i
July 2016
Scoping study to generate insights into potential value
chains and institutional arrangements in Manafwa
district, Uganda
Developing value chain innovation platforms to
improve food security in East and Southern
Africa (VIP4FS) Project (FST/2014/093)
ii
Contributing authors
Judith Oduol1, Joseph Tanui
1, Prossy Isubikalu
2, Joel Buyinza
3, Evelyne Kiptot
1, Clement
Okia4 and Florence Kyazze
2
1World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), P .O. Box 30677-00100 Nairobi
2Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062. Kampala, Uganda
3National Forestry Resources Research Institute (NaFORRI), P O Box 1752, Kampala
4World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Uganda Country Office, P .O. Box 26416, Kampala, Uganda
Correct citation:
Oduol J, Tanui
J, Isubikalu P, Buyinza
J, Kiptot
E, Okia C and Kyazze F (2016). Scoping study to
generate insights into potential value chains and institutional arrangements in Manafwa district,
Uganda, 40pp.
iii
Table of Contents
Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... vi
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... vii
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Brief background about Manafwa district/local government ........................................................ 2
2.2 Selection of scoping study sites .................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Data sources and data collection procedure .................................................................................. 3
2.4 Phasing of the scoping study ......................................................................................................... 4
3.0 Findings of the scoping study in Manafwa (Phase I) ........................................................................ 5
3.1 Enterprises that Manafwa communities engage in for a livelihood .............................................. 5
3.1.1 Crop enterprises .................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.2 Livestock enterprises........................................................................................................... 12
3.1.3 Other potential enterprises .................................................................................................. 17
3.2 Marketing and extension frameworks in Manafwa ..................................................................... 18
3.2.1 How farmers sell their produce and access market information ......................................... 18
3.2.2 Reasons for selling individually .......................................................................................... 19
3.2.3 Benefits and challenges of collective marketing ................................................................. 19
3.2.4 Interventions to facilitate collective marketing of agricultural produce in Manafwa ........ 20
3.2.5 Existing sources of credit ........................................................................................................ 21
3.3 Collective action and rural institutional arrangements in Manafwa ........................................... 22
3.3.1 Farmer groups at grass root level ........................................................................................ 22
3.3.2 What the groups engage in for a livelihood ........................................................................ 24
3.3.3 Motivation of individuals to join or drop out of groups ...................................................... 25
3.3.4 How conflicts are resolved in groups/communities ............................................................ 26
3.4 Partners working with the communities in Manafwa ................................................................. 27
3.4.1 Government partners ........................................................................................................... 27
3.4.2 Non-governmental partners ................................................................................................. 28
3.4.3 Factors influencing collaboration between the partners and farmers .................................. 29
3.4.4 Opportunities/entry points to enhance the desired collective action for VIP4FS project ... 30
4.0 Selection of the enterprises to work with under VIP4FS (Phase II&III) ....................................... 31
iv
4.1 Criteria developed to select most promising enterprises ............................................................. 31
4.2 The selected enterprises .............................................................................................................. 32
5.0 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 32
List of tables
Table 1: Income generating activities for farmers in Manafwa district .......................................... 5
Table 2: Ranking of crops enterprises across landscapes in Manafwa ........................................... 6
Table 3: Reasons for ranks assigned to crop enterprises ................................................................ 8
Table 4: Perceived importance and ranking of livestock in Manafwa district by DVO ............... 12
Table 5: Livestock enterprises in Manafwa .................................................................................. 14
Table 6: Reasons for ranks assigned to Livestock enterprises, Manafwa ..................................... 15
Table 7: Perceived ranking of group types by frequency ............................................................. 23
Table 8: Farmer groups activities in Manafwa sub counties ........................................................ 25
v
Acronyms
BTC Belgian Technical Cooperation
CAIIP Community Agricultural Infrastructure Improvement Programme
CAP Coalition for Poverty Action
CBOs Community Based Organisations
CDD Community Driven Development
CDO Community Development Officer
CHAI Community HIV/AIDS
DDA Dairy Development Authority
DLG District Local Government
DVO District Veterinary Officer
ECOTRUST Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda
FGD Focus Group Discussions
FORRI Forest Reserve Research Institute
IPS Innovation Platforms
IRDI Integrated Rural Development Initiative
KIIS Key Informant Interviews
LC Local Council
MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries
MERCEP Mount Elgon Regional Ecosystem Conservation Program
NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services
NARO National Research Organization
NEMA National Environment Management Authority
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NTEAP Nile Trans-boundary Environmental Action project
NUCAFE National Union of Coffee Agribusiness and Farm Enterprises
NUSAF Northern Uganda Social Action Fund
OWC Operation Wealth Creation
SACCOs Savings and Credit Cooperatives
SLM Sustainable Land management
TACC Territorial Approach to Climate Change
UCDA Uganda Coffee Development Authority
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
VIP4FS Value Chains Innovation Platforms for Food Security
VIPs Value Chain Innovation Platform
VODP Vegetable Oil Development project
VSLAs Village Savings and Loan Association
vi
Acknowledgements
The Value chain innovation platforms (VIP4FS) project is generously funded by the Australian
government through the Australian Centre for Agricultural Research (ACIAR).The project team
is grateful to all who made this study possible.
vii
Developing value chains innovation platforms to improve food security in East
and Southern Africa (VIP4FS)
Executive Summary
This report provides findings of the scoping study conducted in Manafwa district (23-27th
November 2015) in Uganda to identify potential value chains for upgrading and generate insights
into institutional arrangements found in the district. The information presented in the report was
gathered through key informant interviews and focus group discussions in three sub-counties of
Nalondo, Bunghofu and Bumbo, representing three major landscape levels, the lowlands,
midlands and highlands, respectively.
Enterprises in Manafwa: Producers in Manafwa dealt with a total of 16 enterprises for food and
income generation. These were broadly categorised into crop, livestock, petty trade, and
forestry/agroforestry. Farming, particularly crop production, was/is the main livelihood source
and income generating activity that smallholder farmers in the district rely on. This was followed
by livestock.
Crop enterprises: The six most important crop enterprises prioritized by farmers and key
informants in Manafwa included coffee, beans, maize, bananas, vegetables (onions,
cabbage, tomato, kales) and fruits in order of importance. The criterion used by farmers
in ranking the enterprises was mainly guided by their perception of the situation in their
area. Parameters used included the relative amount of income generated from the
enterprise (as well as sustained income generation from the enterprise throughout the
year), the number of people engaged in the enterprise for a livelihood, existing
market/demand for the enterprise (and its products), contribution to household food
security status. Other parameters were low input requirements (labour, land, and capital),
maturity period duration of the crop, and fewer production risks (pests and diseases).
Agroforestry was practised but at a fairly small scale and mainly with perennial crops like
bananas and coffee as the main intercrops. The main type of agroforestry practiced was
banana-coffee, banana-tree, and coffee-tree intercrop.
Livestock enterprises: Of the livestock types kept by farmers that included cattle, pigs,
goats and local chicken, dairy cattle was the most common and most important. Two
types of cattle are kept: the local type (for both milk and beef) and the cross type (for
milk). Distribution of the cattle types varied with topography/altitude or landscape. Cross
breeds increased with altitude while the local breed reduced with altitude. This makes the
highland to produce more milk as compared to the lowlands.
Marketing and extension: Farmers preferred and practiced individual marketing. They sold off
their produce immediately after harvesting mainly due to pressing financial needs and lack of
adequate post-harvest handling practices required to keep the desired quality of the produce.
Choice of individual marketing was based on the independence to sell own produce at will and
use of proceeds as needed by seller. Some made effort to try collective marketing but breakdown
of trust and honesty denied them the opportunities to enjoy benefits like better prices associated
from collective marketing.
viii
Farmers accessed market information mainly through fellow farmers and traders who
bought their produce. Depending on traders for market information has a side of making
farmers vulnerable to being cheated.
Credit sources – individual farmers (friends), village loan and saving schemes (VLSA)
and savings and credit cooperatives (SACCOs) formed the main credit sources to the
farmers in spite of their limited financial bases. Shunning formal financial institutions
was mainly alluded to high interest rates that did not recognise the type of enterprises that
farmers invested the loans in.
The national agricultural extension system is not yet established since the dissolution of
National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADs). The Operation Wealth Creation
(OWC) that seemed to be the new NAADs only distributes inputs and has no competence
to provide advisory services. As such, farmers are facing a vacuum on where to get
reliable advice on their enterprises. In an effort to purge the gaps, some farmers seek for
extension services from agro-input dealers. Some projects help fill this gap but at a very
limited scale.
Group institutions: In line with the government policy to provide service to a larger
community, many groups were formed especially during the period NAADs was active. Over
500 groups are registered with the district but only 50% of these are functional. The type groups
formed consist of women only, mixed, youth, and people with disabilities. Among these, the
women groups are the most common in Manafwa. These groups mainly engage in activities like
savings and credit. Other activities are poultry, crafts, vegetable growing and bean cultivation.
The groups rarely have an activity that combines all of them at the same time and place save
from savings and credit. Farmers make an effort and would wish to benefit from working
together but distrust kills the group spirit. In situations of conflict, the groups and communities
have an informal structure for conflict resolution. It is after the informal structure fails that the
law enforcement structures come in. Effort is made as much as possible to use the informal path.
Partners: A variety of local and international partners have provided agricultural related
support/services to farmers in Manafwa. In many cases, the partners that support the farming
communities are short or long term projects or programs that are implemented through the local
government. In working with partners from either category, farmers sometimes fail to benefit
from the programs/projects due to: the partners failing to respect their promises, farmers raising
high and often unrealistic expectations and impassable roads among others.
Opportunities: The situation on the ground provides opportunities that can serve as entry points
for the VIP4FS project. These include among others existence of some groups and organisations
working with the farmers; the farming system; and existence of market for the products.
1
1.0 Introduction
The Value Chains Innovation Platforms for Food Security (VIP4FS) is a research and
development project that seeks to use a participatory action research process involving different
stakeholders to improve income and food security in the project sites. VIP4FS is a four year
project funded by the Australian Government through the Australian Centre for International
Agricultural Research (ACIAR). Project sites in Uganda are in Kapchorwa and Manafwa
districts. The project is implemented by a consortium of local and international partners that
include The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), The University of Adelaide, Land care
International, Makerere University, National Agricultural Research Organisation (National
Forest Resources and Research Institute (NaFORRI) and Kapchorwa Landcare Chapter
(KADLAC). In Manafwa, the local partner is the district production office. The stakeholders at
the district (local government IV) and sub county (local government III) levels where
implementation of activities takes place are key partners in the success of this project. These
include producers, traders and processors engaged in the different enterprises. The focus of the
VIP4FS project is on how best to use innovation platforms (IPs) to increase income of actors
along the value chains of selected enterprises (coffee, dairy and honey). Analysis of institutional,
technological, market and policy factors that determine desired performance of IPs as well as
finding the most cost-effective ways of scaling up/out the value chain innovation (VIP) concept
across a range of contexts are embedded in the project. The project has a particular focus on
enabling women and young people to improve their livelihoods. The project’s goal is to be
realized through five interconnected thematic areas/objectives commonly referred to as work
packages that include the following.
i. To assess smallholder livelihoods, institutional arrangements across scales, and identify
drivers that enable value chain IP development for sustainable agricultural
commercialization;
ii. To identify best fit value chain development strategies and market information delivery
systems, and examine their influence on the success of value chain innovation platforms
in enhancing rural enterprise development;
iii. To develop and evaluate scalable approaches for promoting value chain innovation
platforms among smallholders and other stakeholders in ways that generate inclusive and
sustainable economic benefits;
iv. To engage with and strengthen the capacity of key stakeholder groups to both enhance
the research process and promote the widespread scaling up of approaches generated by
the project; and
v. To systematically monitor and review project implementation and evaluate its outcomes
and impacts.
As a starting point, the VIP4FS project needed to understand the context in terms of institutional
arrangements and potential agricultural value chains. This context was mainly to be provided
with the realities within which communities in Manafwa worked, which were not very clear yet.
2
It was against this background that a quick scoping study was conducted in November (23rd
-
27th
), 2015. The main objective of the scoping study was to generate insights for a better
understanding of what was on the ground in Manafwa so as to decide on the most appropriate
actions to undertake. Specifically, the scoping study was conducted to get a general picture on
(1) enterprises in Manafwa so as to identify the potential value chains with which to engage
under VIP4FS project; (2) existing market information delivery systems and (3) existing
institutional arrangements that would inform development of value chain IPs
2.0 Methodology
2.1 Brief background about Manafwa district/local government
Manafwa district, located in Eastern region of Uganda, is one of the five districts that make up
the greater Bugisu sub-region. It was curved out of Mbale district in 2005 and is comprised of 30
sub-counties based on the most recent national voters register posted by the Uganda Electoral
Commission (2016). The district is bordered by Bududa district to the north, the Republic of
Kenya to the east and south, Tororo district to the south west and Mbale district to the west.
Agricultural activities in the district, just like it is the case in all districts or local council V levels
in Uganda, are coordinated by the district production office, which is divided into four
departments, (i) Crop production (ii) Livestock and Entomology (ii) Natural Resources:
Environment, Land and Physical Planning and (iv) Commerce and Trade.
According to the recent National population and Housing Census report (UNPHC, 2014),
Manafwa district has a population of 353,825 people of which 50.8% are females. This
population is distributed amongst 72,903 households. Of the 353,825 people, 85.5% live in rural
areas. Under the local government system (Local Government Act, 1997), established in the
process of embracing decentralisation (Nsibambi 1998), there are five local
governance/administrative levels: village (level I), parish (level II), sub-county (level III), county
(level IV) and district (level IV). Among the five levels, the most critical levels for action are I,
III and IV. The administrative structure at the local government level is comprised of the
political and technical wings/arm. The political wing composed of elected councillors is led by
the chairman (elected) while the technical wing composed of civil servants is led by the chief
administrative officer (CAO) who is appointed by the president’s office. The political wing is
meant to raise awareness, monitor and promote effective implementation of government
programs at all levels. These leaders are mirrored through the five levels. The Council has
various standing committees that help in various functions of management. These committees
include the District Land Board, District Service Commission, and the Public Accounts
Committee. These civil servants are organized in units called departments based on type of
technical service provided. These departments mirror or reflect the different ministries and
include production, health, education, works and security. It is through these departments that
services are provided to the communities.
3
2.2 Selection of scoping study sites
Scoping study sites were identified/selected with guidance from some members in the four
departments under the Manafwa production unit namely agriculture, veterinary, commerce/trade,
and natural resources. The decision to consult these offices was based on the understanding that
the technical staff regularly worked with the entire population of Manafwa in the process of
executing their day to day duties of service delivery especially to the producers in rural areas.
The members, who were mainly district departmental heads (i.e. district agricultural officer
(DAO), district veterinary officer (DVO), district commercial and trade officer (DCO), and the
district natural resources officer (DNRO) were consulted collectively in a meeting that was
convened by the project team.The district community development officer (DCDO) was
consulted too.
Based on the landscape of Manafwa, which was generally categorised as highland, mid-land and
lowland, it was seen worthwhile to select sub-counties that represented each landscape. The
essence of stratifying by landscape was to provide equal chances of interaction with each
landscape. Insights from each of the three landscapes would provide a better and less biased
picture of the situation in Manafwa in general. Taking into account the existence of farmer
institutions/cooperatives and accessibility of the roads given that it was a rainy period then, the
following sub-counties were selected: Bumbo for the highland areas, Bukhofu for the midland
areas, and Nalondo for the lowland areas. It was easier to mobilise farmers who were in groups
given the short time notice. Ease of contact for quick mobilisation of the group/community
members (mainly producers/farmers), perceived good performance record of existing
groups/cooperatives formed the main basis for which the district partners engaged the selected
the representative sub-counties.
2.3 Data sources and data collection procedure
The main data sources for the scoping study were the district departmental heads that were
consulted in the selection of the three sub-counties, producers/farmers, and some
traders/processors. Data collection methods used were mainly key informant interviews and
focus group discussions. The 5 departmental heads (DVO, DAO, DCDO, DCTO and DNRO)
formed the main key informants while producers formed the main participants in the focus group
discussions. The focus group discussion sites were mainly public areas like churches, schools
and common community meeting places decided upon by the communities and their leaders.
Key informant interviews were conducted on appointment with the respondents, which in some
cases was immediate and in some cases deferred to another day within the week to the
convenience and availability of the respondent within the week in which the study was done. To
make use of the limited time and given that farmers attended to their fields in the morning hours,
key informant interviews were mainly conducted before noon and focus group discussions after
1400 hours. Afternoons were more convenient to the farmers/producers given that the use
mornings to attend to their fields and family.
The key informant interviews centred mainly around livelihood activities in which
people/communities in Manafwa were engaged, distribution of the main enterprises in the
district/landscapes, importance of the enterprises and their perceived ranking, support or
partnership between the district and the farmers, market information and delivery framework,
4
other organisations that provided services to the farmers, challenges and opportunities under the
enterprises and the extent to which the producers were organised. Information collected from the
key informant interviews was validated and deepened through focus group interviews and
interactions with farmers/communities at the grassroots. One sub-county was dealt with at a time
in the order Bukhofu, Bumbo and Nalondo. Challenges and opportunities associated with the
potential value chains were identified with a view to exploring leverage points for intervention.
At each of the sub-county, 3 focus group discussions stratified by gender (men, women and
youths) were conducted. The essence of dividing them by gender was based on the assumption
that the three categories held different views about the issues of concern and needed to have
independent sessions for free airing of views and experiences. After a collective introduction
each category then went to different places to discuss under the guidance of a facilitator. Each
focus group had a membership of 12 people on average. Participants in the focus groups were
members of different farmer groups within the sub-county. In each sub-group or focus group,
there was a note taker and translator.
2.4 Phasing of the scoping study
The study was phased into three interdependent stages:
Phase I – consulting with the different actors at the district and community levels to
identify the enterprises that people in Manafwa engage in;
Phase II – selecting few (about 3) enterprises to work with under VIP4FS
Phase III – conducting a literature review on the selected value chains to get a deeper
understanding in theory. The reports on the literature sought about the national
status/picture of the value chains of the selected enterprises is not provided in this report.
They are presented elsewhere as separate deliverables.
Information from the three phases was used to inform the development of the household survey
tool which was administered after the scoping study.
5
3.0 Findings of the scoping study in Manafwa (Phase I)
The findings from the key informant interviews and focus group discussions complement each
other. For ease of the reader, this section is divided into four broad sub-sections: enterprises that
the communities are involved in for a living; the marketing system, collective action and
institutional arrangements; and challenges & opportunities.
3.1 Enterprises that Manafwa communities engage in for a livelihood
In Manafwa, the communities engage in many activities or enterprises for either food or income
generation. Among the activities are farming (cultivation of crops and rearing of livestock), petty trade
(retailer shops), brick laying, sand harvesting, hand crafts and sale of wood as either fuel or building
materials. Among the broad livelihood enterprises, the most important for the communities were crop,
livestock and petty trade (Table 1) across the three landscapes. Other income generating activities
included sale of firewood and other timber products, petty trade (grocery shops/shop keeping), brick
layering, sand harvesting, and stone quarrying.
Table 1: Income generating activities for farmers in Manafwa district
Rank KIIs Lowlands (Nalondo) Midlands (Bukhofu) Highlands (Bumbo)
1 Crop
production
Crop production Crop production Crop production
2 Livestock
(dairy cattle)
Livestock (beef cattle) Livestock production
(dairy)
Livestock (dairy)
3 Petty trade Brick layering/making Petty trade Petty trade
4 Sale of
firewood and
timber
Petty trade Brick layering Brick layering
5 Brick making Tree nursery(coffee, fruit
trees, timber)
6 Sand
harvesting
Stone quarrying
Note KIIs –Key Informant Interviews
3.1.1 Crop enterprises
Crops commonly grown in the district are: perennial crops like coffee, fruit and non-fruit trees, and
bananas; annual crops that are categorised into cereals (maize, millet, sorghum); vegetables (kales,
eggplant, tomatoes, cabbage and onions); legumes (beans, soyabean and groundnuts); tubers (yams,
potatoes) and oil crops like sesame (commonly referred to as simsim). Other crops that farmers mentioned
to have grown but gradually reducing and in some cases appearing to have been abandoned are cotton and
cassava. High cost of production, pests and diseases (cassava mosaic) discouraged farmers from growing
these crops. The crops are cultivated as both mono crops and inter crops. Trees are some of the intercrops
in coffee and banana systems. Although the same crops are grown in all the three landscapes, their
popularity, performance and consequently importance varies across the highlands, midlands and lowlands
largely due to differences in the environmental factors and soil fertility status.
6
Whereas the picture painted by the key informants about the important crops in the district to include
maize, beans, bananas and coffee in decreasing order of importance, interactions with farmers/producers
in the villages gave a different picture (Table 2), which clearly explains how perception differs across the
different landscapes, specific locations (sub-counties) and categories of farmers. Importance was attached
to the reliability of a given enterprise to provide income to the households, among others (Table 3). Even
in the same landscape area, the different categories of farmers (gender) had different crop enterprises that
they regarded very important to them. This also shows some difficulty in choosing a crop enterprise that
combines all farmers in the district yet at the same time it may not be very feasible to focus on many
enterprises. The criteria used by the farmers to rank the enterprises (Table 3) included the size of income
generated by the enterprise, the number of people involved in the enterprise, market demand for the
products, contribution to food security and household income, continuity of the income throughout the
year and low input requirements (labour, land, capital), duration taken by the crop to reach maturity and
fewer production risks (pests and diseases).
Table 2: Ranking of crops enterprises across landscapes in Manafwa
Rank Lowlands Midlands Highlands
KIIs FGD (Nalondo) KIIs FGD (Bukhofu) KIIs FGD (Bumbo)
1 Maize Women - Coffee
Men -Coffee
Youth -Maize
Maize Women -Beans
Men -Banana
Youth -Coffee
Banana Women -Vegetables
(Kales and eggplant)
Men - Onion
Youth -Tomato
2 Beans Women -Beans
Men -Bananas
Youth -Coffee
Beans Women -Maize
Men -Beans
Youth -Banana
Coffee Women -Beans
Men - Coffee
Youth - Cabbage
3 Banana Women -Maize
Men -Maize
Youth -Beans
Banana Women -Coffee
Men - Coffee
Youth -Beans
Beans Women - Onions
Men - Maize
Youth -Fruits
4 Coffee Coffee Vegetables
Note KIIs –Key Informant Interviews
Oil crops such as sunflower and soya beans are suitable for the lowlands but not popular in the district
probably because there is limited ready market at the local level. Currently the market for oil crops
(sunflower) produced in Uganda is Kenya. The Vegetable Oil Development Project (VODP) showed
interest in encouraging farmers in Manafwa to cultivate oil crops so as to get adequate raw materials
required for oil industries in the country. In the process of reviving cultivation of oil crops, VODP
provided farmers (in groups) with machines that are used to press oil out of sunflower. VODP desires to
link farmers to processors (buyers) and seed suppliers. The seeds are usually stocked by the stockists
upon request by farmers because they reportedly lose viability very fast. There is a feeling that sunflower
production is labour intensive.
Among the legumes, beans are the most popular, grown as both a food crop and income generation.
Farmers find it easier to cultivate beans because the crop can be grown as an intercrop, even with
perennial crops. Groundnuts are grown at a very small scale by few farmers largely for home
consumption.
Trees are slowly becoming a source of income following fuel wood crisis in the district. Interventions
such as carbon financing projects implemented by Eco-Trust (through the district natural resources
7
department) have promoted tree planting by providing seedlings of Albizia coriara, Cordia africana,
Ficus spp and Melia spp to interested farmers. Farmers are being encouraged to plant trees like
Eucalyptus grandis in woodlots and Grevillea robusta. The trees are compatible with crops and can be
grown in crop fields, especially in areas where land is scarce.
In most cases, there is limited deliberate effort by farmers to grow and manage trees including fruit trees.
Jackfruit and avocado are the common fruit trees found in farmers’ compounds. On average there is one
tree per fruit type in a homestead. Target of the fruit trees is home consumption. It is on rare situations
that some fruits from these trees are sold (cheaply) for some money especially in town. Cultivation of
citrus and mangoes is now being promoted under Operation Wealth Creation (OWC) Programme (former
NAADS) through provision of seedlings to farmers. A total of 70,000 seedlings of citrus and 8,000
mango seedlings were supplied to the district. However, there is no extension services to guide the
farmers on how to handle the fruit trees given that the army officers who distribute the seedlings have no
technical competence.
A coffee-banana farming system in Manafwa
8
Table 3: Reasons for ranks assigned to crop enterprises
Rank Enterprise Reason Constraints Opportunities
1 Coffee It is the main cash crop
particularly in the highlands.
Income is earned by selling fresh
berries, perched cherries and
wine made from coffee (product
differentiation is possible with
coffee compared to other crops).
Some very little coffee is
retained for home consumption,
but food crops like maize, beans
and bananas are preferred in this
respect because these crops
unlike coffee constitute the main
meal.
Coffee is preferred because its
income is received in lump sum
compared to annual crops
The first crop takes long to mature
compared to annual crops like maize
and beans
Unlike annual crops, income from
coffee is seasonal. Thus the farmer
is not assured of continuous income
throughout the year as is the case
with bananas and vegetable crops
Coffee yields are favourable only in
the highlands, while the lowlands
are not very suitable for coffee.
Prevalence of pests and diseases,
increase the cost of production
making coffee an expensive venture
for the very resource poor farmers
Requires more inputs yet farmers
lack sufficient capital to invest in
coffee.
Coffee prices fluctuate across the
district
Limited access to coffee pulping
machines.
There are many organisations and buyers
focusing on coffee
Potential for increasing farmers’ income
through value addition – improving the
cottage processing industry by introducing
efficient methods, proper packaging,
promotion of the products branding
Producing speciality coffee (shade coffee)
is possible so that farmers can earn
premium prices through market
segmentation.
Buyers of specialty coffee such as
Gumutindo coffee growers association
operate in the district. Farmers are already
aware of the benefits of integrating trees
with coffee, suggesting that it will require
minimum efforts to upscale the practice
There is compelling justification to improve
the quality of coffee as many buyers such as
BCU are already imposing strict quality
requirements and are ready to pay a
premium for quality coffee. Improvement in
quality is possible due to the introduction of
new technologies for processing coffee such
as wet processing. More superior drying
equipment is currently being used by the
farmers such as tarpaulins
All households in the rural areas engage in
coffee cultivation
Although the value chain is dominated by
men, women and the youth can be involved
in other stages. Women are likely to benefit
if the processing node of the chain is
developed, because they are currently
involved
Potential to increase yield of coffee through
9
sustainable intensification
Coffee tree nursery is an enterprise that is
popular with the youth. Where coffee was
ranked highly among the youth, it was
because of the potential to set up nurseries
to earn income.
Availability of many buying companies that
provide business development services.
Coffee is one of the value chains supported
by CAIIP 1 project. The project has
provided one coffee huller to farmers in the
highlands, which is the major coffee
producing area in the district.
2 Beans Mature fast and can be grown
twice in a year. Farmers are
therefore assured of income to
meet immediate household needs
Have ready market
Are used as the main dish in
majority of the homes
Less capital and labour is
required to produce beans
compared to maize and coffee
Yields are low and highly variable
depending on the weather. Limited
or excessive amounts of rainfall can
damage the crop completely unlike
maize, which can tolerate high
amounts of rainfall.
Beans are susceptible to diseases
and harsh weather
Limited availability of high quality
seeds affect productivity and returns
from beans
Lack of proper storage facilities and
knowledge of post-harvest handling
techniques, resulting in high post-
harvest losses
The revenue obtained from beans is
generally much smaller than that
from coffee due to low yields.
Nearly all the beans produced are
retained for home consumption and
the surplus is sold to meet
immediate household needs.
There is the possibility to differentiate the
product into beans grain and beans seed.
Beans seed fetch higher prices than the
grains, but require training and adherence
to recommended agronomic practices
Capacity strengthening in post-harvest
handling techniques can reduce losses and
increase the farmers’ margins
3 Maize Is a source of income and food
Maize stover sometimes provide
feed to livestock
Limited availability of inputs of
reliable quality (weak enforcement
of policies governing the supply and
distribution of agricultural inputs). It
Possibility of differentiating the product
into maize grain, maize seed, green maize,
maize flour and livestock feed (value
addition is possible) – vertical upgrading is
10
is reported that anybody can operate
an agro-input shop as long as they
have investment capital )
Maize production requires relatively
large amounts of labour and capital
outlays compared to perennial crops
like coffee and banana since the
operations have to be repeated every
year.
Because maize is bulky and the
point of sale is far from the farm
gate, men tend to control proceeds
from the crop. Thus, measures need
to be put in place to ensure gender
equitable benefit sharing.
possible
Supported by the CAIIP 1 project- maize
mill was given to the district through the
project, but the quantity of maize received
by the private company that operates the
mill is too small to operate the mill
efficiently.
Maize has many alternative market
channels such as traders from different parts
of the country as well as Kenya, institutions
(schools, military)
4 Banana Requires less inputs compared to
annual crops, which have to
planted every year
Since the crop is harvested
throughout the year, farmers are
assured of food and income
throughout the year
Very limited land to support the
production of surplus bananas for
sale, hence most of the banana
produced in the district is for
consumption. Bududa the
neighbouring district has
comparative advantage in the
production of banana and is the
main supplier of bananas to
Manafwa district.
Prevalence of banana bacterial wilt
Availability of varieties that are resistant to
diseases
Availability of improved varieties that are
high yielding
Women are engaging in selling sweet/ripe
bananas (there is a market that can be
explored)
4 Vegetables Vegetable crops require a short
time to mature and can be grown
more than once in a year as long
as there is water. The farmers are
therefore, assured of continuous
income and food throughout the
year
Yield potential and returns per
unit area are higher compared to
field crops.
The enterprise is popular among
the youth because it does not
require a large piece of land
Most of the vegetable crops are
susceptible to diseases and hence
need pesticides which are costly to
most of the farmers
Requires a lot of labour and inputs
Vegetable crops are mainly grown in
the highlands where rainfall is
reliable. Limited access to irrigation
equipment impedes its practice in
the lowlands
Lack of appropriate storage facilities
and post-harvest handling skills act
as barriers to small scale farmers
The enterprise is popular among the youth
and is supported by the Youth Livelihood
Programme, which is an initiative by the
Uganda Government to reduce
unemployment rate among the youth
There are youth groups that have been
funded through the YLP, which the project
can work with.
11
Readily available market, but
there is need to consolidate the
market and increase the farmers’
negotiation power.
who might want to venture into
commercial production of
vegetables.
Most of the seeds available on the
market are of poor quality. Farmers
trust seeds purchased from Kenya in
Kitale, but this increases the cost of
seeds.
6 Fruits Fruits, particularly passion fruits
are seen by the youth as a good
source of income, but the
demand for fruits in the local
areas is very low since many
people do not consume fruits.
Low demand for fruits in the rural
areas due to limited knowledge
among the people of the health
benefits of fruits.
Lack of knowledge on appropriate
varieties
Unavailability of planting materials
May Development Initiative, a CBO based
in Manafwa district is promoting the
production and marketing of fruits such as
avocado, mango, pawpaw and oranges The
CBO is working with UNDP in the
Territorial Approach to Climate Change
(TACC) project to promote fruit production
and consumption by sensitizing farmers on
the benefits of fruits.
The demand for fruits is poised to increase
and act as an incentive for farmers to
venture into fruit production.
12
3.1.2 Livestock enterprises
Among the livestock kept by farmers in Manafwa are cattle, goats, pigs, chicken, sheep and
donkeys. Farmers tend to save money and invest in buying animals (mainly cattle) which are later either
sold for money needed to meet different financial costs or feasted on for Christmas. Animals in this case
then are used for meat, milk, animal traction and a bank (saving for future use).
According to the district veterinary officer of Manafwa, the different types of livestock hold
different positions of importance based on popularity and income generation (Table 4. Table 5
shows the outcomes from the communities across the three sub-counties/landscapes.
Table 4: Perceived importance and ranking of livestock in Manafwa district by DVO
Animal Availability (Ranking) Income value ranking
Cattle 1 1
Goats 2 4
Pigs 3 2
Local chicken 4 3
Sheep 5
Donkey 6
Cattle: The availability of the livestock type, apart from cattle is not a direct reflection of its
importance as an income generating enterprise. Cattle is the most common and highest generator
of income among livestock enterprises because it is reared for both milk production and beef.
Milk production, beef and draught power are the main reasons why farmers in Manafwa keep
cattle. Milk is ranked as the leading income generating sub-enterprise under cattle. Local (beef
and milk) and cross breeds (mainly for milk production) are kept. Zero grazing (picture below)
especially for the crossbreeds is a common practice. The population of crossed breeds increases
with altitude. The highest number of cattle crosses is found in the highland landscape. The hotter
the area (lowland) the less the
number of crossbreeds and the higher
the number of zebu cows. Lowlands
have more of local breeds (the zebu) –
they can tolerate and survive more in
the harsh environment found in the
lowland as compared to the cross
breeds. Friesians and Sahiwals, bought
from Kenya – Kitale, are reportedly the
breeds of dairy cattle crosses kept by
farmers. Friesians are the majority.
It is said that the environment in the
lowland favour survival and
Picture showing a crossbreed under zero grazing, Manafwa
13
perpetuation of pests and diseases that affect cattle. Crosses are very susceptible to pests,
diseases and scarcity of feed, which explain why cross breeds do not perform well in the
lowlands.
Cattle as an enterprise has a high priority at the district level. The cattle enterprise, as reported by
the DVO, has a high potential to lift the livelihood of farmers in Manafwa. Cattle (dairy) is one
of the priority areas of the district that is being supported by OWC. Under NUSAF phase III
priority is put on dairy. The program for youth under the government has prioritized dairy. There
are efforts to support the farmers in this venture but the field is not yet exploited.
Beef is sold by local butcheries who commonly buy live animals and slaughter them in gazette
slabs. The beef is inspected at the slabs and stamped. Some traders buy live animals from the
local markets and take them to Kenya (mainly on Mondays) illegally.
Pig farming: It is also becoming increasingly common in the district following the introduction
and promotion of the enterprise by the NAADS. Existence of many growing pork joints by the
roadsides in trading centres means that there is business in pig farming. It was once an option for
the district under NAADS but registered failure. The challenge that pig farming faces currently
in Manafwa was reported to be feed and African swine fever (no cure).
Goat rearing: Goat rearing is practiced to a limited extent because the climatic conditions in the
highland areas do not favour goats. Besides, the limited land sizes in the district make it difficult
to raise goats because they are difficult to confine. Many families do not keep goats because of
limited land availability. Goats are only a lucrative business during the circumcision season
(especially the male goats, which are even fewer). Goat meat is expensive and people rarely
slaughter goats.
Chicken: The most common type of chicken being reared is the local type. About 5-20 local
chicken are kept per household on free range system. The chicken is used to offset emergence
needs and can be readily converted into money given its demand. Local chicken is delicious and
preferred for food as compared to improved breeds. Local chicken if not controlled, cause
damage to t crops as they feed on flowers and forming pods/seeds during the cropping season.
Chicken is sold at home and also taken to the market. Some buy in bulk and sell to other buyers
e.g. hotels or the market. The unmet demand for local chicken is an opportunity that can be
explored as a potential income generating enterprise. Introduction of Kroilers besides the local
chicken too can be a potential enterprise if farmers can be trained on how to brood and generally
manage the birds.
However, a discussion with the community development officer revealed that the district neither
encourages nor supports farmers to take chicken as an income generating enterprise due to high
capital and management required, which in the long run would turn out to be unprofitable to the
farmers in Manafwa.
14
Table 5: Livestock enterprises in Manafwa
Rank Lowlands Midlands Highlands
KI FGD (Nalondo) KI FGD (Bokhofu) KI FGD
(Bumbo)
1 Beef
cattle
Women- Dairy cattle
Men -Cattle-beef
Youth - Cattle-beef
Dairy
cattle
W-Cattle-beef
M-Dairy
Y- Dairy
Dairy cattle W-Dairy
M-Dairy
Y-Dairy
2 Pigs Women -Goats
Men-Pig
Youth -Pig
Pigs W-Goats
M-Local chicken
Y- Goats
Pigs W-Pig
M-Pig
Y-Pig
3 Goats W-Local chicken
M-Local chicken
Y-Goats
goats W-Local chicken
M-Pigs
Y- chicken
Goats W-Goats
M-Goats
Y-Goats
4 Local
chicken
Local
chicken
Local chicken
Criteria for ranking livestock enterprises included: number of people engaged in the enterprise,
number of products associated with the enterprise and the ease with which the product can be
disposed of to generate income for meeting immediate household expenses, amount of space
required by the enterprise (goats are less preferred because it is difficult to confine them).
Reasons for the ranks assigned to different livestock enterprises as well as challenges and
opportunities associated with the enterprises are summarised in Table 6.
Local goats Beef cattle
15
Table 6: Reasons for ranks assigned to Livestock enterprises, Manafwa
Rank Enterprise Reason Constraints Opportunities
1 Pigs Are very prolific and have high
growth rates, hence one is able to
recoup investment outlays within
a short time by selling mature
pigs as well as piglets
Start-up capital is relatively less
than that of dairy cattle
Is kept by relatively more people
than local chicken, goats and
beef cattle.
Has fewer products compared to
dairy cattle- which produces milk,
off-springs for sale and manure for
fertilising crops.
Efforts to upscale the enterprise may
be thwarted by socio-cultural beliefs
regarding pigs.
Sale of pigs is not on weight basis.
Instead, the price is determined by
looking at the animal.
Prevalence of African Swine Fever
Limited availability of feeds
Existence of many stall means that there
is business in pig farming. Pork and beef
stalls are common scenes on the
roadsides.
Pig farming was promoted by the defunct
NAADS programme and many farmers
are aware of the benefits. Little efforts
may be required to upscale the enterprise
to other parts of the district where there is
no conflict with socio-cultural and
religious beliefs.
The government through OWC is still
distributing piglets to farmers who are
interested in the enterprise
2 Dairy cattle Produces many products,
such as milk and off-springs
for sale and manure for crop
production. Milk can be
consumed by the children to
improve their nutrition
High demand for milk
because of shortage in
supply. Manafwa is a net
importer of milk from the
neighbouring district
Bududa.
Income from milk sales is
used to sort out emergency
needs.
Huge start-up capital is required to
buy good quality dairy cow.
Limited availability of quality
breeds
Limited availability of feeds in
quantity and quality (especially in
the highlands where land is too
small to allow for cultivation of
fodder crops)
Limited knowledge of supplemental
feeding and general animal
husbandry
Lack of proper storage facilities for
milk
Limited knowledge of milk handling
and hygiene among the farmers.
Quality assurance mechanisms are
lacking
Breeds – there are crosses but we
cannot ascertain the level of purity.
A systematic selection and breeding
Potential to increase milk production
through introduction of alternative feed
sources or improved feeding. Possible
link with agroforestry (fodder species).
Organized farmer groups and structures
across levels including milk cooperatives
Demand for milk is likely to increase
following increase in awareness of the
health benefits of milk among the
population
Dairy industry is supported by OWC and
NUSAF III
Youth Livelihood Programme has
prioritized dairy as one of the enterprises
of focus
Possibility of improving the farmers’
income by improving the quality of milk
(capacity building in post-harvest
handling techniques; improving access to
storage facilities-coolers).
Employment of people (service provision,
16
would be a strategic effort.
Pests and diseases – especially ticks
and tick borne diseases. Ticks are
growing in population even in the
highlands where they were not an
issue then. Sensitizing farmers on
tick control helps. We have an issue
of tsetse flies (Rhine river type),
lumpy skin, foot and mouth disease
General management of animals
agro-input dealers, value addition
services) will grow
Functional market policies of the
livestock
Improved health of the population alluded
to increased consumption of milk
Availability of manure used to replenish
soil fertility
3 Beef cattle Is common in the lowlands
where there is high prevalence of
cattle diseases making it difficult
for cross breed dairy cattle to
survive in this area
Does not provide immediate income
compared to sale of milk
Available market for beef, which can be
expanded to other countries like South
Sudan.
Some farmers are already fattening beef
cattle for sale. Draft power
4 Goats Not common in the district because
of small land sizes
The district receives relatively high
rainfall amounts and is not suitable
for the local goats - little to browse
on
Cultural ceremonies still cherished
Goat meat enjoyed by many – goat
roasting especially around drinking places
is increasing as a business especially by
the youth (there is ready market)
5 Local chicken Local chicken is mainly kept for
subsistence, but can be
occasionally sold to meet
emergency expenses
They are less expensive to rear
compared to other categories of
livestock.
Chicken rearing is not common in
the district because they are seen to
destroy crops. Most of them are sold
off during the cropping season.
Farmers have limited knowledge of
recommended poultry management
practices. Thus, productivity and
income from local poultry is very
low
Chicken (local) has ready market
At least every home has some chicken
Chicken is quickly converted into money
as compared to other livestock
17
3.1.3 Other potential enterprises
Other enterprises that farmers or producers across the three landscapes engaged in but at a limited scale as
compared to livestock and crop were bee keeping, petty trade, sand excavation, brick making/laying and
processing/value addition. These were secondary enterprises to crop and livestock production. Farmers
sell most of their produce in raw form and only simple forms of value addition such as sorting and
grading are practiced. Simple processing of coffee is done by pulping as required by some buyers. Maize
is milled into maize flour and sold to schools. Other commodities such as beans are sorted and sometimes
graded depending on the buyer. Sunflower, groundnuts and soya beans, which have the potential for
value addition, are grown in small quantities by the farmers because of limited market for the processed
products.
Bee hives Honey harvesting in Manafwa
18
3.2 Marketing and extension frameworks in Manafwa
3.2.1 How farmers sell their produce and access market information
For all the commodities or enterprises, farmers sold as individuals. Each individual either sold
their produce/product at farm gate where the buyers found the produce, at the weekly markets,
around the main roads, took it to a nearby trading centre or town where they fetched better price.
Some, who could access transport, took their produce to neighbouring districts especially Mbale.
Traders who needed different produce came from major towns of Mbale, Tororo, and Kampala.
Distant traders who come to the farm gate are preferred by most farmers because they meet the
cost of transport and assume certain risks that would otherwise be absorbed by the farmer.
Farmers often sold off their produce immediately after harvest. The need for money to settle
emergence financial related concerns force them to sell off immediately hence less profit
realised. Some even sale the crop while still in the field. Part of this is due to lack of storage
facilities.
Farmers get information on prices from amongst themselves although mainly from the traders.
The traders in this context are the major providers of market information. This situation of
farmers depending on traders for market information has a danger of increasing farmer
vulnerability of being cheated by the same traders. Traders focus on making as much profit as
possible and can distort market information to suit their interests. There is no forum or platform
where actors can get appropriate information on market prices and availability of different commodities to
inform their production and marketing decisions.
Infotrade is another source of market information. Market information collected by infotrade is
provided to registered individuals in the form of text messages on their phones. Sending a
message to infotrade server for market info is at a fee, which may turn out to be expensive in the
long run. Although Infotrade is supposed to work hand in hand with the commercial officer at
the district level, infotrade hires staff to collect market information, which is then relayed to the
farmers. The information has been criticised for being inaccurate in some cases due to lack of
validation by the experts on the ground. Collaboration is therefore paramount to harmonise the
information given to the farmers.
At the district, the commercial office is expected to collect prices of different commodities in
different markets and pin the synthesised information on the notice board at the district office.
However, this is rarely done due to absence of resources to move around. The most commonly
traded in crops in the Manafwa farming community are maize, beans and coffee. Coffee has two
market channels: one is from individual farmers to the cooperative structure (primary society at
the village or sub-county level to the district cooperative); the other channel is from the
individual farmers to traders located in the town centres who bulk for Kyagalanyi. Kyagalanyi
buys unprocessed coffee and does pulping by itself as a firm unlike the cooperatives that need
the already pulped coffee.
Although the cooperative offers higher prices than other buyers, farmers prefer to sell their
coffee to other buyers like Kyagalanyi because the buyer provides instant payments. Farmers
also prefer to sell to Kyagalanyi because the buyer does not have specific quality requirements
like the cooperative (Bugisu cooperative). Gumutindo specialises in shade coffee and contracts
19
different groups of farmers to produce speciality coffee at a premium price. Coffee is usually
graded at the cooperative into grade 1 and 2 and prices are decided based on the grade.
Areas of intervention in the coffee value chain include access to inputs and technical skills by
farmers. Productivity of coffee is currently low because of limited use of inputs. Post-harvest
handling is another critical area that requires intervention so that farmers can get value for the
coffee sold. Farmers lack local processing machines like pulpers, although the farmers in the
highlands have received one huller through a programme called Community Agriculture
Infrastructure Improvement Programme (CAIIP).
Most of the maize produced in the district is sold to traders from Kenya in dry grain form. These
traders come for the produce from the district in trucks. The district received a maize mill under
the CAIIP, but the machine is currently operating below capacity since most farmers prefer to
sell to traders from Kenya or take the maize to small mills. The small mills have a lower capacity
utilisation and are more efficient than CAIIP maize mill that was given to the farmers. The
millers plan to diversify into producing livestock feeds like maize bran in addition to maize meal.
The target market for milled maize (commonly referred to as posho) is institutions like schools.
The local market for maize bran is not well established, but the mills operator is planning to
target buyers in urban areas who are practicing poultry and dairy farming (particularly zero
grazing). Maize production suffers from low productivity because of limited land, which
necessitates continuous cultivation with limited attempts to replenish soil fertility.
3.2.2 Reasons for selling individually
Farmers have various reasons for preferring individual marketing to collective marketing. The
reasons for individual marketing include being able to sell their products whenever need arises
and to decide where and when to sell and to whom to sell to; having the discretion to make
decisions on how to use the money obtained from the sales; ensuring confidentiality on the
amount of money received from the sales and avoiding sharing the money with other people.
Some farmers are not keen on the quality of their produce and this can affect the price received
by farmers who deliver high quality products if the products are mixed.
Other reasons for selling individually are freedom to sell at the farm gate to any buyer thereby
passing on the transport cost to the buyer; receipt of proceeds instantly; lack of information on
collective marketing and the prevailing prices; lack of organised markets for the different
commodities produced by the farmers; small number of farmers that engage in certain
enterprises, which makes it difficult to raise the quantities required by the buyer; lack of proper
storage facilities for perishable commodities to allow for bulking and collective selling.
3.2.3 Benefits and challenges of collective marketing
Farmers who participated in collective marketing acknowledged enjoying better prices due to
increased bargaining power, growth in strength and cohesiveness as members marketing their
produce collectively. In addition, the income from collective selling comes in lump sum, which
can be used to buy assets like land, livestock and farm inputs. With well-functioning marketing
20
groups, farmers can attract big coffee buyers like Gumutindo and Bugisu Cooperative Union
(BCU), which offer better prices. Nevertheless, collective marketing is fraught with many
challenges like lack of trust among farmers and sometimes their leadership, dishonesty among
the leaders given that farmers lose money because the cooperatives act as middlemen between
the buyers and the farmers, lack of effective and regular meetings to discuss issues pertaining to
collective marketing, delay in paying bonuses to the members. Farmers tend to sell their produce
outside the group rules (selling to other traders other than the agreed cooperative) as a result of:
payments of the proceeds that is sometimes made in portions,
lack of transport to deliver the produce to collection/aggregation centres,
Prices offered may be lower than the prevailing prices (more so for contracts where
prices are negotiated prior to harvesting). Traders or middlemen confuse the farmers by
offering slightly higher prices than what the contractual buyer is offering.
As a result, collective marketing collapses because the group may fail to reach the quantities that
were agreed with the buyer at the beginning of the season.
There is potential for collective marketing of nearly all the agricultural products sold by the
farmers in Manafwa because there are some groups organised with focus on most of the crops
cultivated in the district. The following suggestions if implemented are likely to strengthen
collective marketing in the district.
3.2.4 Interventions to facilitate collective marketing of agricultural produce in Manafwa
Look for better market within and outside Uganda- explore other markets outside
Manafwa
Look out for contractual markets where farmers’ produce can be marketed on demand
Do value addition to increase the value of the perishable agricultural produce- e.g making
ketchup and tomato juice out of tomatoes
Improvement of road infrastructure and public-private partnership in the provision of
market infrastructure such as post-harvest handling facilities.
Training of producers to improve and harmonize the quality of coffee
Contractual arrangements should involve provision of inputs and interlinked credit
services to reduce chances of side selling.
Increasing farmers’ access to extension services and market information- e.g.
coordination among extension service providers and providers of market information who
can advise producers on the proper agronomic practices for production of quality coffee
and other agricultural products.
Provision of better training of farmers on group formation and group dynamics
21
3.2.5 Existing sources of credit
The communities in Manafwa access credit in form of simple loans from friends, who however,
provide very minimal amounts probably for the fear of non-payment given that the transactions
are more on trust and in most cases there is limited documentation on the same. Those that need
slightly more amounts of money that could be used to run their businesses rely more on village
savings and loan associations (VSLA) and in limited cases the Savings and Credit Cooperative
Societies (SACCOs). The VLSAs in most cases are at group level and only work with registered
members. The capital bases (and membership) increase as one moves from the individual
lenders, to the VSLA to the SACCO.
Each sub-county in Manafwa can access SACCO services from within or from a neighbouring
sub-county. Formal financial institutions like banks are no existent in Manafwa but can be
accessed from Mbale town. However, because of the reportedly unfriendly conditions for
borrowing money, banks are rarely used for credit services.
The SACCOs, whose lending rates are 3% per month, use membership as collateral in addition
to property like land, household assets, and crop produce among others. Farmers are satisfied
with the terms and conditions of these SACCOs and the number of farmers getting loans from
these SACCOs is increasing. Although most SACCOs are meant to provide service to specific
categories of actors, some accommodate other categories too. For example, Bukhaweka traders
cooperative also provides credit to farmers although their main role is to collect produce from the
members and help them find market for the produce. Payment of credit is strictly in cash, but
possibilities of using produce to pay back the loan were to be explored.
3.2.6 Agricultural extension system in Manafwa There is a vacuum in the government agricultural extension system following the phasing out of
the NAADs programme about 3-4 years ago. The different local government departments in
production are constrained with limited resources (staff, transport) to reach the masses. The staff
at the local government (production) can only interact with the farming communities through
some collaborative projects which are few and seasonal. This has led into a situation where the
technical units in the production department are detached from the realities of the communities.
It is expected that by end of 2016, through government support, the districts will have recruited
some qualified extension workers.
Few crop enterprises have an independent locally organised extension system. Among the
enterprises that have a specialised extension system is coffee, probably because the coffee
industry is mainly being operated by the private sector. It is known that the private sector will
tend to invest in areas where they make profit/business. The different private coffee exporting
firms interesting in Arabica coffee in Manafwa (Elgon region) have their own extension system
where trained individuals provide technical guidance to the registered coffee farmers. The
specialised coffee extension system is aimed at ensuring the firms access quality coffee in large
amounts that fetch greater income or foreign exchange when exported. Other enterprises that
depend on government agricultural extension system remain at a disadvantage.
In very few instances, some agro-input dealers advise farmers on what to use in managing some
enterprises. The agro-input dealers, however, are neither trained in providing extension services
22
nor provide the desired quality of services. They have been reported to sell counterfeit products
to the farmers in the name of making profit. The input supply and distribution chain is not
properly regulated, thus exposing farmers to unscrupulous traders who sell fake inputs. OWC, a
program that is being run by army men provides some inputs to what they perceive to be needy
and poor farmers but lack the required competence to identify the right qualities and provision of
advisory services. There is poor coordination between OWC and the local government in spite of
OWC having transport to reach the communities.
3.3 Collective action and rural institutional arrangements in Manafwa
3.3.1 Farmer groups at grass root level
According to the senior community development officer (CDO) in Manafwa, there are many
groups or community based organisations that communities have formed for different reasons.
NAADS stepped up group formation and was structured and focused on coffee, banana, dairy,
beans and maize. People formed groups around these commodities. Now there is citrus as well.
Most groups are defunct. People join groups with expectations of getting some free inputs like
hoes, seed etc. the capacity of the groups to work together sustainably was not built. Farmers are
in groups but work individually. There is no trust. That is why collective marketing is failing.
Some engage in bulking but not necessarily collective marketing.
Over 500 groups/CBOs are formally registered with the district. Of these groups, about 50% are
formed for a particular project/program. In the past five years, many groups have been coming
on board ‘eyeing’ the Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF), the Community Driven
Development (CDD) funds, and the special grants for people with disabilities. Some of the
groups were formed in response to the Community HIV/AIDS (CHAI) program, which ended.
Most of the groups formed with the purpose of benefiting from projects disintegrate the moment
the projects end.
The types of groups found in the district are:
Women groups – these are the most common. The women groups are mainly engaged in
dairy farming, goat keeping, and vegetable growing and very few in poultry. There are
few groups in poultry because the district does not encourage them to engage in poultry
mainly because it needs a lot of capital especially at the initial stages, which most of the
farmers can’t afford.
People with disabilities – these are engaged in savings and credit schemes (loan), dairy,
goat keeping, pig farming and maize milling
Youth groups – involved in fabrication and savings
Mixed groups
Men – though these are hardly in existence.
NB: Men are encouraged to mix with women. Solely men groups are discouraged.
The frequency of the different types of groups however differed across sub-counties (Table 7).
Some of these groups subscribe to higher level community institutions like cooperatives and
SACCOs. There are about 56 registered agricultural cooperatives and 44 SACCOs. About 50%
23
of the cooperatives and SACCOs are reportedly functional/active. The main challenge is poor
leadership and embezzlement of funds by officials. These together with low levels of trust
among the members had contributed to very limited, if any, actual collective marketing. Training
of communities to form and work in groups is a responsibility of the community development
office. The CDO has support staff at the sub-counties whose job is expected to be mobilization
and sanitization of the communities of any program, helping the groups to come up with a
constitution, training the groups to develop project proposals.
Table 7: Perceived ranking of group types by frequency
CDO workers at the sub-counties are expected to guide the communities/groups to identify
enterprises, outputs, develop the background and budget; as well as train the groups in record
keeping, group dynamics, procurement and group marketing. However, the limited resources
make it unable for the task to be well accomplished. Monitoring and follow up is often done to
groups that seem to be very popular.
Manafwa Dairy Cooperative Society: This is one of the functioning cooperatives in Manafwa
that was formed under the stewardship of the commerce/trade unit in Manafwa. It reportedly has
a membership of 300 farmers coming from the different sub-counties of Manafwa. The society
has collective centres where farmers deliver their milk. The milk is first tested for quality using a
lactometer prior to being transported to the society where there is a cooler. Transportation of the
milk is in jars on bicycles. Consumers buy the milk from the society. Milk is collected twice a
day: 6-9 a.m. in the morning and 5-6 pm in the evening when the animals are milked. Focus on
these periods of the day is to maintain the cool temperatures required for longevity of the milk.
The society gets its milk from the highland areas. There are some traders/buyers from Mbale
who buy from the farmers using pickups, and taxis (in Jerricans and cans). Milk taken to Mbale
gets to many different coolers as well as on the roadsides. Buyers from Mbale take the highest
bulk of milk. The cooperative buys from middle men and takes a capacity of 3000 litres – but the
rate at which the milk is bought is low. The society buys a litre at only 800 Uganda shillings.
Milk at the dairy society is not adulterated. There is a tendency of people adding water to the
milk yet water is a contaminant – that is why quality is tested.
Type of group Bukhofu sub-
county
Nalondo sub-county Bumbo sub-county
Women groups 1 1 2
Mixed groups 2 4 1
Youth groups 3 2 3
People with disabilities 4 3 5
Men groups - 5 (only one cohort of
circumcised men
getting to work
together)
-
Elderly - - 4
24
The dairy development Authority (DDA) needs milk to be transported in aluminium cans which
many farmers cannot afford. There is a disagreement between principles and practice. The DDA
was forcing farmers to use the aluminium cans by pouring people’s milk that was in other
containers other than the aluminium cans. This posed a threat to the security of the veterinary
officers and other enforcers. The District Veterinary Officer (DVO) bought and subsidized the
desired cans selling one at 300,000 Uganda shillings to the dairy farmers.
According to the DVO, Manafwa, the dairy enterprise is likely to bring more people to work
together. This is because different people will play different roles e.g. fodder collection, water
provision, cleaning the shed, looking for veterinary officers to treat, milking, cleaning milk
utensils, selling the milk, use of the money, processing milk, ploughing, grazing amongst other
roles.
A milk cooler at the Manafwa Dairy Cooperative Society
3.3.2 What the groups engage in for a livelihood
The different types of groups engage in similar activities but on different enterprises (Table 8).
Savings and credit was a common activity across the different groups. What they referred to as
collective marketing was actually not collective marketing. In most cases, members of a group
agreed on doing the same thing e.g. growing a specific crop or weaving specific things but
selling was done individually. They mistook what they did in common for collective action.
Collectively owned gardens were rare! As observed by the CDO, the community has not yet
grasped working together. People feel more secure to sell as individuals.
25
Table 8: Farmer groups activities in Manafwa sub counties
Group types Bukhofu (lowland) Nalondo (midland) Bumbo (Highland)
Women groups Savings and credit
Poultry
Hand crafts (knitting
table cloths)
Marketing especially of
beans, maize, groundnuts
and bananas
Savings and credit
Growing
vegetables
especially onions,
tomatoes, sukuma
Bulking for sell
(vegetables, beans,
groundnuts)
Savings and credit
Weaving table clothes
Growing onions,
cabbage, tomatoes,
beans, sukuma wiki
Poultry
Mixed groups Making wine from coffee
and bananas, beans
Operating tree nurseries
Establishment of
woodlots
Collective
marketing of
coffee
Savings and credit
Selling produce (coffee)
together
Youth groups Brick making
Apiary
Savings and credit
Poultry
Marketing (collectively
owned shop selling
clothes)
Brick making
Carpentry
Savings and credit
Football
Savings and credit
Boda boda
Brick making
Football
Goat rearing, cattle
rearing
Welding and fabrication
Selling onions
PWDs Tailoring
Shoe repair
Savings and credit
Savings and credit
Production and
sell of maize and
beans but not as
one. Production is
at individual level
Savings and credit
Men’s group Savings and credit
Elderly Selling coffee
3.3.3 Motivation of individuals to join or drop out of groups
From FGD discussions held with farmers and other local grassroots stakeholders, individual
members sought to join groups for various reasons (and expectations). These ranged from
accessing resources like finance, training as well as linkages with other service providers as
presented below:
Access to affordable and ready loans at low interest (the loans largely went for
farming and fees payment)
Building a saving culture (through routine and strict saving of fixed amounts)
Learning on how best to make profits
Opportunity to increase their social network and knowing more people
Training- opportunity to access knowledge and skills on different activities (e.g.
tailoring, brick making, soil/water conservation, health issues etc.)
Pooling resources to achieve a common goal
Identifying the most appropriate market (price and where to sell)
26
Accessing services from government and non-government agencies
In spite of the motivations often reflected as what others have actually enjoyed as a result
of being part of some group, there are members who opt to fall out of a group and others
still prefer to remain without a group. The reasons are more of how members relate and
specifically include:
Dishonesty especially of the leaders
Corruption/cheating
Inferiority –superiority complex
Some members tend to undermine others
Discrimination
Limited cooperation
Selfishness by some members
The reasons mentioned point to mistrust and inadequacy in managing group dynamics. This is an
important opportunity for VIP4FS to intervene and enhance the social relations among
community members.
3.3.4 How conflicts are resolved in groups/communities
Farmer groups often face conflicts between its members and/or between members and leaders of
the group. From the FGD held, the process for conflict resolutions in the community or groups is
informally done. The group constitution is often the very first thing referred to ensure what is
happening is catered for in the constitution, a tool that binds all members. Unfortunately very
few members understand their constitution as it is often written in English by a few members yet
majority can neither read nor understand English. Although reportedly uncommon, when a
conflict arises between individuals/members, the process followed is as shown below:
The group leaders (executive committee) meet with the affected people and talk to them.
If step 1 fails, a general group meeting is called and the affected are counselled in the
group.
If step 2 fails, trusted and respected elders (elders’ committee) in the community are
consulted. The elders talk to the affected.
If step 3 fails, the local village/community leadership (local council) is brought on board.
If step 4 fails, (depending on the crime and its implications to the harmony of the
group/community), the security offices (police) and courts come in.
In most cases, the conflicts get resolved at any of the two steps where the culprits are then
reprimanded by paying some fine to the group or affected person as guided by the constitution.
In the community, the general practice of constructively settling a conflict between members is
mainly bringing in a mediator, reporting to the local council chair that convenes a village
disciplinary committee, or taking the matter to police or court depending on the gravity of the
issue.
27
3.4 Partners working with the communities in Manafwa
From the FGD, communities in the sub-counties mentioned that farmers interacted with and got
different support from a variety of partners. The partners preferred to work with farmers in
organised groups as opposed to individuals. Others focused on registered group members.
Belonging to a group was one condition that the partners used to provide their services to the
communities. Normally the services provided are either through government or non-
governmental (private) arrangements.
3.4.1 Government partners
Manafwa District Local Government: The District Local Government (DLG) is the main partner.
It has different units within the production department which provide a range of services to the
communities either directly or indirectly through projects. The production department provides
training and advisory services in crop and animal production, formation of groups. Through the
district, various government projects/programs are implemented. Such programs/projects
include:
1) the Community Driven Development (CDD) project whose focus is/was to provide the
community with training on group formation
2) Community Agricultural Infrastructure Improvement Programme (CAIIP). CAIIP, which
is funded by African Development Bank. It aims at improving community agricultural
infrastructure through projects such as construction of roads (rural community roads and
district feeder roads), rural markets and access to agro-processing facilities such as coffee
hullers, maize mills, rice hullers and milk coolers in various districts in Uganda. Under
CAIIP, Manafwa district received one maize mill and one coffee huller. However, the
maize mill is currently operating below capacity.
3) Youth Livelihood Program under which the youth are encouraged to form groups that can
engage in income generating activities. Under this program, youth groups are provided
with loans to serve as capital to start-up businesses. The groups of 8-15 members apply
loans through the Youth Enterprise Fund once their selected business enterprise has been
approved through some process at the district.
4) Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF), funded by the World Bank funded
development projects, with the aim of boosting development in Northern and Eastern
parts of Uganda that were hit by civil war and cattle rustling. It uses a community
demand driven development approach (a form of institutional arrangement) to improve
people’s access to resources in the community. NUSAF provides competitive grants to
farmer groups. The groups have to write proposals to compete for the funds. Other
services provided by NUSAF include provision of improved cattle, building schools and
teachers’ houses, as well as construction of feeder roads and bridges in the community
5) Territorial Approach to Climate Change (TACC) - Promotion of environmental
conservation through tree planting as a strategy for mitigating climate change effects. The
project is funded by UNDP
28
6) Operation Wealth Creation (OWC) – provision or distribution of inputs to the farming
communities especially planting materials (coffee seedlings, beans, soya beans,
groundnut) and cattle. OWC monitors what was distributed to ensure the inputs are used
as planned.
7) The National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO) was mentioned to provide
training on various enterprises and in some cases some inputs like planting materials
under different projects. The most recent support registered was a training and provision
of seed on wheat production.
8) Uganda Coffee Development Authority (UCDA) – provides training on appropriate
coffee production, management, harvesting, and post-harvest handling practices. It also
provides coffee seedlings to the farmers. UCDA is the body concerned with promoting
production of coffee in improved quantities and qualities as the National level. All firms
working with coffee as an income generating commodity are directly regulated by
UCDA.
9) Vegetable Oil Development Project (VODP) is a program at the ministry that seeks to
enhance production of vegetable oil crops for improved production of vegetable oil. It
provides training of farmers on agronomic practices and supply of seeds for soya beans,
sunflower, and groundnut; and also makes effort to link farmers with potential
processors/market of the oil crops.
3.4.2 Non-governmental partners
These are categorised into internally or locally organised partners and those from outside the
district/region.
Locally organised partners - The local NGOs or partners have been mainly two:
1) Mbale Farmers Association which provide training and advisory services on various
enterprises and topics including on maize, coffee, HIV/AIDS and gender issues.
2) Mbale Coalition Against Poverty (CAP) which provides advisory services, inputs,
training and market information on a variety of fields to farmers especially on
agroforestry (tree planting). CAP is a coalition of all NGOs operating in the greater
Mbale or Bugisu sub-region that currently covers six districts of Mbale, Sironko,
Mbulambuli, Manafwa and Bududa.
Partners from outside the region - These are largely partners who are from outside the Bugisu
region with interest of providing a service that is aimed at improving a livelihood either through
advisory services or linking the communities to the market. The most popular ones include:
1) Grow more – provision of advisory services and improved seed (beans, maize)
2) NUCAFE – links farmers to markets for coffee (SAVANNA), training on post-harvest
handling and provides seedlings to farmers
3) Coffee A Cup – train on coffee nursery, quality and also buys coffee
4) Gumutindo coffee cooperative enterprises – provides extension services to registered
coffee farmers especially on quality of coffee. It also provides coffee seedlings and buys
quality coffee from its members. Gumutindo sells its coffee to an organisation called
TWINS
29
5) Mt. Elgon Arabica Coffee – buys coffee from the farmers
6) Send a cow – provides training on management of cows and goats and also provides
some animals to well-prepared farmers
Other partners that worked with the communities but whose impact was not felt by many,
implying that they worked with very few groups included: Eco-trust (training on tree planting
and carbon trade); Technoserve (trained on production of passion fruits, provided seedlings of
passion fruits, and buys passion fruits); and Red cross (trained on savings and credit, provided
some goats to farmers). Sustainable Land Management was a project that focused on practices
that promoted use and management of the limited land. It put emphasis on proper agronomy of
maize and beans, soil fertility and tree planting (used fruit trees of guava and oranges). Kilimo
trust trained farmers in bean production and linked them to the market in 2012. Mission Moving
Mountains dealt more with spiritual rehabilitation. USAID through Feed the Future project
provided training on appropriate agronomic practices, marketing, entrepreneurship, and linking
farmers to markets through contractual arrangements.
3.4.3 Factors influencing collaboration between the partners and farmers
In spite of the desire of working with the communities to improve their livelihoods in one way or
the other, there are instances where partners and farmers are unable to collaborate effectively.
Sometimes the issues are from the farmers’ side and sometimes they are from the partners’ side.
Situations that often make farmers resent some partnerships or even lose trust in working with
such partners in the subsequent activities mainly due to failed promises by the partners. Specific
instances shared include:
Failure of the partners to fulfil what they promise e.g. District Local Government (DLG)
promised them hoes but never provided the hoes to the farmers
Failure for the partner to pay for their produce. The example given was on NUCAFE that
once took coffee from farmers with promises to pay them as soon as possible but did not
pay for the coffee eventually
Raising farmers expectations of high prices and not fulfilling
In some instances, it was the environment of the farming communities that failed or limited the
prospective partners to effectively access and work with the communities. Specific situations that
limited some partners from effectively working with and among the communities were
mentioned to include:
Impassable roads especially during the rainy season
Politicization of programs - some people among the communities falsely link the program
to a political party thereby making the people loyal to other parties to shy away from
being part of the program
Unrealistic expectations (hand-outs, money) of the communities from the collaborators.
This situation reflects the desire for the hand-outs and not for the objective of the
program, which in most cases is capacity building for development
Fear of some partners – some farmers mentioned fearing to relate with the army men
under the OWC
Inadequate quantities and quality of produce – Sometimes farmers lose out on
opportunities of marketing their produce mainly due to their failure to raise the required
30
amounts/quantities of produce and the desired quality. Buyers will only engage in a
business transaction where they can break even through huge quantities that can be
transported at once given the often long and impassable roads that make transport costs
exorbitantly high
Low turn up of participants/community members – some partners loose interest when the
community members either fail to turn up or come in very small numbers. The feeling
and reading in this case is that the community is not interested in the proposed venture.
Sometimes the reading may be true and sometimes it may only call for patience and re-
persuasion of the communities to realistically see the intended benefits as a motivation
Topography or landscape – difficulty to reach those in the mountains or highlands due to
the high and dangerous slopes shuns away some partners
Frustration - this was mentioned to be as a result of the community not doing what was
agreed upon and misuse of resources that were once given to the communities
3.4.4 Opportunities/entry points to enhance the desired collective action for VIP4FS
project
The naturally different landscape levels in Manafwa district favours diverse enterprises
around which different farmers/actors can be organised
Existence of farmer groups and local cooperatives provides a starting point where actors
can be mobilised into a platform to structure markets through value addition and
collective marketing. The current picture painted about lack of trust among farmers to
appropriately engage in collective marketing for instance is an opportunity of entry in
effort to build and strengthen teamwork among members in a group.
Existence of a number of organisations and initiatives in promoting collective action and
marketing of some enterprises provides an opportunity to explore public-private
partnership in the provision of market infrastructure such as storage facilities and post-
harvest handling equipment. Different approaches of providing market infrastructure to
improve access to business development services can be explored.
With the practice of integrating coffee and banana with trees (Agroforestry), introduction
and cultivation of appropriate tree species for different uses as shade, fodder as well as
fuel wood is an opportunity.
Given that value chain financing will be a critical component of value chain
development, there is potential to strengthen the capacity of the already existing SACCOs
and VSLAs which are the main source of affordable credit for most smallholder farmers.
Existence of organisations that are working on market information system makes it
possible to improve farmers’ access to market information if the private sector provider
collaborates with the local government. This collaboration can be brokered by the current
project while studying the effectiveness of different forms of collaboration in the
provision of market information.
There is cross border (Uganda – Kenya) trade which points to the potential to expand
supply without necessarily affecting the producers’ returns. Cross border trade is an
opportunity that could be tapped into if the farmers are organised into marketing groups
to improve their bargaining power.
31
4.0 Selection of the enterprises to work with under VIP4FS (Phase II&III)
From the scoping study, there were many promising enterprises that could be enhanced under the
VIP4FS project. However, given the limited resources and desire to create an impact, it would
not be possible to work with all the commodities in the whole district. The team agreed to work
with three commodities. A criteria was developed through a consultative process, involving all
partners, to identify the most promising enterprises the project could focus on.
4.1 Criteria developed to select most promising enterprises
The suggested criteria were as follows:
1. Impact – the enterprise should have the potential to create a big or high impact in the
community. In this context, impact was looked at in three dimensions.
i) Number or proportion of people in the community that would be positively
affected (the easiest to report),
ii) Size of the effect or difference created - an enterprise that would result into a
high or big impact in the livelihoods of the targeted communities would be given
high priority (difficult to measure and report but vital to try) and
iii) Type of people among the communities that would be affected most by the
enterprise. Although focus is on the small holder farmers, emphasis will be on
women and the young people.
2. There should be prospects for tractable interventions and comparisons that could yield
useful results from planned comparisons. This is a necessary condition, since this is the
route through which the project makes progress.
3. Demand from development partners. Existence of demand of the enterprise and its
products from development partners strengthens the worthiness of a given enterprise and
intervention. The project is about increasing income.
4. Potential private sector partners – availability of a pool of interested or potential private
sector partners increases the confidence of working with a given enterprise given the
presence of partners that will easily create more business opportunities around it. The
private sector is very important as a partner especially in co-investments geared towards
improving the marketing system in the value chain of a product.
5. Co-benefits – the more the opportunities of co-benefits to the small holder livelihood
beyond increased incomeaccruing from working with the selected enterprise the more it
is given priority. Co-benefits are important is motivating and sustaining participation of
the actors/farmers in an intervention
6. Competence within the team to appropriately handle enterprise and possible tractable
interventions. The more the project team/partner institutions had technical competence to
handle the enterprises and interventions the higher the chances of reducing costs and
increasing level of success
7. They should have potential to impact women and young people
8. Clear institutional access necessary to effect change.
9. Supportive policy context within which interventions can be developed.
10. Sustainability of the interventions (strategies and value chains)
32
In a matrix form, the parameters in the criteria were used as a lens of analysis for the selection of
a given enterprise. The enterprises that were subjected to the criteria were coffee, maize, beans,
vegetables, sunflower, soybean, groundnuts, fruit trees (crops), dairy cattle, local chicken, goats,
sheep, pigs (livestock) and beekeeping. These had more potential as opposed to the enterprises
that were left out of this analysis. Details of the matrix are in an excel file that can be accessed using
following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rmbi1xh2xo8w2rn/vc%20by%20criteria%20matrix_Uganda_Final.xlsx?dl=0
4.2 The selected enterprises
From the exercise, three enterprises were selected. These were (in descending order of
importance as reflected in the criteria)
1. Coffee
2. Dairy (milk)
3. Bee-keeping (honey)
The project team agreed to collect more primary and secondary information to understand the
value chains of the selected enterprises better. Input from the interactions with the districts and
community members in the sub-counties (FGD and key informant interviews) and literature
review on the value chains guided the development of the survey tools (household and
trader/processors) that were used to gather more detailed information about specific activities
and processes of the value chains in Manafwa.
5.0 Conclusion
In Manafwa, farmers/producers engage in a number of enterprises that broadly comprise crops,
livestock (all animals as well as bees) and petty trade (selling sand, firewood, quarry stones etc.)
for a livelihood. The enterprises are not performing to the desired potential and as a result
farmers are generating very little income. In spite of this situation, there are some enterprises that
seemed to have more potential than others. Crop production was the most prominent with coffee
as the most important crop, followed by livestock with dairy cattle and bee keeping as the most
important enterprises). In many cases, the farmers made effort to form or join groups to promote
self-help initiatives, collective marketing and also tap support from other partners. The intention
of collective marketing was however rarely realised mainly due to lack of trust among the
members. This provides an opportunity for the VIP4FS project to facilitate the development of
social capital in grassroot institutions.
With the most important enterprises or value chains selected (coffee, dairy and beekeeping),
VIP4FS project seeks to bring together different actors with interests in coffee, dairy and bee
keping to form innovation platforms aimed at promoting participation and value at all nodes of
the chains.
