Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Assessing smallholder pig value chains in Uganda: Tools used at the farmers’ node

Poster by Emily A. Ouma, Danilo Pezo, Michel Dione, Kristina Rösel, Lawrence Mayega, David Kiryabwire, Gideon Nadiope and Peter Lule presented for the Agrifood chain toolkit conference on livestock and fish value chains in East Africa, Kampala, Uganda, 9-11 September 2013.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Assessing smallholder pig value chains in Uganda: Tools used at the farmers’ node

  1. 1. Assessing Smallholder Pig Value Chains in Uganda: Tools used at the farmers’ node 1, Ouma 1, Pezo 1, Dione 1 Rösel 2, Mayega 3, Kiryabwire Emily A. Danilo Michel Kristina , Lawrence David 4 and Peter Lule1, 5. Gideon Nadiope 1 International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI); 2 Masaka Municipality; 3 Mukono Municipality; 4 Volunteer Efforts for Development Concerns (VEDCO) and 5 Makerere University. September 2013 Introduction The VCA Tool kit components Over the past three decades pig population has increased from 0.19 to 3.2 million, and in 2011 Uganda had the highest per capita consumption of pork in Sub-Saharan Africa (3.4 kg person-1 year-1).      More than 1.1 million poor households (18% of the total population) own pigs, mostly managed by women and children as a crop-livestock systems’ backyard activity.  Actors in a Typical Pig Value Chain The pig production and marketing in Uganda is dominated (90%) by a large informal subsector (i.e., farmers, traders, butchers, and retailers), with poorly organized markets and limited access to services and information.    VCA Tools Development   Selection of Target Sites      Training of facilitators on the application of the VC tools Pictures In the present contribution are described the process followed for assessing the farmers’ node of the smallholder pig value chain in three districts of Uganda, as well as some of the tools and techniques applied.    The number and types of actors in the smallholder pigs value chains is large, diverse and complex, therefore different tools and techniques need to be used for the assessment of the value chain. Purpose  Seasonal calendar Institutional interactions Production systems Social capital – involvement in collective action and benefits. Activity clock – gender roles in production and marketing Decision-making and control of resources Livelihood analysis – income sources Value chain mapping Animal health Breeding Feeding Food safety and nutrition Geographical targeting using GIS information. Stakeholder consultation of GIS report and identification of soft criteria. Participatory selection of districts by stakeholders. Minimum checklist for selection of counties & sub-counties. Includes scoping visits and key-informant interviews. Scoping of pre-selected sub-counties Final selection of sites Review and adaptation of tools used in other CRP 3.7 projects, as well as in the Livestock Data Innovation in Africa project (CRP 2.3). Tool-kit harmonized with the Safe Food Fair Food project (CRP 4.3).  Tool-kit engendered where appropriate.  Tool-kit shared with other projects: the L&F Pig VC - Vietnam, and the SLU/SIDA project “Assessing the impact of African Swine Fever in smallholder pig systems and the feasibility of potential interventions”    Tool-kit tested in Matuga (Wakiso).  Application of the VCA Tools Selection and training of facilitators  Farmers working on the seasonal calendar Emily A. Ouma ● Box 24384 Kampala ● +256 39-2-081154/5 Kampala Uganda ● This project is funded by IFAD/EU This document is licensed for use under a Creative Commons Attribution –Non commercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License June 2012    Launching workshops with local authorities and technical staff Random selection of farmer participants Introduction of VC tool to all farmers in a plenary. Farmers distributed at random in groups, with two facilitators per group, to work on specific tools. Mixed or gender disaggregated groups according to the nature of the tools applied. Plenary session to review/discuss constraints and opportunities identified in small groups working with specific technology components. Separate session with key-informant at village level.