Crop Maize
Crop Maize
Crop Maize
Core Partners
Hadji Sabiiti Gulanyago (Farmer representative) Kiboga district
Peter Adolli (farmer representative) Apac district
Mr. Chris Balya, Afro-Kai Limited
Mr. Kiwalabye-Male, BUCADEF (Buganda Cultural and Development
Foundation)
Behzad Khatai, ASDI (Agency for Promoting Sustainable
Development Initiative)
Ms. Rehema Kalibbala, Agricultural Officer, Dept. of Agriculture
Kiboga
Mr. Yovan Ogwang, District Agricultural Officer (Apac)
Managing Partner
Dr. Ambrose Agona,
Specifically the project addressed improvement of maize quality and quantity in order to
improve market access by small scale farmers’. The project mainly focused on improving the
farmers’ post-harvest practices through adoption and sustainable use of appropriate post-
harvest technologies, and their marketing practices through group storage, capacity building
and joint marketing.
The project outputs were delivered by 6 intermediary organizations and the end users of the
project outputs were 18 farmer groups in the districts of Apac and Kiboga. This coalition project
and partnership facilitated the delivery of post harvest technologies, information and skills to the
end users. Through the project, the farmers were able to acquire various types of technologies
that were used to improve on the quality of their maize. The quality and quantity of farmers’
maize increased and they were able to receive premium prices of 20-50% above the local
market prices. As an example, the farmers of Abongomola sub-county, Apac district are now
able to sell over 100MT per season.
The skills imparted to the farmers included post harvest handling, marketing, group dynamics,
entrepreneurship and savings culture skills. Through the project, the farmers of Apac and
Kiboga have visited each other and were able to learn from one another.
With the improved levels of farmer organization, the farmer groups are now better equipped to
handling maize marketing and storage. The farmers are now able to dialogue and negotiate
with traders. This is seen as one method of sustainability of project outputs. Some farmer
groups are still facing infrastructure (maize store) problems and this has been addressed by
partnering with local government partners who will advocate to the central government to set up
such structures.
The institutional lessons learnt as working in a coalition have been that the relationships among
partners are influenced by many factors that include the organizations objectives and activities,
earlier work relationships, and the central uniting objective. Some factors take time to build, for
example trust. One measure of mitigating this was for the lead organization to be transparent
in its dealings with the partners. The work relationships were formalized during the project
implementation. This was in form of a MoU that guided the partners on what was expected of
them.
The project has demonstrated that working as a coalition with key functional partners has been
able to improve rural farmers’ market access. During implementation it was also noted that
other key partners were needed including micro-finance institutions and local (and/or central)
government to improve access to credit and infrastructural development.
Section B Background
B.1 Administrative data
NRIL Contract Number: ZB0343 Managing Partner(s)/Institution(s):
National Post Harvest Programme (NPHP),
Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute
DFID Contract Number: R8274 Partner institution(s)
• Buganda Cultural and Development
Foundation;
• Agency for Promoting Sustainable
Development Initiative;
• Afro Kai Ltd.
• Local government District Agricultural
Offices (DAO) of Apac and Kiboga district
The project was classified as focussed since it addressed improving market access through
improved maize quality and increased volumes. The target beneficiaries were resource poor
farmers whose livelihoods are heavily dependent on the small and irregular incomes from
agricultural activities. The project aimed to contribute to poverty reduction through the use and
provision of improved maize post-harvest technologies (PHT) and store their produce in
common (or communal) stores. Through this arrangement the maize marketing transaction
costs were reduced and the amounts saved were passed onto the farmers in form of premium
prices for their maize. This has had an impact in that farmers have now increased on the
acreage of maize grown.
The project aimed at contributing to poverty reduction by increasing the competitiveness of rural
farmers produce, specifically maize and improved market access due to high quality, large
volume and sustainable supply of produce in the marketing chain as a result of sustainable use
of appropriate post-harvest technologies and approaches. The project followed a dual
approach in removing barriers that directly impact negatively on the earnings of the rural poor,
while at the same time addressing strategic interventions that bring in a number of players
through institutional linkages with a common agenda of improving the livelihoods of the poor,
and thus was classified both enabling and focussed. The project targeted mainly the problem
of low incomes of rural-based smallholder farmers who experienced poor market access
1
Enabling: addresses an issue that under-pins pro-poor economic growth or other policies for poverty reduction which leads
to social, environmental and economic benefits for poor people
Inclusive: addresses an issue that affects both rich and poor, but from which the poor will benefit equally
Focussed: addresses an issue that directly affects the rights, interests and needs of poor people primarily
because of poor quality and low volumes of tradable produce due heavy reliance of traditional
practices of grain handling and storage.
The project was classified as focussed since it addressed improving market access through
improved maize quality and increased volumes. The target beneficiaries were resource poor
farmers whose livelihoods are heavily dependent on the small and irregular incomes from
agricultural activities. The project aimed to contribute to poverty reduction through the use and
provision of improved maize post-harvest technologies (PHT) and store their produce in
common (or communal) stores. Through this arrangement the maize marketing transaction
costs were reduced and the amounts saved were passed onto the farmers in form of premium
prices for their maize. This has had an impact in that farmers have now increased on the
acreage of maize grown.
Please describe the importance of the livelihood constraint(s) that the project sought to address
and specify how and why this was identified.
The project addressed poor market access of maize due to poor quality and small volumes of
grain available. Maize is a major staple, giving variety to household diets in the form of roasted
or steamed cobs, maize flour and/or composite flour which is prepared into porridge or bread.
Maize stover and bran also constitute major ingredients in livestock feed. Maize is thus a
strategic crop in Ugandan food security, largely as a result of increasing urbanisation, and has
the potential to become a non-traditional agricultural export. Consequently, improvements in
the maize production, marketing and distribution chain hold out a significant potential both
for export growth and for poverty reduction (PSF).
Despite the more than 5.5% annual growth rate of the national economy since 2000, poverty
levels, especially of the rural poor increased from 38 to 43%, This is characteristically showed a
skewed level of advancement, with the rural poor who form the majority of producers in the
agricultural sub-sector, bearing the heavy burden. Increased poverty level is commensurate to
poor access to social amenities, good education, improved health standards, information,
knowledge and technologies, and apathy, to mention but a few.
How and to what extent did the project understand and work with different groups of end users?
Describe the design for adoption of project outputs by the user partners?
The project made an analysis of the various project stakeholders by defining their key interests
in the project and their likely impact on the project. The project identified what each stakeholder
(coalition partner) would bring into the project and what each partner would need from the
project. The project further analysed the relationships between partners in form of what they
will need from each other and what they will provide each other. This also formed the basis of
the roles and responsibilities of the partners.
The design for adoption of project outputs was in form of a work plan as shown in annex II.
This was based on the activities that were planned and the responsible partner in charge of
implementing. A memorandum of understanding was drawn between the partners and the lead
institution, i.e. Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute, spelling out the specific roles and
responsibilities in the project including the expectations. Basing on the activities, each coalition
partner was then assigned specific roles to play and this was summarized in their quarterly
work plans. Work plans and funding was done on a quarterly basis.
Institutional design
Describe the process of forming the coalition partnership from the design stage and its
evolution during the project?
The research project idea was initiated by the research partner (Kawanda Agricultural
Research Institute). Basing on past experiences of technology generation, transfer of post
harvest technologies and limited adoption, it was decided to use a new approach. The
approach was basically to involve more functional stakeholders in the multiplication and transfer
of research outputs in order to ensure sustainability and improve the adoption rates.
This project consists of five categories of organizations viz. research institute, agricultural
extension, grain trader, civil society (NGOs) and the target group the farmer groups. The
functions of the various partners include generation of technology, facilitating the process of
dissemination of technologies, marketing/exporting, production and storage.
Selection of partners was not random, but was also based historical and existing relationships
between coalition partners. For example, research mainly works with agricultural extension
departments in the districts. It was through their recommendation that the non-government
organization (NGO) operating in their district was selected. The NGO also had to be involved
agricultural development work. Further still, the NGOs selected also had historical relationships
with research, and therefore they were not new to the process of research. Farmer groups
were also selected basing on past collaborative work with research and their relationship with
the district partners, i.e. extension and the NGO. The grain trader was selected also basing on
past collaborative work. Other factors that supported their selection included their vast
experience in grain buying from farmers and export trade.
The coalition partnership has remained the same in terms of the number of partners. During
the project implementation it was decided to form a district coordinating committee that would
oversee project activities at the district. This was instituted with the aim of improving work
relationships, project coordination and proper utilization of resources. Other developments that
have evolved include new forms of farmer organizations. The farmer groups in each sub-
county decided and were facilitated to forming registered farmer associations. Therefore, there
are now four farmer associations, one in each project sub-county. This was instituted with the
aim of giving the farmer groups more voice and recognition.
Initially there was one grain trader that the farmer groups were selling to. With the improved
quantity and quality of the farmers’ maize, and use of information communication technology
(ICT), the number of traders buying their maize has increased.
The hypothesis here is that by working as a coalition these functions will work better and this
will provide better access to maize markets for the farmers in the study areas. The project
addresses the poor mechanism in transferring post harvest technologies. The project feels
that with better access to post harvest technologies then the quality and quantity of
marketable maize will increase thus improving market access. By bringing together various
partners with key functional roles, then access to technologies and resources will improve.
This will also consolidate the various development activities that were performed in isolation.
The project work plan, the budget and logical framework guided the research process and
project activities. Each coalition partner was required to develop their quarterly work plan and
budget basing on the planned activities for the quarter. This was found to give the partners
more control and confidence to achieving their activities. The activities were then reviewed
during planning quarterly meetings.
What were the major changes that took place during the implementation period. For each one,
explain why they came about and how well did the project manage them?
In terms of project implementation there were no major changes. The lead institution was the
Managing Partner’s institution i.e. Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute. The various
partners’ roles remained the same. To improve project coordination early during
implementation, it was decided to decentralize some of the project responsibility to the district
project partners in form of project coordination committees (PCC). The PCC consisted of the
district coalition partners including the District Agricultural Offices, the NGOs (BUCADEF in
Kiboga and ASDI in APAC), and the farmer groups. The PCC was set up to improve
information flow between partners and project coordination. The project coordinators all had
equal access to the lead institution and the Managing Partner (MP). Decisions made by the
PCC were found to represent views of the district partners. The PCC was also able to plan for
joint activities without necessarily involving the centre (lead institution). Comparing the two
districts, the PCC appeared to work better in Apac district probably because it is further away
from the lead institution. For larger decisions the partners would meet directly with the MP
since such encounters were planned for in their budgets.
The target or primary beneficiaries of the project were the farmer groups. Through the
assistance of the District Agricultural Office and the partner NGO, the farmer groups were
registered at District Community Development Office. This was encouraged because the
farmers were sensitized on the new form or mechanism of channelling down development
efforts would be through viable farmer groups as opposed to individual farmers. The project
started with selected groups in the sub-counties. After having attended entrepreneurial
seminars and workshops during the course of project implementation, it was decided to take
another step of registering the farmer groups into Farmer Associations (FA). This would give
them a bigger voice and increase their scope of activities. But in relation to the project this was
encouraged as a step to improving maize marketing and also as a means of attracting
resources. This change has improved maize marketing activities in Kiboga district who were
experiencing managerial problems in their farmer groups. By forming the new associations has
brought back confidence in storing and marketing maize as a group.
What were the strengths and weaknesses of your monitoring system? How did you use the
Information provided by your monitoring system?
What organisations were involved at the end of the project? Were there changes to the
coalition (joining/leaving) during the project? If yes, why?
Include a complete list of organisations involved, directly or indirectly, in the project and
describe their relationships and contributions.
The monitoring system was very participatory in nature whereby the target beneficiaries
were involved in documenting project progress. The monitoring was performed on a timely
(quarterly) basis which was very beneficial in terms of planning for the following quarter. The
information was also used to check on project progress by comparing the information
generated with what was planned. The farmers during the monitoring exercise were able to
express how they were going to achieve project outputs and how they were going to improve
the ongoing activities. The information from the exercise was used by management
(National Post Harvest Programme) to also design project interventions. For example, the
information would highlight post harvest training needs, problems faced in maize storage
and marketing. This then formed a basis on which to design appropriate training tools,
market interventions like contacting grain traders.
The organisations involved at the end of the project in terms of roles and responsibilities
have changed a bit. At the beginning, the grain trader had the role of buying grain from the
farmers at his own cost. This could have been a constraint to the trader since the volumes
available were small, at times inconsistent in quality and not supplied at the time he needed
it. The trader’s requirements were over 5,000MT and yet the coalition farmers were able to
supply about 100-200MT of maize! However, the grain trader is still in contact with the
farmer groups but assisting them on another product. The farmers with the assistance of the
project were able to source other smaller grain exporters. These exporters are mainly from
eastern Uganda and their market is Kenya, which is the biggest consumer of maize export.
There were many organisations involved in the project both directly and indirectly, these
included the following.
One of the grain stores renovated by the project in Abongomola sub-county Apac district
• The District Agricultural Offices (DAO) of Kiboga and Apac districts were instrumental in
technology transfer and coordination of project activities at district level. The DAO was
the local government partner whose role was also to promote the project among the local
government authorities. The office of the DAO has the mandate of overseeing and
promoting agricultural activities in the district i.e. their role is extension work. This role
was very vital in promoting post harvest technologies. The office of the DAO and the
partner NGO working in the district would organize post harvest sensitization and farmer
group dynamics seminars with the farmer groups to further improve on their capacity to
handle maize and market it.
• The farmer groups of Abongomola and Loro sub-counties of Apac district, and Kibiga
and Nsambya sub-counties of Kiboga district. The farmer groups were the target
beneficiaries of the project. They were trained in improved crop post harvest handling,
farmer group dynamics and entrepreneurship skills. The farmers sold their maize output
to traders who paid them. Due to the improved quality and quantity, the farmers were
able to receive a premium price for their maize.
• The NGOs in Kiboga and Apac districts respectively, Buganda Cultural and Development
Foundation (BUCADEF) and Agency for Promoting Sustainable Development Initiative
(ASDI). The NGOs played a vital role in transferring post harvest technologies to the
farmer groups. The NGOs are in day to day contact with the farmer groups and know
their needs. This project contributed to their agricultural and development objectives.
With facilitation from the project, their project staff were able to conduct post harvest and
farmer group dynamics training seminars. Even with their own funding, the NGOs were
also able to multiply some post harvest technologies including maize cribs.
• The grain exporter Afro-Kai Ltd whose role was to purchase the farmers’ maize. The
marketing of agricultural produce was liberalized in order to make it near to perfect
competition. Given the complaint by farmers that finding markets is hard, having a
private trader was therefore imperative. The farmers’ quality and quantity of maize had
improved but not able to meet the trader’s requirements in terms of volume. The farmers
were able to get alternative markets in Kisenyi, the biggest domestic maize market,
exporters from eastern Uganda, schools, and traders from Hoima district.
• National Council of Small-scale Business Organizations (NCUSBO) was an organization
contracted to train the farmers in entrepreneurship skills and savings. Further still, they
facilitated the project farmer groups to form associations and thereby improve on their
marketing.
The institutional output for the project stated ‘Cohesive, dynamic and sustainable
partnerships and institutional mechanism for linking the rural maize producers to markets in
place’ and the technical hypothesis for the institutional setting was stated as follows that
‘small-scale farmers’ ability to access information and better markets for their produce
improved through institutional partnerships’.
This output mainly focussed on the formation and strengthening of work relationships in form
of sustainable partnerships. The partners each had functional roles to play in order to help
the farmers achieve the project’s objective of improving market access. The relationships
among the partners had a historical nature to it in that some partners had earlier worked
together on other activities. This also played a significant role in the way partners were
relating in this project.
Information on any facilities, expertise and special resources used to implement the project
should also be included.
The main research activities were socio-economic studies to first establish the maize
production and marketing systems in the project areas. A rapid market assessment of the
Kisenyi wholesale market was conducted in order for the farmers to start supplying it with their
maize. The main research output was output 2 which stated “Relevant post harvest
technologies and knowledge base that increase access to markets by small-scale rural maize
farmers adopted”. Output 3 that states “Capacity of rural people involved in maize enterprises
enhanced and systems for continuously improving the capacity in place” had a researchable
indicator that would show that the indicator has been achieved by an improvement of the quality
of farmers’ maize as a result of training in improved post harvest handling.
The research activities conducted included market surveys that identified post harvest
constraints limiting maize storage and marketing of resource poor farmers in each of the target
sub-counties. Other on-going studies are adoption studies that were designed to establish
factors that affect the adoption of PHTs. Laboratory studies were also conducted to establish
the quality of farmers’ maize. Tests included insect counts and species, moisture content,
physical damage levels, microbial infections and germination tests. It was hypothesized that
the quality of farmers’ maize will improve as a result of project intervention.
Background
Maize is the most important cereal crop in Uganda, and one of the most important
worldwide. In Uganda, the crop is a major staple food for a large proportion of the
population, in addition to being an important animal feed. Maize acreage constitutes about
10% of the total area under annual crops and about 12% of cereals consumption. Maize
importance is centered around the large quantity of carbohydrates, protein, vitamins and
fats, contained in the kernels, making it compare favourably as an energy source with root
and tuber crops per quantity.
Per capita total maize consumption in Uganda is about 28 kilogrammes a year, although
yields remain low, fluctuating around 1.5 tonnes per hectare (ASARECA, 2001).
Households on the farm consume about 43% of the total maize produced in Uganda and its
importance to most farmers is as a cash crop. In 1996/1997 for example, Uganda earned
US$30.2 million from maize. In the year 2000, the contribution of non-traditional exports in
Uganda was US$190.29 million (47.4%), of which only $2.4 million (0.6%) was from maize
(UBOS, 2001). This was probably because of the abundance of maize in Kenya and other
neighbouring countries, which led to a decline in the local maize price. However, FOODNET
(2002) estimates annual export sales figures of between US$19 and 25 million (at 250 Ush.
per kilo).
However, although maize is a very important crop in Uganda, small-scale subsistence maize
farmers face a number of constraints viz., poor market access, and increased price variation,
uncertainties on loss levels, poor storage systems and exploitation by middlemen.
This study therefore attempts to establish or form a baseline on the level of farmers maize
production and marketing activities in the project sub-counties in June 2003.
Methods
The study area was selected basing on the project area that includes the sub-counties of
Kibiga and Nsambya in Kiboga district and Loro and Abongomola in Apac districts. These
sub-counties are representative of the rural conditions under which farmers live. These sub-
counties are characterized to have limited opportunities in terms of good infrastructure
(storage, roads, and communication networks), access to PHT, and markets.
Results
The results will be displayed in tabular form showing a comparison between the two districts
of Kiboga and Apac
3. Belong to groups
Yes 55 55 60 58.8
No 45 45 42 41.2
N 100 100 102 100
Table 10. Gross margin analysis per bag of maize in Apac and Kiboga districts
Apac Kiboga
Season 1 Season 2 Season 1 Season 2
Cost per bag 533.57 533.57 539.95 562.99
Transport from field to home 803.84 671.36
Transport from home to market/store 938.86 1,006.72
Transport cost 1,263.80 1,430.20
Shelling cost 870.78 937.53 740.05 775.73
Cleaning 445.21 438.01 265.40 300.73
Packing 252.27 260.37 295.03 314.49
Loading fee 262.30 248.91 786.77 781.70
Treatment 860.29 787.04 1,338.87 1,224.74
Taxes 710.52 653.36 376.61 239.95
Dues 743.99 696.81 219.22 369.17
Total cost 6,421.63 6,233.68 5,825.67 5,999.71
30
25
20
Apac
15
Kiboga
10
5
0
em er
N c to r
em t
r
Ju y
D em er
Ap h
M ry
ne
M l
br ry
Se A u l y
O be
pt g u s
be
ri
a
c
ec b
Ju
ov b
ua
Fe nua
ar
Ja
Months
Percentage response
15
Apac
10
Kiboga
5
em er
N tob r
em t
r
Ju y
D em r
ch
M ry
ne
ril
br ry
Se A u g y
O be
pt u s
be
ov e
a
ec b
Ap
Ju
ua
Fe ua
M
ar
n
c
Ja
Months
1. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
1. Household location. District ………………………………..
Village :......................................... Parish :.................................................
Sub-county :................................... County :................................................
2. Sex of respondent: 1) male 2) female
3. Age of respondent ..................... years
4. Status of respondent1) head 2) wife 3) son 4) daughter 5) relative 6) labourer
5. What are your sources of household income in order of importance
Source of income Rank
On-farm
Off-farm (specify) .........................................................
Gifts
Rank: 1 = most important, 2 = important, 3 = least important
7. Size of household
Category Number
Males 15 years and older
Females 15 years and older
Children younger than 15 years
Parents inclusive!
8. Size of farmland owned ………….. (acres)
9. Size of farmland under cultivation or livestock ................... (acres)
10. Size of farmland hired ................... (acres)
Rank with 1 = most important, 2 = important, 3 =…., 4 =…. etc., and the last figure being least
important
4. CROP UTILISATION
22. Of the total amount of your maize harvested, how much did you use for the following;
Use/purpose Quantity/amount (KG)
1st season 2nd season
On-farm consumption (bags)
Sold (bags)
Seed (kg) home-saved
Other uses (specify) …………………….
If other units of measurement are used please indicate so and their equivalent in kgs
24. How long (weeks) do you dry your maize after harvesting it? ............................
25. Who in your family harvests the maize?
1) Husband 2) Wife 3) Children 4) Hired Labour 5) Other (specify) ………………
26. How do you transport your maize from field to home (or storage)? (tick √)
Head Bicycle Motor vehicle Other (specify) ………………………
Not applicable
Processing
30. How do you normally shell your maize?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
31. Who in your family is responsible for shelling maize?
1) Husband 2) Wife 3) Children 4) Hired Labour 5) Other (specify) .......................
Storage
32. Do you store your maize? 1) yes 0) no
33. If no, go to no. 40.
34. What quantity of maize did you store and for how long during 1st & 2nd season crop?
Variable 1st season crop 2nd season crop
Maize stored (kg)
Duration of maize storage (months)
Who are the main buyers of your maize and rank them?
Buyer Rank
50. Where do you get information on the prevailing market price of maize?
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
51. How do you market your maize? 1) individually 2) as a group 3) both
54. What quantity of empty bags did you purchase during 1st season ______ 2nd season ___?
55. What did each bag cost? USH ____________
56. What transport costs per bag did you incur:
from field to home during 1st season USH_________ 2nd season USH__________
(probe for weight of bag of maize on cob)……......… kg
from home to market during 1st season USH__________ 2nd season USH _________
(probe weight of bag of shelled maize) …..…….… kg
57. What are your handling costs per bag for:
8. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE/ADVICE
61. Do you receive any type of technical assistance or advice towards your agricultural activities?
1) yes 0) no
62. If no, go to no. 65.
63. If yes, describe the type of technical assistance you receive and who provides it.
Type of assistance Institution providing assistance
Production
Processing
Drying
Storage
Financial/credit
Produce marketing
Other (specify)
9. CREDIT
64. Do you receive any credit? 1) yes 0) no
65. If no, go to no. 70.
66. If yes, for what purpose? ........................………………………………...………..
……………………………………………………………………………………
67. Which organisation or who provides you with credit? (probe for traders giving credit, or from
family members, or other informal means) ................................................………..
……................................................................................................................……………….
68. What are the terms of payment of the debt (e.g. probe for interest rates, payment terms,
etc.) ……………………………………………………………………………………….
10. GENERAL
69. In your opinion, which crop enterprises would improve household incomes in your area?
..................................................................................................................
70. Which livestock enterprises would improve household incomes in your area? ........
.................................................................................................................................
Objective: The objective of this study is to help the Abongomola farmer groups decide
whether to sell their maize directly to Kisenyi market millers or just sell at farmgate.
1. Identify potential buyers and contact several to determine whether they would be
interested in speaking with the farmers
2. Determine millers’ expectations of future supply, demand and price
3. Obtain the quality standards for maize and determine the varieties that are most in
demand.
4. Determine the usual means of transport, terms of payment for maize
5. Determine the cost of transport to Kisenyi
6. Determine restrictions on domestic trade of maize, levies, “unofficial taxes”
7. Obtain and analyze statistics of Kisenyi market maize supplies, with districts of origin,
yearly for the past 2 years and monthly for the past year
8. Obtain average prices of maize in the Kisenyi market, monthly for the past 3 years
• Will maize from Abongomola be able to compete with maize from other producing
districts, in terms of quality and price?
• Is transportation up to Kisenyi complex or expensive?
• Are there major regulatory barriers to the sale of maize in Kisenyi?
• Is the Kisenyi maize market broad enough in total volume and in number of buyers?
• Are the Kisenyi buyers receptive to new suppliers? Are they receiving many offers? What
is their opinion of maize from Apac?
• What are the typical payment terms?
• What are the typical transporting terms?
• Are real (adjusted for inflation) prices in Kisenyi increasing?
• Which maize varieties are most in demand?
• What is the opinion or reputation of Apac farmers to the Kisenyi millers?
• Are there major plans to start or increase maize production in other districts?
• Are there major plans to enlarge the market through promotional campaigns?
• Who are the natural “allies and supporters” and who are the natural “enemies”? How can
these be used to reduce hindrances and facilitate entrance to the market?
Other research questions
• Is it worth storing maize, i.e. is the price offered able to cover costs, inflation, losses,
interest, etc?
• What is the farmers’ objective to growing and/or selling maize?
• What is the most feasible (returns, costs, time, ease of payment, etc) place for farmers to
sell, given their objectives and needs? Kisenyi/Nakawa markets, farm-gate, or Afro-Kai,
etc.
• Is it feasible
Work done
A very quick rapid appraisal of Kisenyi market was conducted to determine whether farmers
in Abongomola could sell their maize in Kampala, by determining the buyers, their terms,
and expectations and determine potential hindrances or obstacles the farmers may face.
Secondary information has also been included to guide the farmers determine their costs
and profits.
Findings
1. The Buyers
Kisenyi market is one (or probably) the largest market for maize in Uganda. The maize is
milled for food and feed. There are about 70 milling companies in Kisenyi market who have
formed an umbrella association called “Kisenyi Millers Association”. This association was
formed after unscrupulous dealers would bring farmers to the market and walk away with the
money. This association was also formed to lobby for their needs from government.
Other important players in Kisenyi are the ‘guides’, who act as a go between the farmers and
millers. When a farmer brings their maize to Kisenyi, the guide informs him/her at what price
maize is being sold (off-lorry price). The guide also makes prior arrangements with millers
and informs them of the expected consignment. Contacts include Mulugo Samuel (077-
342910) guide no. 14, and Kakungulu (077-485599) guide no. 10.
The quality of maize may not be a very big hindrance because of the wide range of products
that are made viz. animal feeds and food (which is or can be graded). Specific quality
parameters will have to be obtained for the various products.
Maize from Abongomola will be able to compete with that from other districts. We are
confident because the farming groups in Abongomola were sensitized on the importance of
keeping and achieving good quality maize. They were taught post harvest management
practices that significantly improve or maintain the quality of maize. The form in which the
maize is stored prior to sale is also modern, i.e., in a warehouse, which makes it easy for
inspection, cleaning and fumigating, if the need arises.
3. Maize supply
All the main supplying districts in Uganda supply Kisenyi. It was not established whether
some of the maize is imported. Some of the districts mentioned included Iganga, Mbarara,
Masindi, and Kapchorwa.
Kisenyi market received in excess of 1,500 MT of maize per week (averaging 1,753 MT)
from 19th October 2003 to 15th November 2003 (Source the Regional Agricultural Trade
Intelligence Network (RATIN)).
Since there are many suppliers of maize to Kisenyi, it was advised that the maximum volume
of consignment should be 20MT. The maize should arrive at the market by 0630 hrs.
Further still, the guide should be informed that the maize is on its way and its expected time
of arrival, so that he makes the prior arrangements.
The above figures show wholesale prices of maize in Kampala and Mbale in US$/MT for the
years 2002 and 2003. An analysis of the graphs show that maize price started dropping in
July. In Mbale the price picked up from September, probably owing to the increased demand
from Kenya.
P ric e Tre n d of Maiz e Off lorry P ric e s in Kamp ala, 2000, 2003 an d
th e 5-ye ar Ave rag e (1998-2002)
400
375 365
350
325 320
310
300
293
275 274
268
259
250 240 240
233 246 249
228 234
225 216
214
221 221
200 209
175
J an Feb Mar Apr May J un J ul Aug S ep Oct Nov Dec
S ource: Foodnet & IDEA Project 2000 2003 5-year average
Prices are averages for Owino and Kisenyi Markets. According to the graph, maize prices
declined by 20% between June and July. As anticipated during May, the prices declined in
July due to the maize harvest. Most of the maize had high moisture between 14-16%. The
high demand from local millers and Kenyan traders led to supply of such poor quality maize.
The highest price reached for the old maize crop was UShs 480 per kilo in mid-July.
The above graph also shows that the second season crop peaks in November and starts
dropping in December. The Kisenyi traders also expect this drop as the new crop especially
from Busoga comes onto the market.
From the graphs, we could also predict demand. When the price is high we can assume that
demand for maize is also high. Other factors influencing seasonal trends include opening of
schools.
5. Payment terms
As mentioned earlier, the Kisenyi Millers Association was formed to improve the efficiency of
maize marketing in Kisenyi and reduce cheating. Farmers or maize suppliers are paid after
the maize has been off-loaded. About 3% of the off-lorry price is deducted to pay for off-
loading and operational costs, e.g., if the off-lorry price is USH 245 per kg, then 5 shillings
per kg will be deducted to cater for off-loading and operations leaving the farmer with USH
240. Cash is usually the main form of payment.
6. Costs
The cost components that the Abongomola farmers are likely to face will include:
• Preparation & packaging: cleaning, grading and packaging (sacks)
• Handling: loading, off-loading, putting in store, removing it, etc
• Transport: depends on distance and quality of road. Transport is usually charge on a
per bag basis versus per kg.
• Losses: losses may occur during marketing e.g. when transporting it.
• Storage: whether to store in anticipation of price increase or not. By incorporating
inflation in the storage cost calculations, you are able to get the “real” price changes.
• Processing: Farmers, assisted by researchers or extension agents, need to
understand how to relate finished product prices to the raw material, e.g. maize grain
and maize flour.
• Finance: in case of borrowed money, the interest paid is the cost. Or the amount of
interest that the money the farmer has used would have earned if it were put in the
bank instead.
• Fees, commissions and unofficial payments: market fees, weighing, license fees,
bribes, roadblocks, etc.
It should also be noted that the price the farmer gets depends on the costs he/she incurs,
the marketing system and on the price. Each case needs to be examined on its own merits
before one mentions that farmers are being exploited!
The price the farmer is paid will therefore have to cater for the above mentioned costs
incurred.
Maize Samples of 500-g lots were collected from farmers interviewed in Kiboga district. A
total of 48 samples were collected, of which half (24) were from farmers involved in groups
and the other half from farmers who stored maize individually.
Maize was weighed into 100-g grain samples in 4 replicates using a spring balance and the
following parameters were investigated;
Additionally, 100 grains were counted in 4 replicates per sample and the number of insect
damaged grain in each replicate was recorded. The whole grain testing process was carried
out at Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute.
The SPSS spreadsheet was then adopted to analyze the data. Means were declared
significantly different if the difference between the two groups of farmers was more than
twice the standard error difference (sed) between them.
Sed = Se + Se
2 2
1 2
Where, Se1 and Se2 are the standard errors of the mean for individual and group farmers
respectively.
sd
Se = i
i
n i
Where;
Sei is the standard error of the mean for the ith category of farmers
Sd is standard deviation for the ith category of farmers
ni is the number of observations the ith category of farmers
Section F Project effectiveness
This section of the evaluation report uses the rating criteria for the purpose and your outputs
previously used in your annual reports.
Rating
Project Goal 3
Project Purpose 2
Project Outputs 1. 3
2. 2
…………………3 2
1= completely achieved
2= largely achieved
3= partially achieved
4= achieved only to a very limited extent
X= too early to judge the extent of achievement (avoid using this rating for purpose and
outputs)
Outputs (5 pages)
What were the research outputs achieved by the project as defined by the value of their
respective OVIs? Were all the anticipated outputs achieved and if not what were the reasons?
Your assessment of outputs should be presented as tables or graphs rather than lengthy
writing, and provided in as quantitative a form as far as is possible.
For projects aimed at developing a device, material or process, and considering the status of
the assumptions that link the outputs to the purpose, please specify:
Purpose (2 pages)
Based on the values of your purpose level OVIs, to what extent was the purpose achieved? In
other words, to what degree have partners/other users adopted the research outputs or have
the results of the research been validated as potentially effective at farmer/processor/trader
level?
Goal (1 page)
What is the expected contribution of outputs to Project Goal?
The outputs of the project were achieved and were in consonance with the Project goal
“National and international crop-post harvest innovation systems respond more
effectively to the needs of the poor”. This was addressed by setting up an innovative
institutional arrangement that enabled the farmers to access post-harvest
technologies and advice that improved the quality and quantity maize for enhanced
market access. The technologies were easily adapted to farmer conditions because
of affordability, simplicity, effectiveness and user friendliness. The partners worked
together in an institutional arrangement that was based on earlier relationships and
well-defined functional roles and responsibilities. The project has demonstrated that
if farmers are equipped with the necessary tools and skills, and working with key
stakeholders then they will be able to access lucrative markets and regard farming
as a business for sustainable incomes and thus improved livelihoods.
The uptake of post harvest research outputs can be defined as the application of post harvest
research information and technology by users. Intermediary institutions are those who
use/employ post harvest research outputs to produce information, technology and products
for end users. In this coalition project the research institute generated and disseminated
technologies and information. Other partners like the NGOs and the district extension service
transferred post harvest technologies to the farmers. Technologies included maize cribs in
Kiboga district, training in post harvest handling, and market information.
The end users i.e. the farmers who are engaged in productive activities used post harvest
technologies in order to improve on the efficiency of their activities by increasing the unit output
of maize handled and improve on the quality of maize. About 500 farmers in the project
districts were the direct beneficiaries of the project. The farmers have demonstrated by
improving the quality and quantity of their marketable maize. This has also been rewarded by
the premium price offered for their maize. Working in coalition with key stakeholders also
facilitated the process of technology transfer and information flow.
The project aimed at increasing knowledge of the end user – the farmer, on appropriate post
harvest technologies and their usage. The project also created awareness among the end
users on potential and available markets, their requirements and how they can supply and
benefit from them. The skills gained in entrepreneurship, group dynamics/governance, post
harvest handling and marketing of their maize has made them more efficient and confident.
Farmers are able to source for maize markets on their own and negotiate with buyers.
The project’s aim was to improve market access by availing improved post harvest
technologies and knowledge. This was achieved by working together with key stakeholders.
Over the project duration roles have changed in the way the partners relate and the functions
played. Earlier work relationships played a big role on the way the partners worked together.
The lessons learnt in working as a private-public partnership coalition will form a basis on which
policy recommendations to set up and/or support farmer group marketing and storage can be
based on. Other lessons included the provision and management of credit (mainly working
capital) to farmers.
Working together in storing and marketing their produce has been demonstrated to be
beneficial to the farmers in terms of increased prices offered for their maize. The knowledge
and skills gained has benefited them by looking at their enterprises from a business perspective
– farming as a business. The direct beneficiaries of the project were about 500 farmers and
their families. Facilities like the grain stores are used by the whole communities. Coalition
members especially the NGOs and district extension offices further spread the “gospel” of post
harvest handling to their areas of jurisdiction.
Signature Date
Core Partners
Hadji Sabiiti Gulanyago …………………………….. ……..
Peter Adolli …………………………….. ……..
Mr. Chris Balya …………………………….. ……..
Mr. Kiwalabye-Male, BUCADEF …………………………….. ……..
Behzad Khatai, ASDI …………………………….. ……..
Ms. Rehema Kalibbala, …………………………….. ……..
Mr. Yovan Ogwang, …………………………….. ……..
Managing Partner
Dr. Ambrose Agona …………………………….. ……..
ANNEXES
I Copies of the stakeholder, gender, livelihoods and environmental form included with
the concept note.
CONCEPT NOTE
MAIN SECTION
3. Applicant:
Email: karihave@starcom.co.ug
Tel: 256-41-567708
Fax: 256-41-567649
4. Coalition members:
• Farmer groups in Kibiga and Nsambya sub counties in Kiboga district, and
farmers in Abongomola and Loro sub counties in Apac district. Other potential
groups will be identified with the assistance of BUCADEF, ASDI and the district
extension officers.
• National Post Harvest Programme (NPHP).
• Afro-Kai Limited, Plot 167, Bombo Road (Kawempe), P. O. Box 3460 Kampala,
UGANDA. Tel: 256-41-566402/259608/343450, fax: 256-41-343450/567159,
email: afrokai@afsat.com
• BUCADEF (Buganda Cultural and Development Foundation), P. O. Box 34071,
Kampala, UGANDA. Email: bucadef@infocom.co.ug Tel: 256-77-408346. This
is a local developmental NGO operating in Kiboga district.
• ASDI – Apac (Appropriate Sustainable Development Initiative), Chegere Road, P.
O. Box 64, Apac, Uganda. A local developmental NGO operating in Apac
district.
• District Extension Office (Kiboga), Dept. of Agriculture, P. O. Box 1, Kiboga.
• District Extension Office (Apac), Dept. of Agriculture, P. O. Box 1, Apac.
• DFID/CPHP-RO, PO Box 22130, Kampala, Uganda. Tel: 077 708593 (mobile) or
+256 41 530696 (office), Fax: +256 41 530696, Email: dfidnr@nida.or.ug
• The proposed roles and justification for all the coalition partners are outlined
in tables 2a(Annex 3)
5. Summary
The current status of maize production, post harvest handling, storage and marketing
in Kiboga district is traditionally based and not competitive. The agricultural sector is
dominated by resource poor farmers (as defined in Annex 1) who have limited access
to information, knowledge, improved technology, and lack technical know how in
modern post harvest technology (PHT).
Over the years a number of appropriate PHT particularly suited for maize, have been
developed, adaptively tested and/or transferred on-farm to a limited extent. The
technologies include improved dryers, shellers, pest management and market
information network. The NARS (e.g., NARO, Makerere University), IARCs (NRI,
IITA, and CIMMYT), ASARECA (FOODNET) and the private sector have been very
instrumental in the development of the technologies through networking at various
levels, however there has been limited adoption of the technologies by the farmers.
The current project therefore intends to collate the various PHTs available including
information on markets and collectively, through strategic partnerships with coalition
partners, validate them in the selected sub counties in the two districts. To ensure the
adoption of developed technologies the project intends to work with farmer groups
who will be of different categories depending on vulnerability, location and means.
The main objective of the project is to improve the quality and volume of grain traded
by small-scale subsistence farmers, through adoption of improved PHT and farmer
group storage approach in Apac and Kiboga districts in Uganda. Farmer group
formation, training basic entrepreneurial and business management skills, training in
proper maize PH handling, and coalition partnerships will ensure supply of good
quality and large volumes of maize on the market. Farmers will be empowered to
participate and negotiate for better prices directly with large grain traders.
6. Where will the research be carried out; and in what countries are the results
of the research potentially applicable?
The research will be conducted in Uganda and in 2 districts; Apac and Kiboga. 2 sub
counties in each district have been selected. The results are potentially applicable to
the East and West African countries that share the same livelihood problems. The use
of the farmer group approach is an alternative that is applicable to countries which are
characterised with resource poor farmers and limited market access for their produce
The proposed project fits into the Regional Strategy for East Africa by addressing the
Regional Office specific objective of supporting the development of new strategies
that improve the crop based food security of poor households through increased
availability, improved quality, and better access to markets. The proposed project
through better and PH practices like maize storage, shelling and drying, increases the
duration it is available to the households and also improves the quality of maize. By
forming farmer storage groups increases their access to markets because of increased
volumes and high quality. Linking the farmers with buyers and providing market
information will also improve the market access.
The project will benefit the most vulnerable people who include; women, widows and
female-headed households, people dependent on a relatively vulnerable source of
income (e.g., small-scale farmers growing maize on not more than 1 ha), households
with large families, casual labourers, and others like orphans.
Men will be a core part of the project since it is targeting to increase household
incomes therefore their roles as the head of the family will not be ignored. The
benefits for women and the other vulnerable people will be in form of improved
empowerment and participation in decision making and to some extent incomes.
It is estimated that during the two years the project will have imparted skills and
technologies to households within the sub counties.
9. What livelihood problem/ opportunity for the poor does the project address?
The project addresses poor market access that can be solved through accessing
improved PH technologies that will ensure good marketable quality of their maize and
also large volumes with reduced losses during processing and/or storage. The project
will use the farmer group approach that will improve the current organisation in
storage and marketing and significantly raise the incomes from sales of maize.
Opportunities for marketing good quality and large volumes of maize have emerged
with the formation of the Uganda Grain Traders consortium, high market demand for
maize in Southern African countries, and assurance that premium prices will be given
for good quality maize. Even within the East African region, especially Kenya, there
is high demand for maize.
10. How will your research resolve the livelihood problem/opportunity you have
identified (Question 9) for your specified categories of poor people (Question
8)?
By forming and working together in farmer group associations, the poor will be able
to access international maize markets. The criteria for selection of group members
will be based on their vulnerability, location, and means or scale of maize production.
Members with similar characteristics have higher chances of working together. This
intervention will help in fostering social networks within the communities. The
groups will also form relationships with the coalition partners both from the private
and public sectors.
Other factors also need to be in place (see QN 5 Annex 1) including, access to credit
and finance services especially for production purposes. Control of crop pests and
diseases, some of the pests infest from the field or pre-production. Access to
affordable inputs in form of seed and machinery for tilling the land. Political stability
is also important especially in northern Uganda where there are pockets of
insurgency. Access to extension services may also be related to political will of local
government since they control the resources at the districts.
The current research will build on and compliment work by the NAADS that is
making technologies accessible to the poor farmers through formation of farmer
groups. The findings from Dorward and Poulton (1999) will guide the design of
strategies to market farmer produce. The research efforts will be based on CPHP’s
themes of reducing storage losses and improving market systems for maize.
11. If, over time, the project’s results were applied on a wide scale, are they
likely to have any significant positive or negative environmental impacts?
The major negative impact that is foreseen will be due to accidental poisoning from
fumigants. However this will be mitigated from regular inspection of stores, training
of personnel to conduct the fumigation procedures.
Fumigants reduce the risk of misusing hazardous toxic chemicals. Other positive
impacts will include a healthier population due to the use of cleaner, hygienic, and
labour saving post harvest practices and technologies.
12. Estimated duration of project:
No
ANNEX 1: LIVELIHOODS ANALYSIS
Table 1
1. Which interest group(s) is your work intended to benefit and where are they?
Rural poor farmers who produce maize on not more than 2 hectares of land. The project also
intends to involve the women including widows and female-headed households. The farmers are
located in the rural districts of Apac in northern Uganda, and Kiboga in central Uganda. Apac
district is located in the northern moist farmlands agroecological zone (AEZ) with maize, finger
millet and beans being the most important food crops. Kiboga district has two AEZs; Central
Wooded Savanna and Western Mid-Altitude Farmlands. Banana, maize, beans and sweet potato
are the most important crops. The proposed project intends to work in 2 sub counties per district.
In Apac district Abongomola and Loro sub counties, while in Kiboga district Kibiga and
Nsambya sub counties.
The PMA (Plan for Modernisation of Agriculture) defines poverty, that is rampant in the two
proposed project districts, not as just lack of incomes but also the lack of means to satisfy basic,
social needs, as well as a feeling of powerlessness to break out of the cycle of poverty, insecurity
of person and property. Poverty is not a uniform condition affecting all groups of people and
locations in the same way. Some features are common (eg few assets for production, low yields,
insufficient food, inadequate income to meet health care and education costs, restricted access to
services, large families, poor health, and lack of social support), whereas other indicators are
specific to a given situation (eg social of physical isolation, ethnic discrimination, low social
capital, insufficient infrastructure development and insecurity).
The most vulnerable people to poverty include; women, widows and female-headed households,
male youth, households with large families, people dependent on a relatively vulnerable source of
income (e.g., small-scale farmers who rely on growing one low-value crop for sale), casual
labourers, and others including orphans and neglected children, the disabled, socially isolated and
the sick.
The poor are categorised into two groups; the destitute who do not have hope and have no assets,
and the poor which represents the majority of those living in poverty. They have the will and
desire to improve and sustain their livelihoods, but they express frustration in their attempts to do
so because of limited assets, skills and knowledge; restricted access to services, infrastructure and
information; of social disadvantage. This group needs interventions that are inclusive, that build
on their existing resources and activities, and that provide the impetus for development.
The gender dimension of poverty recognises that in Uganda women lag behind men in terms of
education level and income earnings. Women have limited economic opportunities due to their
societal roles and responsibilities, their social status, lack of ownership and access to productive
assets, low participation in decision making and high workload. Women are more involved in
reproductive activities, particularly care of family, whereas men are involved in community
activities. Women face barriers to participation in community development activities that include
refusal by husbands, discrimination, subordinate roles, weak leaders, lack of mobilisation, lack of
time and failure to see the benefit of their participation.
The northern region is the poorest in terms of development indicators, such as household size,
education level, health expenditure, and child survival. Farmers in northern Uganda highlight the
influence of insecurity and restricted market access, as factors affecting poverty.
Lack of access to markets was ranked as the main factor causing poverty in the rural areas
Uganda Participatory Poverty Assessment Project (UPPAP, 1999). This was followed by poor
health, lack of education skills, excessive alcohol consumption, ignorance/lack of information,
lack of access to financial services and capital, large families, insurgency (rebels and rustlers),
idleness and laziness, and lack of co-operation.
Source: The Plan for Modernisation of Agriculture: Eradicating Poverty in Uganda. Government
Strategy and operational framework. MAAIF, MFPED, 2000. GOU
3. What livelihood problem or opportunity are they experiencing and how many people are
affected? State your evidence.
From the PMA (2000) over 85% of Uganda’s population live in rural areas where agriculture is
the major contributor to their livelihoods. Poverty in Uganda is mainly a rural phenomenon as
48% of the rural population are below the absolute poverty line, further, poverty has decreased by
only 18% in rural areas compared to 43% in urban areas. UPPAP (1999) ranked lack of market
access as the main factor causing poverty in rural areas, and the PMA recognises that one of the
main ways of reducing poverty in rural areas of Uganda is the ability to produce and market
traditional cash crops, with food crops experiencing modest rates of poverty reduction. Studies
have also shown that the competitiveness of maize has fallen too far for market based
interventions, therefore a more appropriate strategy might be to look for higher value crops and
concentration on one particular crop seems somewhat inappropriate (Dorward A. and Poulton C,
1999. Improving Smallholder Access to Maize Marketing Opportunities in Sub-Saharan Africa.
NRI Ltd contract No. ZB0123. Wye College UK). The study also highlights that greater farmer
organisation in agricultural marketing is likely to be necessary in order for smallholders in remote
areas to significantly raise their incomes from sales of agricultural produce.
Maize trade in Uganda and within the region has picked up as shown by the formation of the
Uganda Grain Traders association. This is considered an opportunity for the farmer groups in the
rural areas. Afro-Kai Ltd., which is one of the partners to this project, has assured farmers of
markets and premium prices for good quality and large volumes of maize. There is also a large
forecasted demand for maize in November 2002 for Southern African countries which is
estimated at over 1 million Mt.
4. What contribution will your work make to this, over the timeframe of the project?
By organizing farmers into farmer groups, making appropriate post harvest technologies
(shellers, dryers, pest management, and improved storage systems) available and accessible,
improving farmer knowledge base (proper post harvest handling, market requirements), and
marketing of their maize, the project will contribute towards farmers’ market access, and
increased farmers’ incomes from maize sales.
5. What external factors need to be in place for impacts to be sustained and extended after
the project has ended?
6. What other initiatives (research or development) would your project complement/ add
value to?
The National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) is one of government’s initiative that the
project will complement by forming farmer groups, and making post harvest technology
accessible. This project builds on DFID/CPHP output of improving access to markets and builds
on findings from studies that have identified that farmer groups will enhance maize marketing
(Dorward and Poulton, 1999). The project will add to the priority themes for CPH research and
technology promotion in Uganda through reducing maize storage losses and improving market
systems.
The use of appropriate post harvest technologies will improve the quality of maize grain on-farm
and thus complementing the Uganda Grain Traders initiative of improving the quality of maize
for export.
The government of Uganda through the Poverty Action Fund provides funds to communities to
solve their problems. Some of the programmes e.g., the CHILD project has a component of
community grants used for solving agricultural related problems of which post harvest is one.
The proposed project will complement such initiatives.
The National Post Harvest Programme conducted baseline surveys to identify farmer and trader
post harvest needs and constraints. Poor storage systems, lack of information and lack of market
were ranked as important constraints (Okot-Chono and Kalunda, 2001. A needs assessment of
post harvest constraints and marketing in Kiboga district. Post harvest Programme, KARI).
The study is also based on the CPHP themes for maize; reducing storage losses, market systems
and adding value.
Another concern came from informal meetings with the district agricultural officers and NGO’s,
that expressed post harvest intervention is needed in the maize subsector.
8. Who stands to lose from your work, if it is adopted/ implemented on a large scale?
• Middlemen especially the small fragmented transporters, stand to lose because big traders are
willing to bear the cost of transport and give premium price for maize of high quality.
ANNEX 2: GENDER ANALYSIS
Table 1
1. How does the research problem/opportunity that you have identified affect
men and women differently?
• Roles and responsibilities: women’s roles for certain operations (eg, drying,
shelling and cleaning of maize) will reduce with the introduction of energy saving
technologies (dryers, cribs, shellers and cleaners) that are gender balanced and
user friendly. With improved incomes from sales of good quality maize, men’s
participation in these post harvest operations will increase.
• Needs and interests: the technologies have been designed to take into
consideration women’s needs and interests. Less time spent during post harvest
activities gives women especially, time to attend to other socio-economic activities
as well as acquiring knowledge e.g., attending Adult Literacy Programmes.
• Relations: improved relations between men and women because of less labour
burden on them. Complementing each other improves relations
• Decision-making powers: Women will be involved in decision making in the
farmer group (collective decisions), however household decisions are beyond the
control of the project.
• Access to and control over resources: many post harvest operations will be done
at household level, accessible to both men and women. At group level marketing
and storage, men and women will have equal ownership and participation in
decision making.
2. How will your expected results impact differently on women and men?
• Roles and responsibilities: reduction in women’s time spent during post harvest
operations. Improved utilisation of men’s time.
• Needs and interests: reduced labour needs, increased women’s participation
• Relations: improved relations due to sharing of roles and responsibilities
• Decision-making powers: women’s involvement in group work will increase their
decision making powers
• Access to and control over resources: through coalition partnership, access to
technologies will be improved to both men and women.
• Literacy levels of men and women in project sites are relatively low, however the
training methods to be employed will involve adult literacy programmes that are
focused on the needs of the target communities.
• Cultural barriers e.g., men are always placed at the forefront and some may not
allow their women to participate. The project will sensitise the project
beneficiaries and will encourage women’s participation in order to minimise the
disparities.
Matrix for prioritising key stakeholders:
DEGREE OF INFLUENCE
High Importance
Box A Box B
Stakeholders who stand to lose or gain Stakeholders who stand to lose or gain
significantly from the project AND whose significantly from the project BUT whose
actions can affect the project’s ability to actions cannot affect the project’s ability to
meet its objectives meet its objectives
Box C Box D
Stakeholders whose actions can Stakeholders who do not stand to lose or
affect the project’s ability to meet its gain much from the project AND whose
objectives BUT who do not stand to actions cannot affect the project’s ability to
lose or gain much from the project meet its objectives
Low importance
ANNEX 3: STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
Stage 1: Stakeholder interests and influence
1. Farmers and farmer 1.1 Improved access to 1.1 The quality of maize
groups technologies, marketed will improve
information and 1.2 Farmers’ use of post
knowledge harvest technology will
1.2 Development of improve
entrepreneurial skills 1.3 Networks and partnerships
1.3 Development of with coalition members
organizational skills will have improved
1.4 Improved access to 1.4 Farmers’ attitude on maize
market information as a commercial crop
1.5 Improved access to improved
markets 1.5 Farmers’ business
managerial capacities
increased
Design and 1. Farmer groups 1.1 Production and 1.1 Are the group that
development post production the project seeks to
(PMF stage) information improve their
1.2 Information on livelihoods
farmer groups and 1.2 Primary source of
functions information
Implementation and 1. Farmer groups 1.1 Provide production 1.1 Group that project
Monitoring inputs seeks to improve
1.2 Provide maize their livelihoods
output 1.2 Primary source of
1.3 Provide information
information on
maize production
and post
production
1.4 Provide
information on
farmer group
dynamics
DAO = district agricultural officer, CAO = chief administrative officer, IDEA = investment
in developing export agriculture, UNFFE = Uganda national farmers federation
ANNEX 4:ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING SUMMARY
NOTE (ESSN)
2. Project Cost:
3. Duration: 2 years
4. Country: Uganda
5. What are the potential significant environmental impacts (both positive and
negative) of the proposed research activities?
• Improved storage systems will increase cleanliness and hygiene of residential houses, since
they are at times used as storage areas
• Fumigation of stored maize will offer protection for at least 3 months and reduce the risk of
misusing hazardous toxic chemicals
• More efficient use of renewable energy i.e., maize cobs in case of biomass dryers in favour of
charcoal, wind drying in case of cribs, solar drying in case of drying yards or racks
• Suppressed pollution and health risks with improved winnowing technology
6. What are the potentially significant environmental impacts (both positive and
Negative) of widespread dissemination and application of research findings?
• Health of population will be improved due to cleaner and healthier post harvest practices
• Accidental poisoning due to fumigant inhalation in case of stores with damaged concrete
floors, damaged fumigation sheets or improper sealing of sheet on the floor
Regular inspection of floor for cracks, mending of damaged fumigation sheets and use of sand
snakes will prevent gas leakage. The farmer groups will inspect stores on a daily basis reporting
to the extension officers who will call the NPHP/KARI control the danger
Construction of large stores that can handle large volumes and other potentially marketable crops
which would otherwise be stored in their residential houses. Use of qualified pest control agents
to carry out fumigation procedures.
Date: …………………………………
2. What livelihood problem or opportunity for which clearly identified group of poor
people does the project aim to address? (Refer to Annexes 1, 2 and 4)
3. Assess the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence provided of the need for, and
importance of, the project. (Refer to Annexes 1, 2 and 4)
4. How does the proposal intend to take forward existing crop post-harvest knowledge?
What is innovative about the project?
6. How will the proposal contribute to the Programme Strategy (see output indicators)?
7. In which other countries are the proposed project’s results likely to be applicable?
8 Are you satisfied that project objectives, if realised, will make a significant and
sustained contribution to the identified problem or opportunity? Please comment on the
approach proposed for implementation. What key issues may need to be addressed in
the development of a PMF?
9. Comment on the coalition composition and role allocation (refer to Annex 3, Tables
1a and 1b). Suggest possible ways in which this coalition may be strengthened during
the PMF development process.
10. Are the strategies proposed for wider stakeholder involvement realistic and
effective? (Refer to Annex 3, Tables 2a and 2b). What further development would be
useful in the PMF process?
Goal
Outputs
2 Cohesive, 2.1 By the end of 4th 1.1 Consultant’s report Unfavourable prices
dynamic and quarter year 2 at of maize
1.2 Annual Report
sustainable least 8 farmer
Continued demand
partnerships and groups (averaging
for maize within the
institutional at least 20
region
mechanisms for members of which
linking the rural 30% are women) Supportive market
maize producers in the 4 target sub- infrastructure
to markets in counties are Relationships
place sensitised and between other service
incorporated into providers are in place
the partnership.
[Extension/NGOs]
2.2 At least 1 more
non-core partner
in the target
districts is
identified and
integrated within
the partnership by
the end of 3rd
quarter year 2.
[Farmers/Extensio
n]
2.3 Institutional
mechanisms,
processes and
innovations for a
sustainable,
dynamic and
cohesive coalition
in Kibiga,
Nsambya,
Abongomola and
Loro sub-counties
proposed by end
of 2nd quarter year
2. [Contrator and
Managing partner]
2.4 The proposed
institutional
arrangements
tested, monitored
and evaluated in a
participatory
manner by the
coalition,
beginning year 2.
[Managing partner]
Publications:
Kyepa, A., K. (2003) Omitted Lesson: The High Achiever’s Pathway. SEF Press,
Uganda. pp 38. Presented during entrepreneurial training workshops in Abongomola,
Loro, Nsambya and Kibiga sub-counties, Apac and Kiboga districts, Uganda. 1-2
April 2004 and 6-7 May 2004. [English]
Agona, A. and Kalunda, P., (2004) Partnership for innovation: A reflection on Maize
marketing project R8274/ZB0343. Paper presented during the Reflection and Lesson
Learning Workshop on Partnerships for Innovation. Hotel Africana 17-18 February
2004. CPHP-RO Kampala Uganda.
COMMUNITY SUPPORT BOOK (2004) Farmer group storage and maize marketing
activities in Apac and Kiboga districts. [Video and Magazine] [In preparation]
Internal Reports:
Quarterly reports (Apr-Sept 2003, Oct-Dec 2003, Apr-Jun 2004, Jul-Sept 2004)
Annual reports. (2002-2003, 2003-2004)
Kalibbala R (2003) Report on post harvest activities in Kiboga district (July – September
2003) Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute, Kampala, Uganda pp 3
KARI (2004) Back to office report on Meeting with Kibiga farmer groups on maize
storage and marketing. Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute, Kampala, Uganda
pp 2
KARI (2004) Meeting report to discuss ways to improve partner roles and functions
in the coalition project July 13, 2004.
Kalunda P., Mutyaba C., Nabawanuka J. and Muyinza H (2003, 2004) On farm
participatory training in Kiboga and Apac districts on maize post harvest handling and
storage, store management, collective marketing and farmer group organization
[direct dissemination]