Livelihood Impacts Through Access to Markets

  • 333 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
333
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. LivelihoodImpactsthroughAccess toMarkets
    Annual Program Review 2011
    Nairobi, Kenya9 May2011
    EliudBirachi
    1
  • 2. LivelihoodImpactsthroughAccess tomarkets: Anoverview of resultsfrom Africa
    • EliudBirachi
    • 3. CIAT, Kigali, Rwanda
    • 4. Programmearea: TSBF, PABRA, SSA CP
    • 5. Marketvaluechainresearch
    • 6. e.birachi@cgiar.org
    2
  • 7. Overview
    • Overview: Focus and impacts
    • 8. Anoverview of interventionprojects
    • 9. Modellingmarketaccessframeworks
    • 10. Examples of livelihoodoutcomesfrom Africa programs
    • 11. Lessons and observations
    3
  • 12. Focus of agriculturalmarketvaluechainresearch
    • Conducting value chain research (for market, user targeting)
    • 13. Sustaining wider strategic linkages to support commercialization marketing of agricultural products
    • 14. Modeling sustainable access to markets
    • 15. The value chain based platform approach
    • 16. Creating enabling environment for technology adoption:
    • 17. Role of collective action and credit
    • 18. Evaluating impact of market access on reinvestment in the natural resource base
    • 19. Monitoring Impact of market access on household food security
    4
  • 20. ExpectedOutcomes
    • Increased commercialization of agricultural production
    • 21. Increased incomesfrom agricultural production actors
    • 22. Increased investmentsto enhance agricultural production
    • 23. Enhanced capacitiesof agricultural value chain actors to effectively participate in markets
    • 24. Container: Namaha (1.5 kg)
    • 25. Purchase price = sale price
    • 26. Margin: See picture for determination of margin
    Trading margin
    5
  • 27. Overview of SSA CP
    6
  • 28. Overview of CIALCA
    • Mode of intervention: Empowering NARS, NGOs to support farmer associations
    • 29. At least 3 NGO partners involved in each project area
    • 30. Collaborations with private service providers and other NGOs established
    7
  • 31. Overview of PABRA
    8
  • 32. Private sector
    • Institutions of micro finances
    • 33. Distributors, sellers of inputs
    • 34. Bulk traders, buyers and processors
    • 35. ICT/Information service providers
    • 36. Infrastructure service providers (e.g. warehousing)
    External-Synergy
    Externalcredit
    Business plans
    Credit for input + Labour
    Internalcredit
    Credit for produce
    Input Kiosks
    Internal -Synergy
    Warrantage credit
    Members’ guarantee
    Empoweringfinancialcapacity
    MUSO
    A marketframeworkfortechnologyadoption
    Research
    Policy
    Figure: A model for intervention in agricultural value chains
    9
  • 39. Regional Platform
    (e.g. EAFU, ECGA, SACAU)
    National Platform
    (e.g. CGA)
    Bean Traders Platform
    Bean Impact Zone 1
    Bean Impact Zone 2
    Bean Impact Zone 3
    Bean Impact Zone 4
    Bean Farmers in Selected PABRA countries
    Creating systematic impact through agricultural value based platforms
    10
  • 40. Inter-linking with regional trade policies
    11
  • 41. Enablingenvironmentforadoption- Business plans and credit
    • Producershaveacquiredthecapacitytointegrate ISFM and improvedgermplasmtechnologiesin theirbusinessplans
    • 42. Associations are able to borrow credit to invest in ISFM and pay back regularly- (borrowed USD 8900 this season)
    A farmer training session in progress in South Kivu
    One of the farmer operated
    input kiosks. 3 tons sold to farmers last season
    12
  • 43. Enablingenvironmentforadoption- warrantagecreditschemes
    • Outcome of business plans, producers adopted warrantage credit schemes by storing and exercising over 5.6 tons of legumes (4.1 tons for beans and 1.5 tons soybean) in 2010
    • 44. As a result, the net price gain for farmers was USD 0.4-0.5/kg of soybean and USD 0.9-1.0/kg of beans (over 50% in both cases)
    13
  • 45. Enablingenvironmentforadoption-mutual savingsschemes
    • Farmer managed mutual savings schemes (MUSO)
    • 46. for productive investment (green) fund
    • 47. For social welfare (red) - protects investment fund
    • 48. 33 schemes in CIALCA sites, farmers raised over USD 5400 in one year
    • 49. Potential to support warrantage and business plan implementation
    Demonstrating mutual savings schemes to farmers
    14
  • 50. A focusonpartnershipsforuptake of technologies: Collectiveaction
    Collectiveaction: Wheredo farmergroup lie in thesupplychain?
    Farmer groups/associations
    National research institutions
    NGOs
    Private sector: processors, credit providers, traders
    Focus: farmer groups to play a bigger role in product supplies
    Farmer groups
    15
  • 51. Collectiveaction: Impactsof groupsontechnologyuptake
    16
  • 52. Collectiveaction: Benefits (Economic surplus)fromtechnologyuse in the DRC
    17
  • 53. Market access and householdincomes per year (Uganda case)
    Bean is leading contributors
    1 USD = 2200 UGShs
    18
  • 54. Market access and re-investmentof agriculturalincomes: earlyindications in Uganda
    Re-investment in NRM: Aggregate of land improvement activities
    19
  • 55. Contributionstorevenue and prices in the DRC and Rwanda- beans
    Beans contributed to at least 40% of household income for 53% of households in North Kivu, DRC
    20
  • 56. Market access and incomes: Effect of linkages to profitable markets and value addition
    Rwanda: bean prices in Kibungodistrict (about 100 km from Kigali) are USD 0.35 per kg of beans, in Kigali price was USD 0.58
    Potential for income is almost 50% higher in Kigali.
    Producers supply over 35 tons of products over 3 months. Old price = RFrw 90
    Finally, in DRC, processing of banana into wines yielded over 90% more returns compared to raw bananas.
    21
  • 57. Communicationschannels, Burundi
    22
  • 58. Enhancing access to profitable markets: Potential link to ICT platforms
    23
  • 59. Market access and gender in agricultutalproducttrade
    24
  • 60. Lessonsand observations
    Agricultural product branding and positioning needed for value capture
    Market information networks: Can extend benefits from agricultural product trade
    Forward contracting and warehousing (receipt system) should be encouraged
    Agricultural product marketing platforms as a means of sustaining market linkages
    Platforms provide a framework for convergence of successful interventions in agricultural value chains
    Credit access is a must for effective utilization of new technologies (need to harness internal credit potential as well)
    The role of groups need to be strengthened to achieve economic scale of production and marketing
    Finally, linkages to regional blocs (COMESA, EAC, SADC) vital to improve market access for outputs and inputs
    25
  • 61. Thankyouforyourattention
    26