MASP IV · Data Platform
East & Central Africa · 2026–2030
Solidaridad
← All themes

Incomes & Livelihoods

Household and farm income, living income gaps, and how value is shared along the chain.
Moderate evidence22 studies · updated Oct 2026

Income results differ by commodity: coffee programmes and oil palm growers report higher incomes and dairy became more commercial, but maize farmers started at a loss, fresh-produce farmers keep only 11–20% of value, tea workers earn well below a living wage and most artisanal gold miners earn under USD 50 a week. The only controlled study found no profit improvement.

Key evidence

  • TRACE Kenya reported average household coffee income rising from KES 34,293 to KES 66,893 (95%) and the average cherry price from KES 57 to KES 81 per kg; 90% of surveyed farmers reported income gains. TRACE Kenya · Endline · 2025
  • PACE in Tanzania reported household income up 14% over baseline to TZS 4.66 million, with coffee's share of household income rising from 47.6% to 75.2%. PACE · Midline
  • In the Coffee Resilience programme, 44% of farmers in Kenya and Uganda and 36% in Tanzania reported higher household income. PFC · Endline · 2022
  • F4APK found productivity, profit and food-security outcomes did not improve relative to control groups, although dairy commercialisation increased. F4APK · Endline · 2020
  • Dairy: in F4APK the share of milk sold to dairy cooperatives rose by 40% relative to the 50% baseline share, and the dairy share of production acreage rose from 22% to 35%. F4APK · Endline · 2020
  • Oil palm: Kalangala households growing oil palm earned UGX 26.2 million over 12 months against UGX 4.4 million for non-growers. NOPP · Baseline
  • Maize: at baseline, Bungoma farmers spent KES 36,173 per acre against sales of KES 27,717 per acre, producing at a loss. CSV · Baseline
  • Gold: 63.8% of P2P artisanal miners earned less than USD 50 a week (68.4% of women, 59.9% of men). P2P · Baseline
  • In four Kenyan fresh produce chains the farmer took 11% (tomatoes) to 20% (mangoes) of net value, with brokers, wholesalers and retailers capturing most of the margin. RS! · Thematic study
  • Coffee farmers selling red cherry earned a margin of about US$0.08/kg in Kenya and US$0.15/kg in Uganda, against US$9.6/kg and US$6.6/kg if they roast. RS! · Thematic study
  • Kenyan tea smallholders received 73.5% of auction prices in 2022, but a 1-acre farmer nets about KES 110,505 a year, only 14% above the agricultural minimum wage; tea workers in both countries earn 35–68% of a living wage. RS! · Thematic study
  • Gold mine-site prices (about US$35.5–36.8 per gram) were close to the raw 18-karat price (US$39.5); miners' low returns came mainly from recovering only 25–40% of the gold, high costs and ore-sharing arrangements. RS! · Thematic study

In figures

Who captures the value in Kenyan fresh produce%
Farmer Broker Wholesaler Retailer Transporter Other / not stated
Tomatoes
11Tomatoes
Farmer: 11%
26Tomatoes
Broker: 26%
10Tomatoes
Wholesaler: 10%
31Tomatoes
Retailer: 31%
11Tomatoes
Transporter: 11%
11Tomatoes
Other / not stated: 11%
Onions
14Onions
Farmer: 14%
11Onions
Broker: 11%
35Onions
Wholesaler: 35%
32Onions
Retailer: 32%
Onions
Other / not stated: 8%
Bananas
16Bananas
Farmer: 16%
20Bananas
Broker: 20%
29Bananas
Wholesaler: 29%
24Bananas
Retailer: 24%
11Bananas
Other / not stated: 11%
Mangoes
20Mangoes
Farmer: 20%
26Mangoes
Broker: 26%
14Mangoes
Wholesaler: 14%
24Mangoes
Retailer: 24%
Mangoes
Transporter: 6%
10Mangoes
Other / not stated: 10%

Share of net value along each chain. "Other / not stated" is the remainder the study does not assign to a named actor; banana wholesalers include ripening and distribution companies.

RS! · Thematic study
Data table
ItemFarmerBrokerWholesalerRetailerTransporterOther / not stated
Tomatoes112610311111
Onions1411353208
Bananas16202924011
Mangoes20261424610

Change over time

What works

What holds results back

Recommendations for programming

Evidence gaps & caveats

  • Studies measure income in different ways (total household income, coffee income, self-rated change, value shares), so results are not comparable across projects.
  • Few endlines have reliable sales and price data; FOSEK had none.
  • Living income benchmarks are only used in the tea study.

Why this evidence rating: Several endlines and four value-chain studies give consistent signals, but income data are mostly self-reported and uncontrolled, and the one controlled study found no profit gain.

Source studies (22)