under a changing climate. Although very few farmers are aware of the history of maize in Zimbabwe, they can tell the difference between a good and mediocre seed variety. In this particular survey, farmers were asked to rank seed varieties and produce a list of 11 players that could form a national seed variety team. Below is how and partly why maize varieties were ranked in the 2014/15 farming season by farmers who shared their experiences and insights:

eMkambo

eMkambo2

The above class of varieties is mainly for good rainfall areas (mainly natural regions 2 A and B) which include: Mazowe, Bindura, Mvurwi, Shamva, Marondera, Macheke, Norton, Karoi, Mhangura, Raffingora, Chinhoyi, Banket, Glendale, Concession, Beatrice, Nyanga, Murewa, Goromonzi and some parts of Chegutu, Umguza and Esigodini. Since some of these areas now receive erratic rainfall due to climate change, the farmers were concerned with Zimbabwe may soon be without a team of first 11 commercial maize varieties.

The farmers also went on to rank varieties for middle rainfall areas such as Rusape, Mt Darwin, Muzarabani, Guruve, Kadoma, Headlands as well as parts of Gokwe and Mutoko. Below is the classification of four varieties suitable for these areas:

eMkambo3

Varieties for dry areas

The farmers also came up with varieties for dry areas such as Masvingo, Muzarabani, Mvuma, Chivi, Buhera, Dorowa, Chipinge, Nyanyadzi, Gokwe South as well as parts of Matebeleland South and North provinces. Below is the ranking:

eMkambo4

Responding to Climate Change

According to farmers, with increasing climate change, varieties which require a long season will be phased out or they will be produced under irrigation. This range of varieties may be replaced by those currently suitable for medium rainfall areas because these varieties have proven to be resilient to moisture stress and mid-season dry spells. Although short season varieties are going to support maize production in dry areas, such production will only be for food security not commercial maize production because they don’t yield beyond four tons per hectare even if you pour a lot of inputs.

The majority of farmers concurred that companies and government research stations should go back to the laboratory and re-design their seed genetics for resilience to moisture stress and problems such as flooding which require a crop that can stand firm. Ability to withstand flooding will be a key production parameter in low lying areas like Muzarabani and the Zambezi Valley. Quick germination under low moisture levels is also going to be a very important characteristic. Ideal seed will have to force itself to germinate with little moisture. Germination determines plant population and yield.

From the above survey, eMKambo, it has become clear that farmers do their own experiments and make decisions on what seed to plant based on strong observations and reflections. They know that learning doesn’t happen in a straight line or top down manner as prescribed by some organisations. Social media is accelerating farmers’ confidence in the current age of experimentation where individuals will have to take control of their learning and work in order to be creative. Some of the farmers keep this information to themselves and use it privately to make decisions. Seed companies, farmer organisations and policy makers should invest in accessing such feedback if they are to remain relevant. This will feed into collective learning.

All farmers expressed the view that solutions to Zimbabwean agriculture will not come from industrial agriculture alone but a combination of approaches. Most farmers have seen the limitations of industrial agriculture and the limitations of their own age-old practice. In the same vein, they have seen the best of the two with which they are dancing. Perhaps a winning formula will come farmers’ ability to adapt knowledge as opposed to completely absorbing what is coming from one direction.

More information:

Charles@knowledgetransafrica.com / charles@emkambo.co.zw

Clever@knowledgetransafrica.com / clever@emkambo.co.zw

tafadzwa@knowledgetransafrica.com / tafadzwa@emkambo.co.zw

tenjiwe@knowledgetransafrica.com / tenjiwe@emkambo.co.zw

farai@knowledgetransafrica.com / farai@emkambo.co.zw

wilson@knowledgetransafrica.com / wilson@emkambo.co.zw

tembie@knowledgetransafrica.com / thembi@emkambo.co.zw

tariromk@knowledgetransafrica.com / tariro@emkambo.co.zw

Laizah@knowledgetransafrica.com / laizah@emkambo.co.zw

Website: www.emkambo.co.zw / www.knowledgetransafrica.com

 

eMkambo Call Centre:

0771 859000-5

0716 331140-5

0739 866 343-6