By Kilimokwanza

Arusha and Kilimanjaro sit beside each other on the map, share a climate zone shaped by Mount Kilimanjaro, and are often grouped together in development programming. The July 2025 research brief titled Vegetable, Fruit, and Staple Crop Production and Input Use: Baseline Findings from the FRESH End-to-End Evaluation (Tanzania Evaluation, Research Brief 3, July 2025), which assessed agricultural production across 1,968 farming households drawn from 33 villages across five districts in both regions, suggests that this administrative proximity conceals meaningful agricultural differences that policy cannot safely ignore.

The baseline data was collected between October 2023 and January 2024 by researchers from IFPRI, the World Vegetable Center, the National Institute of Medical Research Mwanza, and Sokoine University of Agriculture. What it reveals, when broken down by region, is a tale of two farming systems.

Who Is Farming Vegetables, and Where

The most fundamental difference between the two regions is participation in vegetable farming. In Arusha, 59% of farming households grew vegetables. In Kilimanjaro, only 28% did. This twofold gap in vegetable farming participation is one of the most consequential findings in the brief, and it suggests that the barriers to vegetable cultivation, whether land, labour, market access, or cultural practice, operate differently and more severely in Kilimanjaro than in Arusha.

The types of vegetables grown also differ substantially. In Arusha, African nightshade, collard greens, tomatoes, spinach, and green cabbage were more frequently cultivated. In Kilimanjaro, amaranth, pumpkin leaves, Ethiopian mustard greens, cowpea leaves, and other vegetables dominated. The Kilimanjaro vegetable basket is more diverse in its leafy greens and more rooted in traditional and indigenous varieties. The Arusha basket includes more commercially oriented crops.

Input Use: Arusha Applies More of Everything

Across almost every vegetable examined, input use was higher in Arusha than Kilimanjaro. Fertiliser use for African nightshade was 88% in Arusha versus 80% in Kilimanjaro. For collard greens, it was 84% versus 88%, one of the few cases where Kilimanjaro exceeded Arusha. For amaranth, the difference was 83% in Arusha against 64% in Kilimanjaro. For spinach, 89% against 80%.

The gap in inorganic fertiliser use was more pronounced. For African nightshade, 30% of Arusha households used inorganic fertiliser against 7% in Kilimanjaro. For collard greens, 28% against 4%. For spinach, 27% against 7%. Kilimanjaro vegetable farmers are using primarily organic inputs, while Arusha farmers are more likely to supplement with inorganic fertiliser.

Pesticide use showed a similar pattern. For African nightshade, 57% of Arusha households used any pesticide against 42% in Kilimanjaro. For collard greens, 60% against 41%. For amaranth, 45% against 18%. Arusha’s vegetable farming system is operating with significantly higher chemical input intensity across the board.

Yields: A Mixed Picture

Higher input use in Arusha does not consistently translate into higher yields, which is itself an important finding. For African nightshade, Arusha yields were higher at 4.7 tons per hectare compared to 3.3 in Kilimanjaro. For tomatoes, Arusha averaged 4.1 tons per hectare against 3.1 in Kilimanjaro. For spinach and green cabbage, Arusha also led.

But for collard greens, Kilimanjaro outperformed significantly: 7.6 tons per hectare against 2.9 in Arusha, despite Kilimanjaro households dedicating less land to the crop. For amaranth, Kilimanjaro achieved 3.2 tons per hectare against 2.4 in Arusha. For sweet potato leaves, 6.6 tons per hectare in Kilimanjaro against 0.9 in Arusha.

These yield reversals suggest that Kilimanjaro farmers, working with lower input intensity, achieve competitive or superior results for certain traditional leafy vegetables. This may reflect agroecological advantages, varietal choices, or management practices that are more finely tuned to specific crops. It complicates any simple narrative that more inputs equal better outcomes.

Fruit Farming: Bananas Dominate Kilimanjaro

On the fruit side, the regional contrast is equally clear. Bananas were more commonly cultivated in Kilimanjaro, where 85% of fruit-farming households grew them, compared to 59% in Arusha. Avocados, papayas, mangoes, and other fruit were more common in Arusha. Kilimanjaro’s fruit system is centred on bananas, largely grown in homesteads and home gardens. Arusha’s fruit system is more varied but still dominated by tree fruits that are not subject to the intensive management that annual vegetables receive.

What This Means for Programme Design

The FRESH end-to-end evaluation is testing a single intervention approach across both regions. The baseline data suggests that the supply-side components of that intervention will need to engage with two distinct farming realities. In Arusha, where vegetable farming is already more intensive and commercially oriented, the priority may be to improve yields and varieties for crops already in the system. In Kilimanjaro, where vegetable farming participation is much lower, the challenge is partly one of expanding who is farming vegetables at all.

The endline evaluation will be the definitive test of whether the FRESH approach can move both regions in the same direction. The baseline makes clear that it is starting from different places.