agrifoodchain_ea2013

toc


 * //To view a short 4-minute video with feedback from some participants, click [|here].//**


 * //To watch the conference organizers reflecting on what happened, follow [|this link] (3 minutes).//**

Event posters are here

Joint event by PIM and L&F CRPs
 * Agrifood chain toolkit conference: Livestock and fish value chains in East Africa **
 * 9-11 September 2013 **
 * Hotel Africana and conventional centre, Kampala, Uganda**

The AgriFood chain toolkit of the CGIAR Research program on Policies, institutions and markets was launched in January 2013. This online platform on AgriFood value chains is designed to help overcome the information gaps between researchers analyzing value chains and practitioners developing value chains. Both often lack access to the latest information and tools on value chains. There is still need for greater rigour in analysis and better peer feedback. Finally, tool designers need to engage purposefully with tool users. To help crystallize the potential of the online network into real-world activities, the AgriFood chain toolkit will organize regular real-world conferences designed to collate, synthesize and share good practices of value chain tool users, practitioners and researchers.


 * The objective of the conference is to enable a limited number of researchers and practitioners to review and assess value chain approaches together so that they may be improved for a better fit with local field contexts. **


 * Conference reporting **


 * List of participants**


 * How to conduct a peer assist?**

**Agenda**

 * Monday 9 September**
 * 08.00 Registration opens
 * 08.00 Live coaching for storytellers
 * 10.00 Welcome by Dr. Emily Twinamasiko (NARO) and by Danilo Pezo (ILRI), introduction of the workshop and participants (Ewen Le Borgne)
 * 10.45 Plenary stories: one value chain story ( Smallholder dairy value chain lessons from Zimbabwe by Elijah Rusike) one toolkit story ( Developing value chains analysis tools for livestock and fish (L&F) value chains by Epi Katjiuongua)
 * 11.30 Mini Share Fair with posters
 * 12.30 //Lunch//
 * 13.30 Storytelling: value chain story circles to process and synthesize experiences with value chain and toolkit - sharing synthesis. 4 groups of 14 form and hear stories about value chain and then synthesise key aspects that they hear about value chain work and options from toolkit: what seem to be common problems faced? Where/how do you usually find answers to these issues? What could be helpful to add in a toolkit to address these problems?
 * Group 1 (Jo): Stories 1, 2, 6, 9
 * Group 2 (Iddo): 3, 4, 7
 * Group 3 (Diana): 5, 8, 13
 * Group 4 (Ewen): 11, 12, 32, 33
 * 15.00 //Break//
 * 15.30 Learning events: Diving into existing tools and how to improve these...
 * 16.30 Synthesis reflection: How could we develop a toolkit in an appropriate way?
 * 17.00 Close

Coming back as one group and sharing synthesis / comments about the value of storytelling, the patterns among
 * 19.00 Conference Dinner

**Tuesday 10 September**
 * 09.00 Preparing the field trip:
 * Briefing about the field trip sites;
 * Group preparation: What questions may we have for our hosts? What are the main issues around the toolkit and how can we use the field trip to help crack these?
 * Distribution of Livestock & Fish value chain toolkit snippets to try out during the field trip
 * Sharing back ideas in plenary and adjusting the preparations
 * 10.30 Departure for the field trip
 * 16.00-19.00 Return from the field trip (tentative timing depending on distance)

**Wednesday 11 September**
 * 09.00 Feedback from the field trip: What did we witness, what are key challenges in the value chains of the site commodities, how did our preparation/questionnaire work, what improvements does this suggest?
 * 10.30 //Break//
 * 11.00 Peer assist cases: how to improve the tools and our approaches around them?
 * 12.00 //Lunch//
 * 13.00 Mini-share fair: Reviewing the methods and tools available to help solve the real-life problems encountered
 * 14.30 Closing remarks and final statements
 * 15.00 //Workshop close//
 * //15.30-16.30 R// //eview of the Livestock & Fish value chain toolkit snippets, what it contains and what it could or should contain by researchers//

= **Notes of the meeting** =

Welcome by Emily Twinamasiko
Welcome to Uganda Begs indulgence on being out of date on livestock, although it is her past speciality. Congratulations to organisers, and to ILRI on this initiative. Esp. outreach to organisations like the NARS. Biblical quote: Moses leaving Egypt “let my people go” etc, and also said “and let us take our livestock” Remarks that from all the CG Centres, just one deals with Livestock. Also, ASARECA lumps all livestock and fish in to one programme. Same is true for NARO. She advocates more research resources for livestock. Suggests that livestock is often overlooked/passed by. Refers to livestock’s role in income generation, but other functions as well. Institutional development is an area in which livestock has a big role to play, but this needs promotion. Livestock’s dependence on nat. resources is also in need of addressing – e.g. water: competition from human needs. Value chains concerns: Livestock feeds, production/harvest of animals, storage, marketing co-ordination, control of animal diseases. Also accelerating uptake of new technologies/innovation. Livestock is also overlooked by aid funds “we are on our own”. Partnership between public and private sectors is also poorly developed. Goal of VC toolkits should be not only for better marketing and income generation, but also about assisting in the development process. Expresses hope that the VC toolkits can be adopted to other sectors as well. Wishes workshop well.
 * Chair of the National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) in Uganda.**

Welcome by Danilo Pezo
On behalf of Jimmy Smith, VC toolkit team, ILRI East Africa – welcome. Intro to ILRI, and partnership with WorldFish ILRI’s mandate – Reduce poverty, enhance food security, and protect environment. ILRI history re merger ILCA/ILRAD. >700, incl. 100 scientists and researchers. ILRI works with a variety of partners. In Uganda, focus is on smallholder pig VCs. Many people are dependent on livestock, of which 95% are in extreme poverty. 150 million livestock keepers For many poor people, livestock is the main form of savings – hence a role in emergencies and food security. Many uses of products. In Uganda – a big role in paying school fees. Intro to PIM and L&F. Appreciation of choice of Kampala as site, by Org. Committee. An effort has been made to bring together here all actors in development. Notes that this includes people from crop value chains. A major goal is to facilitate interactions between these actors. Overall, we want to take away new ideas for the work. Danilo closes by listing and thanking the organisers of the field trips for Tuesday, and thanking them. Also thanks to the Uganda ILRI team.
 * Project coordinator for the small pig value chain in Uganda**

Brief introduction to patron CRPs
(CRPs = CGIAR research programs) PIM is helping people to engage with markets; and making markets work better. Opportunities offered for value addition. Toolkit: a partnership between L&F and PIM. NOT a unique and finished product, but RATHER a process of taking what is already available, standardising it and synthesising lessons learned – what we need from this conference is feedback and suggestions for improvement, based on experience EITHER with the PIM/L&F toolkit OR other tools tat you have used. “can marketing speed up the process of poverty alleviation?” Small scale producers are being engaged, with the value chain approach. The toolkits: they are not stand alone; in fact they guide our strategies for research for development.
 * Derek Baker / PIM (Policies, Institutions and Markets)**
 * Acho / Livestock & Fish**

Plenary story by Elija Rusike
Intervention in smallholder dairy sector. All are aware of the land reform – and disappearance of the larger scale producers. Expectation is that the smallholder sector will lead the way. 2008: Zimbabwe hit bottom, inflation very high, currency devalued (1 trillion dollars worth about 10 USc). Situation was terribly bad for everyone, even people working. Small processing centre had been established for smallholders’ needs – payment every 2 weeks. Mrs Zifa + 3 kids was a family that coped due to the milk connection centre – maybe 2 litres per cow per day. In 2008 this centre could no longer operate. Then cows were not fed, vet services ceased, and then the milk could not be sold. After currency and govt change, change was possible. Dairy Imports ex South Africa were 95% of consumption. Smallholder dairy production was seen as the way to go, and establish three dairy co-=operatives (we deal with one here) Planning forum (many stakeholders, govt, private sector, local govt. etc) was established and a VC Analysis was conducted. Activities: resuscitation of dairy product handling at the milk collection centre. Funded by a loan. Co-op throughput went from 20 litres/day up to 100 or so. How to get more product, especially more animals per farmer. A loan to the co-operative generated 50animals @ USD 1,200 per head. These were distributed to farmer-members. This was called the “hub model” based around the milk collection centre. Yields now at 8 litres/cow, Income now at USD 240/month from 2 cow model. (poverty level is about USD 500/family) Throughput is 800-1000 litres/day. Being sold to schools and other buyers in the community Have also looked at ICT: “community information centres” training in computer use and information seek. Also an “SMS platform” for prices and news. Mrs Zifa now has 4 cows, has USD 450 (INCOME) per month. AN external grant has been received for $ 80,000 to work on other development.
 * Programmes Manager, Swedish Co-operatives Centre**

__**Q&A**__
 * Question to Zimbabwe story: Coming from this “zero base” – how were inputs dealt with – particularly feeds?
 * Answer: In a normal environment, feed producers would see the opportunity and react. BUT in Zimbabwe the private sector was risk averse and would certainly not lend anything. Any transactions were cash only, and firms helped only by providing transport. Programme assisted with fodder crops. AI was a big challenge, partly because of husbandry methods – esp. communal grazing and presence of bulls everywhere. One step was to issue heat detectors, and this was not successful.
 * Q: What is the pre/post crisis farm gate price?
 * A: Farm gate price is USD 1.00/litre Selling to co-operative is USD 0.50/litre Adv of selling to co-op is that larger volumes can be handled and purchased.
 * Q: Ugandan situation also featured, for some time, products largely coming in from Kenya. Macroecononic situation had to change – what was done in Zimbabwe.
 * A: At national level, there was not much policy that stimulated the dairy sector. No integrated approach. A few initiatives have been tried – e.g. Nestle importing superior cows. In Zim Cattle numbers continue to fall.
 * Q: For a non-member of the co-=op, and not interested in dairy farming – how did an ordinary farmer survive?
 * A: There was a bleak period. The diaspora helped, and remittances served as the main source in income. Some people survived on buying and selling. But for most people, natural resources played a big part (e.g. Parinari tree was used for food products).

Plenary story by Hikuepi Katjuongua
The toolkit's purpose is to collect data, experiences etc. from farmers and others involved in VC. We try to move out from tools e.g. just maps but we go beyond and try to add rigour to those tools. The toolkit contains many instruments et.g. situational analysis, VC scoping, VC assessment tool giving more in-depth analysis about different actors in the VC. We also have a benchmarking tool whose purpose is to get qttve analysis related to impact assessment.
 * Researcher at ILRI**

The process of developing the tool: It's been a team effort from various CG centres but particularly ILRI and WorldFish e.g. Froukje. Most important are the users e.g. people adapting the tools etc. to adapt them at generic level e.g. Emily Ouma, from small ruminants VC Barbara Rischkowsky. Sirak Bahta for smallholder competitiveness project (adapting this), others focused on traders etc. These people are important in giving us feedback on adapting the tools and identifying the gaps.

So many tools are there - so we started from that and developed a skeleton of different tools from e.g. Tanzania dairy, continuing with the VC rapid assessment. On reflection – this is a process, and we adapted available tools. E.g. dairy in Tanzania - a “rapid assessment” of 26 pages that was in fact not rapid. This provided a dilemma, which we tried to solve. We want sthg quick but also in-depth so it gives good/rich enough information: A real dilemma.

What are we trying answer etc. with this toolkit? We developed and designed with people in feeds, genetics, animal health etc. about the key constraints and how to incorporate that in the research. The process also required that we review our users, and what their key questions are. This contributed to tools.

Another issue was harmonisation… how to tell a connected story? Isabelle is the “mother of harmonisation”… she did a lot of work but we need to reflect on how successful the team has been in harmonisation e.g. how are goat farmers in Ethiopia and other countries comparing? Perhaps we can tease out common stories that can be shared with other stakeholders. This will be addressed head-on when we collect more data.

Gender is another elephant in the room. What is the role of women in value chains? This is an overall objective from the toolkit to get some impact/outcomes related to womens' livelihoods etc. We want to disaggregate the tool for gender purpose.

Another issue is how to track the tools' usage. What questions are not adding value? How can we track usage of the tools and what value are we adding? Some reports will address this question.

For some of these challenges, feedback is really crucial and getting feedback from them is essential. But when do we identify potential interventions? What are constraints/opportunities in identifying best bets etc. At what stage do you use which tool etc. to identify problems?

Feedback sought from the characters mentioned e.g. Emily Ouma, Barbara Rischkowsky, Sirak Bahta etc. A challenge is: when and how to we analyse suitable interventions/best bets. Which tool should be used for this, and at what stage should it occur. Feedback – can we draw on Emily Ouma, Barbara Rischkowski and Aynalem Haile, and Sirak Bahta. Emphasises the feedback available from Sirak, who has a new dataset based on this in Botswana. Toolkit development process – most of general work is done, and feedback is what is needed now.

What lies ahead? At generic level the development process is largely done, now we have to get the results and analyse them. Hopefully soon we can share results as opportunities for learning and for the toolkit development process...

__**Q&**____ **A** __
 * Q: Feedback to stakeholders? At ILRI we have money to collect / analyse data but lack money to implement and disseminate results and give them back to stakeholders...
 * A: Feedback is crucial ad we should be part of the feedback. Different VCs are at different stages but there's also some components that ... We have to get back to stakeholders and give them feedback to see if the assessment reflects the reality e.g. in Tanzania dairy we're at that stage. The feedback is about the findings but part of it should be about the data collection process.
 * Q: I've used the honey/sunflower VC toolkit and re: quantity/volume for buyers/suppliers we've collected data etc. Is it possible to include specific numbers to track increase/decrease?
 * A: Many other actors are involved in this. The VC tool about this VC has a lot of questions related to quantity etc. You can use VC assessment and use other parts of the toolkit to see if it helps. The benchmarking tool is supposed to indicate volume, performance etc. but the assessment tool could complement this. Using tools in conjunction can help.
 * Q: About those tools: What's the difference between assessment, benchmarking, scoping etc.?
 * A: It's a very good question because we started with assessment etc.: VC assessment is the one that enables description (quant/qual) of the value chain on e.g. governance and coordination, who are the stakeholders etc. and give some picture of the competitiveness etc. who has more information etc. but it doesn't have rigorous information about the start of the VC. But the benchmarking tool gives information about the sales from producers, out/in flows etc. Lastly it helps you gather a baseline which helps assess/analyse at production level. The scoping tool is about giving a picture after the quant analysis. It may not add as much value. The scoping is where you introduce the project and it scrutinizes the sector, locations etc. who are the stakeholders in a basic way.
 * Q: How long will findings remain relevant?
 * A: We have a picture about how we will implement but I can't give you a picture about the timely relevance of these findings etc. The set up will not change drastically. These tools reveal information at a particular time but I hope that we are not waiting for someone to use our data. We are in a dynamic world where any private sector or NG organisation can come in the mix to use the opportunities. The information is out there and a lot of it is quite robust e.g. rainfall reflects reality. There's a whole blend of info that gives us opportunities.

**Group 1**

 * Jane Ndiritu, on tissue culture banana VC in Kenya**
 * Project started about 7 years ago
 * Need manure to get potential yields (40 kg/ bunch), so there’s interaction between tissue culture banana and livestock.
 * Other challenge is pests and the ‘drug’ became unavailable. Farmers tried to use indigenous knowledge, but this is not documented. Farmers use pig manure and animal urine to combat diseases and the method seems to be working best but they don’t understand why
 * Marketing: once the hh is food security, there’s need to organize marketing. Men were more active in banana marketing while women focused more on banana for hh consumption. Men got more on board because of attraction of money and also need for physical strength to carry bunches and to dig banana holes.
 * Tissue culture bananas are not a solution on its own; farmers need to also manage their crops and do e.g. soil testing

Integration crop, livestock and aquaculture, in Wakiso, started in 2009. A group of people came together to invest in farming. Started by planting Eucalyptus trees on 10 acres. Research was done on what activity would be more profitable. In 2010, 5 acres were allocated to fish ponds. Start up costs were high (digging with tractor); issue of sizes. Catfish and Tilapia. Use of by products between fish ponds, livestock (cattle, poultry) and crops (e.g. small fish as animal feed). 2 workers working full time. Due to the integration of the various activities, decrease in production costs. No much waste. Manages to get Tilapia to 500 to 1000 grams in 7 months. They follow well on stocking rate to be able to get these yields. Capacity building of other farmers; also working with NARO. Buyers are scattered so they trying to get fish marketing more efficiently. Culture fish is smaller and the market wants big ones: they make their own feed mix (maize brand mixed with other ingredients). Fish is the most profitable of all the enterprises, but there’s interactions between the different entreprises.
 * Winnie Babirye on Fish farming in Uganda**

An IP is a group of agents coming together to discuss an issue and identify a solution. ILRI has been working in the last 10 years on building IPs but we’re still don’t know about the impacts of IPs on agents. Jo designed a model to assess the impact, refer to the poster. It follows the structure- conduct – performance methodology. Performance refers to advocacy, collection promotion, joint quality standards etc.. Jo works with 1 student working in Ghana. The student realized that the IP has only 20 participants so he had to work with another IP. The use of Leiker scale proved difficult so he had to find another way to communicate the questions. Some of the participants There is a clear link between conduct and performance: when farmers are able to communicate to the traders, they are able to get higher performance, e.g. better market access. The tool was therefore useful to better understand how the IPs work in practice. How to make people to share information, in a true manner, how to build the trust? The participation to IPs is voluntary so the traders wanted to share information. By doing so, traders get a bigger network of suppliers. In another situation, farmers were not connected to the traders and processors who were in the platforms and this may help in sharing information. In one IP, some of the participants were well connected and well off persons. People do this for social status/ prestige. The benefits people get from IPs are therefore various, not only economic. Inputs of the IP are the members since they face problems but are able to identify solutions. Researchers are also involved as they can provide solution, e.g. new breed. Can we use an IP to bring a new technology? This was actually the reason for setting up IPs, but the trial failed due to no rainfall. But farmers got a benefit, by being able to share information. How to use existing information exchange platforms (like in Uganda)? need to address current issues so that participants get more engaged. The participants would like to continue and would like to formalize the process. This is encouraging as it shows the usefulness of this approach.
 * Jo Cadhillon on innovation platforms**


 * Common issues**
 * 1) Need to do some business planning for any kind of intervention
 * 2) Interactions between researchers, farmers, traders etc… although more could be done (e.g. banana farmers not having been able to benefit from research)
 * 3) Innovations by farmers, traders, along the value chain
 * 4) Demand driven is a must!
 * 5) Documentation is needed for lessons learned!


 * Lessons on how to use story telling**
 * Useful to share information between development agents and researchers
 * Interesting way to convey the information, it’s like reading the abstract of a paper. The listener can ask for more details later
 * Bring a human face to the problems that are communicated
 * The story teller benefits from the feedbacks
 * It is also good to add some support, e.g. poster, pictures etc..
 * One remembers more a story telling than a presentation, because of the emotion
 * One needs to be a good story teller!

**Group 2**
In Sri Lanka 70% production of spices is in home-gardens and small scale (<1 ha). Spices exported from Sri Lanka sold whole, powdered, and in form of oil. Over the past 100 years there has been limited improvement in the production and market chain of spices in Sri Lanka and the cinnamon value chain was still based on the traditional marketing system with limited willingness to improve processing.
 * Story 1: Christopher Fernando – spices in Sri Lanka**

The main challenge was the strength of the middlemen. Growers feel exploited by the middlemen as low prices were paid to growers, while middlemen sold at high price to the exporters. There was a lack of information systems and modern technology, therefore the value chain stagnated.

Spices Allied Product Producers and Traders Association (SAPPTA) deals with producers, processors dealers, traders, sellers and other stakeholders and are trying to get industry to move forward to meet the international market requirements. In growing areas post-harvest methods do not meet the international standards and high level of wastage. There was no direct interactions between farmers and exporters. The association appointed 9 sub-committees to look into the issues who reported back to main committee. They set up dialogues with policy makers and VC stakeholders and convinced the government to establish a brand, registered the trade mark and a logo. They engaged with local stakeholders and international agencies to improve the VC and set up a training facility for training of peelers. Now they are trying to establish a Geographical Indication (niche market).

Questions:
 * Land size: There is no barrier to involve smallholders. In Sri Lanka, a lot of production takes place in small mixed cultivation plots, but there are also 12 large plantation companies.
 * Advice to transform small farmers (learning for Zanzibar). The association personally visited the growers and explained how to get better involved in the market. Association conducts weekly auctions and issue weekly price lists to the members.
 * Extension services: Dept. of export agriculture, they provide extension and assistance. There was shortage of peelers as an effect of tsunami. Asked help to train peelers, mechanized the peeling. The association had to canvas the support of the government for this.
 * Research: cinnamon research institute provide feedback to association who then disseminate this to the growers and other people involved.
 * Role of women: mostly in processing, production is more done by men
 * Global competitors: China, produce product in same genus but Sri Lanka exports 90% of production. Limited competition.
 * Organization of small-scale farmers to facilitate VC: market is centralized and farmers can bring their product to a collection point from where it is taken to auction.

Started working in fish farming and breeding more than 6 years ago. Manages the company Inqubator consultants ; breeders for tilapia and catfish, they grow fish and are also developing fish farms for other fish farmers around the country.
 * Story 2- Otieno Okello – fish in Kenya**

The company developed a new concept called “samaki kadogo (small fish) for rural enterprise”. In 2009 the Kenyan government tried to jump start the economy and decided to invest in the fish subsector to create employment and food security. It was partially successful but faced a number of challenges.

The government process: 200 out of 250 constituencies in Kenya have direct access to water bodies. The government started with 150 of these to dig ponds. They provided farmers with 30.000Ksh to employ local labour for pond digging and they provide seed and feed. The producers should just feed fish and grow it to market level. As a result people didn’t feel like the fish they were growing was their own and felt it belonged to the government. There was only limited acceptance of fish as a food. Only the western part of Kenya traditionally eats fish; everywhere else fish was a snack and the fish was cooked outside because of the smell.

The challenges they faced: the seed that was provided was mixed (male / female) tilapia. When you mix male and female they do not grow well because they will breed prolifically. In 1 month you will go from 1000 to 10.000 fingerlings. As a result there will be high competition for resources (feed is still only provided for 1000 fish). So producers were only growing fish up to about 60 grams.

Samaki kadogo has gone a little ‘sideways’ in developing fish. There is a huge population that cannot afford fish. 300 grams fish costs about 400 Ksh (equivalent to the daily wage of a worker). These people live by the day, just buying enough for a day. So they cannot afford to buy large fish. With such a high price. The company is growing high quality male fingerlings sold to local farmers that already have a pond. Also provide access to quality feed. Instead of growing for 8 months to full size they encourage growing them to about 120 grams sold for 30 Ksh er piece. That labourer with a daily wage can now afford to pay 4*30 Ksh for the whole family and eat the whole fish including the bones. You can stew the fish and serve it as a sauce. As a result more people can afford to eat fish.

They also work with women called “Mama samaki” women buying about 50 kg of fish, deep frying and selling it to urban centres. Kenyans want to eat fresh fish not frozen. Mama samakis can buy live fish daily from the company and thereby provide fresh product every day.

Questions:
 * Mind change to eat more fish? Yes the government had an “eat more fish” campaign, teaching non-fish eaters how to cook the fish. Women also educate other women in rural areas how to cook and eat fish. Central Kenya is now consuming as much or more fish than western Kenya (Nairobi part of central).
 * Similar situation as in Uganda. Tried to promote fish farming but facing a lot of challenges. Role of gov’t in Kenya? Fisheries officers were not trained enough. 80 million USD being invested in the sector. Change in mindset in the sector. Gov’t is taking a back seat saying it needs to be private sector led. Some aquaculture investors set up a society including private sector stakeholders and also researchers trying to drive the sector forward (Otieno is *art of this society).
 * Samaki kagodo is it competitive? The fish competes with Omena (small fish from capture fisheries). But the price of this is high now because it is used for livestock feed.
 * Marketing: nobody is aggregating at the moment. Otieno brings in a refrigerated container to buy from distant people. Need to set up holding grounds to keep it live to sell on demand. Middlemen will take advantage when the fish is already dead. With large volumes aggregated you have the economies of scale.

Had an idea to create a source of income for his time at university: pig keeping. Grandmother gave him a piece of land to do pig keeping there. A friend assisted with money to buy 7 pigs. Capital was not enough to support the feeds, health services etc. They did not grow at the speed expected. He successfully tried to plant own maize to support the pigs. Then expanded the farm.
 * Story 3: Christopher – pig in Uganda**

Challenge: low price for pigs from traders. Market for pigs existed but the price was low. He decided to set up a farmers’ group. Initially he found it difficult to find people to join him as he was considered too young by some farmers but he found some ladies who were willing to join him to sell together. Then he tried to look for markets. He discovered some traders and small slaughter houses but realized he would still need to go through middlemen that will take you to the buyers.

He then had the idea to startup a pig trading company but had limited capital to do so. He talked to many people but not many willing. Then found a friend to work with. 2010 started buying pigs from farmers in the group and became a trader. Organized a truck driver to come and pick them up with the pigs from the areas where they went to buy pigs. Many problems: a pig died of stress. They carried pigs on their backs. They were not paying for labour to increase profit so did a lot themselves. They had to estimate the weight of the pig to pay the farmers and sometimes estimated in favour of the farmer so that weighed on their profits heavily until they developed a better system. Provide other services to farmers such as link them to breeders, input suppliers, animal health services or buy inputs from Kampala to sell to the farmers.

AfricaConnect (online platform) has been the base for marketing the products, social networks including facebook and twitter. He managed to win some money to boost their business. Good partnership with ILRI. They had a large order but they didn’t have enough money to cover the order as the payment was going to be delayed. Colleagues at ILRI borrowed them some money and they managed to execute the order. He also managed to export kamra(?) pigs to Rwanda (contacted through internet).

What is the role of research output in terms of technology? Research should be focused on what is blocking the value chain.
 * GENERAL COMMENTS:**

Technology very big in the fish story. Small area used to produce large volume of fingerlings because of technology. Breeding is done inside greenhouses. Also technology used for sex reversal (100% male). The system is more expensive but much more productive. Technology necessary to be able to meet the demand from growing population.

Technology transfer programs: research is being done but information does not flow to the final user. Those who do the research want to make money out of the work, but it has been funded by public money. There is a disconnect between those that need the information and those that generate it. Missing extension services is a big issue. Challenge to all research centers to make sure that the information goes down to the end-user without it getting lost along the way. CGIAR has taken this on board in recent reforms. Systems are being put in place. Practical first steps: focal points in countries that can act as a bridge. Change process is slow but the spirit and intend is there to make the change.

**Group 3**

 * Case 1 -** **Richard Wanyama** – Heifer International Heifer: has a focus on livestock for development, with smallholder focus. Mechanism for multiplying cattle. Focus on a small family. Without a cow, father worked on farms around neighbourhood. He also had a few vegetables. With cow 3 litres/day. Income XXXX?/day Intervention was biogas. Tap gas for household energy. Saves time from firewood search – also protects women against violence, and injuries from wild animals. Also more harmonious household due to lack of soot in the household. Also light at night – homework at home. A cow: we normally think of milk…. But in fact this is just one product. Dung is produced every day through the year, unlike milk. The slurry from the biogas process is a good fertiliser. This helped the banana plantation. The slurry seems to kill nematodes, and repel flies (research is needed to find out why/how the slurry dies this). Also the slurry helps to grow vegetables, and saving money on food generally. Some vegetables are able to be sold. Slurry can also be fed to pigs, chicken (liquid form, or mix it with other feeds), and as an input to boost microbe content and weed growth for fish in ponds. This is a saving (research is needed on cycling of pig disease in dung). Eggs are bigger, more of them. Question: What about monetary amounts in the analysis? Answer: None done. Question: Looking for a way to combine dairy and fish, so as to benefit fishponds. Biogas: knows little about it. Notes that the area is becoming more urban – hence firewood is scarce – and so biogas is a good possibility. Much discussion of the system approach and synergies amongst biological processes. Question: On health standards/GAP/health etc. Can the market (maybe export markets in the future) bear this technology? Especially if a larger market is served, this story about pig production based on slurry. Looking ahead, this will be a challenge. Diana B’s comment on the messaging involved – she questions what the rolling out process. In particular, can pigs and cattle be mixed?

EMERGING THEMES FOR DISCUSSION:
 * QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION FOR EX ANTE OF EX POST ANALYSIS CONFRONTING VOLUME GROWTH: HOW TO KEEP A GROWTH PATH GOING THROUGH MARKETING –
 * HOW TO CONFRONT AND OVERCOME BARRIERS DUE TO PERCEPTIONS SUCH AS MANURE AND ITS ROLE IN FOOD PRODUCTION.

Two farmers and two traders: we look at honey and sunflower. Farmer, around Arusha. At end of season he has a good sunflower product, not acceptable at the local factory. Market regulation and uncertified seed. What Greenforest wants is transformative maketing. Honey: 1 farmer in Tabora, TZ, and trader in Kenya or Dar Es Salaam 1 cycle of honey production. Uses logs hives, but this reduces quality and hence price (quality issues come from use of smoke). Part of current project is to introduce improved hives, which removes need for smoke. Logs produce 10-15 kg whch is worth 2500 TAS. With improved beehives 29-30 kg and 8000 TES. With a number of such beehives, a beekeeper can go up to 25,000 TES. A link to financial institutions is needed, to provide the funds for the new hives. We need a price from traders to make sure farmers can make the payment. Sunflower: For sunflower, also a link to microfinance is needed. There are just two sunflower processing plants in TZ. Traders are not necessarily passing on the market signals. Although the return on the new technology is good, the shortage is money, mobilised by the microfinance.
 * Case 2 - Isaac Macha**
 * Questions There are challenges associated with the bees: are the bees being overworked by the new technology?
 * Answer No answer
 * Q: What analysis has been done?
 * A: A needs assessment.
 * Q: How robust are marketing and finance arrangements? How can export markets be accessed.
 * A: Side-selling does happen. The transmission of benefits is being carried out by traders etc are being addressed. Next step is to create a “market resource centre”. Statement: Diana on the market…. There is information available, on the honey markets Statement: Diana on the market…. There is information available, on the honey markets For advanced markets, this can lead to certification, which in turn is about information. Statement: There is needed in the contact Diana on the market, information…. There is information available, on the honey markets Diana states that there are price-quality linkages Statement: Honey value chain is a dying value chain.

Nigeria, agribusiness and youth advocacy. He had grown up on farms, and then after university, got interested. Found that farm and agriculture is not attractive to young people. Y-PAD is an organisation that also addresses this problem. Bringing youth into agriculture. Some products are grown far outside Abuja, and processing/cLeaning and drying is also done outside the cities where. Now about 30 youths are involved agr-business. Also farming has a bad image even amongst farmers. There are also a shortage of role models on this mission. Many benefits can be derived from this THEME EMERGING – choose your in-laws carefully in Nigeria! WE HAD COMMENTS FROM YOUTHS! ACCESS TO LAND IS A PROBLEM RURAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES – CAN THEY REALY BE TARGETED? Question: Is ownership available? How do the youths share land etc? Answer: Mostly the intervention is about value adding along the chain rather than at farm level. Question/Statement: Image of agr amongst youths: > 75% have a negative attitude to agriculture. However, when questioned about the possible careers and their opportunities… >90% said that they already knew about them. In Nigeria this was in association with the offering of a certificate in agribusiness… now these guys are coming back to Ministry for a job as there is no job. Note tah the certificate was solely for financing purposes. Answer: Mostly the intervention is about value adding along the chain rather than at farm level.
 * Case 3 - Adebola Adedugbe**

EMERGING THEMES:
 * NEED FOR EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS SYNTHESIS COMMENT:
 * ALL THREE CASES ARE GOOD EXAMPLES.
 * WE NEED TO MOVE BEYOND GUESSWORK AND “PASSION”
 * MANY NECESSARY LINKAGES NEEDED AMONGST COMPONENTS. FS EMERGING THEMES FROM DISCUSSION:
 * QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION FOR EX ANTE OF EX POST ANALYSIS
 * CONFRONTING VOLUME GROWTH: HOW TO KEEP A GROWTH PATH GOING THROUGH MARKETING – HOW TO CONFRONT AND OVERCOME BARRIERS DUE TO PERCEPTIONS SUCH AS MANURE AND ITS ROLE IN FOOD PRODUCTION.
 * CHOOSE YOUR IN-LAWS CAREFULLY IN NIGERIA!
 * ACCESS TO LAND IS A PROBLEM
 * RURAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES – CAN THEY REALLY BE TARGETED, CAN THE PREJUDICES BE OVERCOME?

**Group 4**
Merceline - Fish in Kenya (marketing) Producing fish of different sizes called samaki kadogo Fish grown for around 3 months People in slums buy what they need per day Supplies farmers will all male tilapia Buy fish from them and get them to mama samaki Marketing is done thru famer cluster group Samaki kadogo targets the urban poor Problems during marketing • People look for big fish • Preference of captured fish • Targeting communities that are not traditional fish consumers • Value addition • Poor road infrastructure • Most people prefer the fish deep fried Have a strong public private partnership Clarifications 1. Price of fish 9 pieces for a dollar 2. Competition from other protein sources Not comparable to other protein sources Richard – challenges of making money in the farm Finding out the best way to make money in the farm. There has been a problem in reaching the market. Maize production has been a challenge because productivity per ha is low and selling it is a problem because of middlemen. The best way is to integrated farming e.g maize and pigs. They choose pigs because it has a ready market selling 200 pigs/day. The main challenge is that the ordinary farmer is not well known for any assistance. The group is coming up with a database of all the members and it will be easier for loans from financial institutions. The maize plantations produce maize that is used for making feeds for the pigs. Group formation They came together for purposes of marketing The program hasn’t been duplicated since it’s as infant stages Runs partnership with maize miller Michael – Beef in Kenya Market chain Pastrola beef chain has remain elusive. Beef industry is a 42billiion shilling industry. The producer only get 23%, middlemen get >32% of returns along the value chain. Problem – the chain is marked by producer to poor consumer, urban markets in the whole value chain Success – slaughter 150 head/day = 40,000 dollars a day. Equity is instant. Self regulation. Formal sector controls 3%, informal sector controls 97% but the informal business model is used in the formal sector. They are more efficient that the formal sector in terms of meat delivery to the butchers and paying the farmers Way forward -Looking for a public participatory development initiative. Group formation • They individual is a change person who encourages others to join the group Deliberations Bulk breaking They focus for on the poor The chains try to break the raw deal that the producers get Identifying the key contstraints Getting rid of urban markets detecting the prices Story telling The stories were well told The stories should emphasize the problem and how they tackled it and the outputs from the intervations. Story telling should be a continuous process

__Key take-aways__: __Reflections on the storytelling process__:
 * Organisational capacity
 * Trust
 * Training to bulk break (in smaller chunks)
 * The focus of the population is on the poor and their livelihoods (because the poor make up 80% of it)
 * Producers get their 'raw due'
 * Production / marketing
 * Market structures are not formalized enough
 * The interesting role of retirees / people who have knowledge and decide to share it (e.g. as specialized workforce in Germany, Switzerland, USA)
 * Integrating / adding value within is key (act within the system)
 * Constraints (specifically towards poor consumers) identified in the normal value chain
 * The rural and urban areas: the urban consumption modes are dictating rural production - we have to understand these linkages better.
 * To reach the poor we must cut costs
 * It was captivating;
 * Maize and pig stories sounded simple but brings out very rich issues.
 * It is a better way to capture this work than a paper
 * The audience mentioned the need for completion point but a lot of that work is ongoing
 * 'Storytelling is a continuous process' (M. Kibue)
 * Questions help the storytellers focus on useful additional information.

Learning events
Five learning events were proposed:

Assessment of the value chain analysis tool (Epi Katjiuongua)
Kanar Hamza: “Toolkit” is a flash name. Botswana Sirak Bahta: Snapshot survey (rapid appraisal) Large scale survey David Kyirebwire: Toolkit and pig value chain in Uganda a month ago. Emily Ouma: In-depth VCA toolkit and pig value chain in Uganda a month ago. Variants on producer survey Trader questionnaire Inputs supplier questionnaire Nadhem: Questionnaires for traders Jo Cadilhon: To extract information in FGD with dairy farmers Indiv. questions for traders Otienno Okello: Fish farmers’ association - keen to use toolkit. Francis Mwaijande: Ec and Social Res Foundation in Tanzania Needs tools to use on fisheries. Froukje Kruissens: Helping to develop toolkits Adapted/used it on capture fisheries Derek Baker: Worked on precursors. Kanar’s statements are about the older versions of the The issue of farmers waiting needs an organisational issue rather than questionnaire. Froukje Kr: Developed short and long versions of questionnaires, depending on respondent. Richard Bakkade (Farmers’ association in Uganda) Has developed maize-pigs VC – wants to know more about the toolkit. Feedback on use of toolkit: Kanar Hamza: Application in Botswana – most tools were too long… especially without paying them. Workshop + interviews requires a lot of time: farmers are waiting around. Sirak Bahta: Some questions are not suitable for some contexts. Did testing in Botswana and then changed the questionnaire. Jo Cadilhon: Suggests that the adapted toolkits are also added to the wiki etc. Emily Ouma: Toolkit has been adapted and tested and re-adjusted, and then the new questionnaires. Notes that buying a kg of pork helps when talking to traders. Sirak Bahta: Wants to see amended questionnaires standardised… Jo Cadilhon: Shortening needs to be related to needs of the readers. Froukje: There can be agreement on how to measure some key issues. David K: Two issues: traders... they meet an enforcement agency such as district vet officers – they run away, so how to handle that? productivity etc is OK, but measures are not always easy for respondents to use. Derek B: Technical definitions and context were ignored in one mess made in Mozambique. Epi: Botswana: communal land etc was a term that was misleading. Jo C: Reports on WA CIRAD experience: farmers used peanuts’ residues for fodder, and that was the performance measure – not peanut yields.

Richard Bakkade: There is demand from insurers for this kind of information. Derek Baker Combining the group discussion with the interviews requires a different resource set. Danilo: There is an expectation of feedback… and we can hardly respond due to time delays… there is a need to provide feedback. Froukje’s experience was to have a big team, and the data got entered on the job. Provided a short cycle for delivery of simple diagrams. Sirak Bahta: There is a database for the Bots survey – we developed a database for the data entry. Conclusions: Froukje: we have the feedback (good and bad). Question is how to document the changes that get made? Suggestions welcome. Epi: appreciated Danilo’s point on how to manage and produce short cycle output.
 * NEXT STAGE**… Jo asks everyone to keep in contact with Epi. Questions from people who want to use the tools. A snapshot was asked for. Froukje provided this. Included list of the tools, and gender availability.

__** Other learning events featured: **__
 * Innovation platforms approach to agricultural research and development (Rilwanu Muhammad Faralu)
 * GIS and remote sensing applications (Tolu Olatoye)
 * Adding-value fish processing in Uganda (Namulawa Victoria)
 * The ?? tool (Isabelle Baltenweck)

Synthesis session day 1

 * Not much quantitative information here - we need quantitative tools but we don't see them come up to the front
 * A theme from today was 'access to land' which crops up in a number of VC stories. There's many causes for this but we are not covering this well through the toolkit.
 * What came out of the tools' discussion themselves was whether they were too general or specific? We're not quite general nor specific
 * In our storytelling group (Isabelle) there is a lot of interactions between researchers and farmers / extension agencies - there's much room for improvement with more direct interactions, researchable issues etc. for farmers to look into their needs
 * The issue of documentation: much is being learnt, tools are being adapted but we don't document what we learn - after the project we don't document, everything gets lost etc.
 * Interventions are not enough demand-driven. Researchers have pet topics and we want to do an innovation platform on our topic but it may be of little interest to others.
 * The use of storytelling was very positive, as it brings a human face - it needs some skills in telling stories
 * The thing that struck me the most in the storytelling group was the role of different types of stakeholders e.g. private sector (entrepreneurs who risk trying things out)... What is the role of the private sector and how to enable it to play a role in the value chain? What's the role of the government? What's the role of research in shortening the gap between research results, technologies and bringing them to people who need them
 * This day was very inspiring. I feel I've missed a lot of interesting conversations
 * I was lucky to be a storyteller - I picked quite a lot from storytelling and didn't know it was quite that powerful. I would love to be listening to all the stories.
 * I learned a lot today e.g. to tell a story more passionately
 * Value chains: in one country they work, in another they fail but what about cross-learning? What is it that we miss to make sure we transfer successes from a community to their neighbours e.g. biogas works in some places and not in others.
 * My experience in this workshop has been very englightening - I chaired one of the sessions and I liked the fact that youth in Nigeria are being turned into a source of development. In every city in Africa you see a lot of youth who are unemployed and they look upon agriculture as sthg for older generations.
 * Marketing is often portrayed as a big problem especially for aquaculture - but in our session on WALIMI fish farmers' case, the issue was production, not marketing.
 * The government has to be aware that they need to take a front seat and drive e.g. certification of seeds, strengthening human resources etc.
 * (As an organiser) I'm very happy to hear that so many of you are learning and the discussions I've been involved in I've enjoyed indeed. I enjoyed the interaction between researchers and practitioners. The former want to publish in journals and present to one another, but it's a very good interaction to ground the discussions.
 * Tomorrow we're going on the field trip and all who are familiar with the toolkit could select a sheet from the benchmarking tool.
 * It's been wonderful to hear all the stories. I love storytelling. I am in the value chain from production to marketing but I want to say that the Kenyan gov't was good in stimulating, but how to sustain the sector. On the ground it's not a rosy picture. We want to activate or want the Gov't to listen to our needs. There are no standards in e.g. processing, patenting etc. I want a lot of interventions...

There's a bit of cross-learning to do. Let's hook up before forums such as these etc.

Step forward if you seek help and we can organise a peer assist case.

**Day 2**

Preparation for the field trips
Derek introducing the preparation to the questionnaire: Perhaps tomorrow we can come back to the posters and relate this to this list of questions, and also relate stories, learning events etc.
 * Introduction by Derek**
 * Are we using the right questions?
 * Are we going to generate information that is useful?
 * Are we using the right data collection mechanisms to address other issues in this workshop?


 * Danilo and the list of field site visits**


 * The questionnaire we are going to use**

Pig site in Mukono
PRODUCTION LEVEL: MARKETING INPUT SUPPLIERS
 * Visited three farms (one model farm)
 * Innovation about IMO (indigenous microorganism) on the model farm. Promoted by a group og farmers. Has room for improvement and could form a research idea. Seems easy to make though the housing looks expensive. Cost and benefits not known. Effect on productivity not clear.
 * One of the farmers showed initiative to look for market. Apparently there good market options if one looks around for them
 * Feed seems a major problem on farms. Forages seem to form the bulk of the feeds. Identifying feeds and meeting dry season feed gap is definitely a research issue.
 * Farmers seemed unable to know the breeds they keep. Phenotypic and genotypic characterization breed is a researchable issue.
 * Farmer engaging in breeding needs information or support training to understand technical issues behind breeding principles.
 * Lack of an abattoir hence implication of food safety issues (slaughtering, transportation etc.)
 * Lack of knowledge on other parts of carcass- head, hoofs etc., used as payment for slaughter service
 * Change in tends – pork being sold more visibly.
 * More women involved in production of pigs
 * Policy change may hamper growth in the informal pig industry?
 * Lady seller trained in animal husbandry (is a requirement)
 * Not clear how she decided on what to stock

__Summary given in plenary__ 1 abattoir for pigs, slaughtering mostly going on on farms - no mechanism to ensure food safety. Solution could be setting up abattoirs but could be about local slab etc. to ensure better hygiene. Change in trends now pork is being consumed etc. but policy framework is not keeping up with it. It could have prevented growth but it should supported growth. Gender distribution (at production level lots of women, at butchers' level hardly any). Trapped in defining researchable issues but perhaps most important is to look into fodder issues and more local training. Input supplier - lots of chemicals...

Matuga pig site (w/ Chris Mulindwa)
Production organisation + church organisation.

Traders: how young entrepreneurs are using social media to advertise their business. Recommendations about training.

Small & medium scale farmers: biggest challenge is feeding - small scale farmers couldn't afford most inputs - they were producing without input. Challenge of breeding and access to boars. They have access only to closeby boars which are not always of the best quality. Recent registration and trying to access extension services. For the full year they only accessed them twice - inefficient government access to extension services. Traders have agreements to the price they will pay for the pigs. We saw photos of slaughter slabs, PPM. Construction of a private abattoir. Visited a pork joint and there were some hygiene issues.

Dairy site
Visited a family homestead with a number of enterprises, biogas plant for cooking and power, orchard and garden where slurry of biogas was used as fertilizer. Some of it going to piggery where they were providing slurry as feeds. Where is the nutritional benefit of doing this? We saw an orchard which is being set as an enterprise and there is processing for the homestead. Last enterprise was the bulking (??) milk and transporting it to bigger processors. Then went to see a bulker to gross 200 l/day and then transported to processors who pay bulkers who pay farmers. Visited feedmix for input suppliers to prepare feed variety. Too many activities that input suppliers are keeping. e.g. they're mixing feeds for poultry, beef etc. They're also offering credit facilities, extension etc. Is the role of bulkers not one of an unnecessary middle man? The issue of quality control came up. We finally visited a huge processor in Uganda 30-60 000 l / day and doing quality control. One key issue is that of quality. 40% rejection of milk from small and large producers etc. Different payment systems. Striking: the whole issue of extension / availability and quality - it seems to be a missing link...

Duanilo dairy cooperative
2 coolers, agro-vet, access to food supplies (including from agro vets) and have 8 staff. We met the chairman and some board members. CP management. 7 animals and milking 12. Cross of ?? and Frysian and production was not very high. __Challenges__: At farm level, milk picked from different farmers is mixed from different regions -> risk for quality. We asked about quality control but he insinuated he used his tongue to do this. Individual tasting is good. Chilling plant best on ??, not based on fat. The chilling plant should consider direct best quality payment based on composition. High costs of running generator from 6am to 2pm and there's a single power source: use solar power. Transport had a limited chilling plant capacity. Perhaps take up transport as a business. Mathias the farmer was getting good value. He could get more than one buyer for their milk (better pricing). During payment of farmers, a lot of cash is being handled -> big risk. Perhaps consider mobile cash payment. Use youth and women more for the work. No uptake of services. e.g. 50 inseminations / year (very low) with uncertain success rate - Opportunities for high grade ?? Challenge with the feeds - commitment of cooperative is being questioned - perhaps improve pasture management and tap into high prices. Different opportunities: cooperative has linkages with private sector alliances, cooperatives etc. Mathias helped set up the cooperative. Opportunity for transport development, for bringing women and youth on board. Loyalty schemes an option? Cattle sales are another opportunity.

Fish group in Mukono
3 stop overs.
 * Farmers are struggling at the start of their activities: Researchers are not going to see them
 * Producers make efforts to up their game
 * There is a lot of potential for fish farming in Uganda
 * We need to produce more: there is demand but not enough fish produced – producers are lagging behind
 * Processing and adding value is still very raw
 * We don’t have to limit ourselves to marketing issues: If production and processing are well organized, there’s not problem with marketing
 * We have to go beyond borders
 * The size is not an issue
 * There are quality issues
 * Traders realize that people want small fish because of their limited income (opportunity)
 * Segmentation is very important in this value chain: a bit of specialization is important in order to survive against the competition e.g. fingerling vs. fry producers, grow out farmers etc. this segmentation addresses issues of cost
 * Integrated farming (with crops, fertilizers etc.) is a good way forward
 * Linkages between value chain users are weak – the actors are not meeting each other: One farmer may have a problem and not be consulted about it by advisors, nor consult specialists to find answers
 * Researchers should go all the way down to communities
 * The role of NADS/NARO (first of all it seems that NADS is not really interested in aquaculture): farmers have to understand the role of these institutions in disseminating research findings, scaling them up etc.
 * There is not much knowledge exchange across the value chain
 * A farmer wants to know what are latest opportunities etc. but the processor doesn’t listen to him/her and vice-versa
 * Innovation platforms and multi-stakeholder platforms could be a way forward to bring these actors together to discuss their issues and coordinate their activities better
 * Aquaculture products are invisible – we need more labeling, certification etc.
 * Perhaps certification is an important research topic to explore further
 * Another researchable area: The analysis of fishery policies and value chains
 * Taxes on inputs are another constraint
 * The depreciation of products: Younger customers don’t know what fish products look like
 * We failed with hatchery and related best management practices – there is a general lack of information
 * No feedback mechanism (e.g. reporting) helps address this information gap


 * Small conversation **
 * Most of the sites visited, extension is not present when it should be
 * Researchers are far away from the producers,
 * We are not clear about consumer demand
 * We need to quantify value e.g. farmer being paid 800 UGX / l but a processor gets 2600 UGX / l
 * Low farm planning - adding problems to integration... We need to support them with this
 * On technology etc. and IMO: Indigenous micro-organisms: You don't have to ... to clean the house every day, you only have to turn the ?? and apply a solution. It also helps digestion of manure, urine etc. The digestion rate is so high that temperatures are high, which help kill pests etc. Pigs are clean thanks to IMO and the dung provides nutrients. 30% of the feeds has been reduced in some cases.
 * A lot of innovation going on and thank you for organizers and hosts. What struck me: 1) Information that should be available is not easily accessible (market share, outreach etc.) we need more easily accessible information for business planning etc. 2) lack of basic understanding/consideration across many players re: inputs-outputs. People save on inputs because inputs are expensive, but in return they gather much less than they could. Is this because liquidity is a problem? 3) On financial services, several examples showed that producers have opportunities to sell at higher volume/payment but they have little liquidity to tackle this. Perhaps we could do more cost analysis as opposed to the benefits - it could spill over a lot more activities across the chains. Insurance could be another option etc. A lot of interesting issues.
 * A lot of services are organised since 80s and are coming back e.g. role of social capital (people at the centre, not commodities at the centre): a new way to address agri-business. Challenges for animal feeds and product development + providing services to the farmers etc.
 * Consumers are a challenge vav administering tool. As we administered the questionnaire we should follow the ... ? some consumers produce their own milk.
 * Women are taken away from their productive role e.g. women don't need to take all the roles that men are shying away from it.
 * The questionnaire didn't address governance and sustainability.
 * Power and equity, role of rural electrification...
 * Possibility to use mobile money transfer etc. to deal with cash issues + gap in extension but high presence of mobile communication such as cellphones - how can such extension information.
 * Vision seems to be to do everything marketing, processing etc. and listening to other contributors it seems to be the case across everyone. It may not be the best way to go - specialise in one activity and involve other VC actors to take care of other functions...

**'Towards sustainable fish farming in Uganda'**
Questions for the peer assistee: Q: A: ... that's not the work of NARO but // Q: Are you not encouraging own feeds? A: Maize blends are alterated etc. there's a lot of mixed ingredients so we realized it was important for farmers to have access to commercial feeds. Q: When you have x products. What methodology was used to popularize these products? A: We have used exhibitions every year for commercial feeds. Researchers are using such exhibitions, papers, radio programs etc. to popularize these feeds. Q: When you talk about local feeds, commercial feeds are also local. Are you talking about home-made feeds? A: Farm-made e.g. kassava leaves, sweet potato vines etc. but the contents are not protein rich. Q: What types of feeds are successful farmers using? A: Chicken and locally prepared commercial feeds? Q: Why are farmers not adopting these feeds - have you researched this? A: In our institute we haven't done adoption studies on fish. Q: Where could these farms get their commercial feeds? A: We have outlets e.g. in Kampala (main one), with Wakiso outlet (Majeje farm) but not everywhere else. Farmers have to come from far afield. Q: How much does it cost? A: 2700 UGX / kgs? The price depends on the amount of good proteins (those are expensive) Q: Which commercial feed are you recommending? A: First the low protein content, then low protein Q: Have you visited other fish farms? Are they similar to yours in terms of density, quality etc. A: Yes. Q: What is the water temperature in the lab? A: About 25C. Outdoors it is about... Q: Do you have fish farming for trouts etc.? A: ?? Q: If there's insufficient extension for dairy animals etc. the feed supply should be scarce for fish. What about community extension routes? What do you do to develop extension...? A: Government is set up and in each sub-country there is a fishery officer which coordinates good aquaculture etc. If there's a question about fishermen they address it but in practice they have left aquaculture and are focusing on capture. Fishermen don't exploit fishery resources etc. Most funding resources are on captured fish on Lake Victoria. Q: Community-based extension? A: Demand-driven enterprises address this. Where you have maize, kassava etc. fish farming has been left a bit behind ??? Aquaculture is not given priority. Q: Out of 1000 farmers only 1 is doing aquaculture. It's alarming. Fish is not significant - who are they growing fish for? A: That was an example. The requirements for aquaculture need certain conditions e.g. soil-related, accessibility of water etc. We have a policy from the MoA & fisheries on aid ?? farming. Q: Where is the production of commercial feeds coming from? Is there a demand or are you trying to push a product? A: We came up with this because initially farmers were coming up with feeds from Belgium, Netherlands etc. Researchers wondered what farmers want. Many conferences happened to find out what to do. Farmers mentioned they wanted commercial fish feeds. We had to identify private operators from poultry feeds. Q: Is there processing among farmers? When you bring quality feeds is it what farmers decide or is it forced upon them? How did farmers become involved? Was it a donor intervention. A: It was demand from farmers. The Gov't intervention started in 1963. Before there was a problem of kwashiorkor so the Government and private operators started. Farmers have the habit of eating fish... The demand is enormous. Q: Is this for domestic or import markets? Getting small fish? A: It's both. Q: How do you create awareness e.g. for small scale producers: Where do you do these exhibitions? Village level? Household level? A: We do this at zonal level -.
 * Kasozi Nasser's case **

__Suggestions__:
 * Knowledge is power: farmers should learn where to get info about recent technology, construction of the pond etc.
 * Feeding takes 60% - I'm wondering how the pricing of commercial feeds compares with farmers' own - do they neglect the profit margins? Perhaps do a work study.
 * How to popularize commercial fish? ...
 * Input suppliers e.g. feed and seed producers need to play a very active role. During farmer field days they are very active e.g. they do farm trials... Looking at dairy, poultry etc. Agro-vets can help with that quality information. They can play a more active role in pushing.
 * The few successful farmers - have you raised their voice? Farmers believe other farmers? On the radio, listen to other farmers, not researchers etc. Use other channels to create more awareness on commercial feeds.
 * Could farmers consider organizing themselves to purchase bulk to reduce costs of going up and down for feeds to distant places.
 * With input dealers, consider credit;
 * From a study you will find out that access is an issue (if restricted to Kampala). Perhaps find a way to interest farmers to access feeds. If input suppliers are trusted by farmers and provide advice it might be a push for farmers to buy from these input suppliers - through mutual trust.
 * There's an important player in the VC: financial institutions. Farmers are not buying because they can't afford. There's only one (monopoly). So interest other people at e.g. regional level. Why should there be one person producing feeds only? We have to consider loans etc. People develop feeds in different zones with different nutritional qualities. If you have many people in the field, the price will come down. There's no shortcut, fish will eat quality feeds.
 * It's good to know the real cost of feeds - it should be a little bit cheaper than importing feeds. Try with local feeds and if it's successful more people will buy those.
 * Increase the number of feed retailers e.g. through agro-vets. They could sell these feeds.
 * There's a problem of information dissemination. Your institute has to go to each small region and work with one fish producer and start assessing how much it costs him/her to produce feeds, what's the production, retail price etc. and then they can start proposing feeds in a period. This will spread out results to other people. Choose someone who is trustworthy.
 * We need to make the case that it makes sense to go for commercial feeds for the farmers. How to convince them? Set up demos, make your case, find interested farmers, set up demo in-situ with on one side leaves etc. and on the other side commercial feeds - and expose farmers to exposure visits, field days to compare these. Demo units working as extension services.
 * Use of ICTs - price of feeds can be pushed through cell phones.
 * On the sustainable agriculture, one lady was not using predator nets. More needs to be done about feeding fish but if the bads are going to eat the fish - keep the predators away.
 * We have WAFICOs in Uganda and its role needs to be strengthened. They need to be able to demonstrate farm experiments. Its role needs to be clarified and enhanced.
 * We need to think ICT in terms of small SMS services, linking production to processors etc.
 * We need to think ICT in terms of small SMS services, linking production to processors etc.

I find it difficult to give advice with so little information (as a researcher). On the other hand it forces you to bring out ideas. There are general guidelines but also clear weak points that can be detected early on. We can give some good advice. We have to know more about the value chain. In situations like these, don't the questions need rephrasing. These questions force us to think. We could reformulate the questions.
 * What Kasozi Nasser will do**:
 * Thank you so much for your contributions. I've taken your suggestions very well.
 * On question 1:
 * Best farm management practices are important: information management, predator control;
 * Feed quality management;
 * Market management.
 * I will do: adoption studies to understand what farmers will do. The methodology of progressive farm approaches, demonstrations; and strengthening farm trials. I will ensure that WAFICO are involved in the transactions. On the use of ICTs. When we raise the voice it shouldn't be the researchers but the farmers... The issue of bulking and opening retail suppliers to get together.

“Delivery of cost effective extension service models-What considerations are the best bets for dairy farmer producer organizations?”
See full write-up by Allan Bisagaya himself here. EADD started in 2008 with the aim of helping farmers improve production, market access and knowledge information.
 * Allan Bisagaya's case **

I) Production – through improved feeding, feed conservation and breeding II) Maintain productivity – through improved animal health services EADD identified extension workers, trained them and equipped them with animal health kits. EADD was also enumerating the extension workers on behalf of the POs and with time some POs have found it difficult to own and manage the extension service delivery.
 * EADD works with farmer based SME increase;**

i) Reluctance of farmers to take on management of the extension service delivery – farmers willingly pay for breeding and animal health services but not information ii) Extension workers are more loyal to the project – and this is not good for the sustainability of the POs A robust extension model that maintains itself even after the project support
 * Challenges in promoting the extension service delivery**
 * What we want to see**

How can we incentivise producers to fund extension services?
 * Big question**


 * A. **** QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT **
 * Nancy ** – VEDCO
 * Where are the Government extension workers (NAADSs, LG structures)
 * What about the Community animal health workers
 * Who is paying the extension workers
 * How can producers fund extension
 * //Response//**
 * Farmers have a vision which is translated into a producer extension work plan and linkages were made with the Government but the challenge comes in with funding.
 * In the communities – in some communities there is loyalty between extension workers and producer organisations – where they existed. In the communities where we noted the gap and identified the extension workers and linked them to the cooperative and paid for the services a s project, the extension workers tend to be more loyal to the project.
 * Services readily paid for are -animal health services and look for the project to fund information related services – field days, exchange visits
 * Government linkage exists and are not free

Farmers might not be aware of need – For farmer may consider that the linkages currently existing are enough and farmers already paying for animal and breeding services and things this is enough.
 * Mohamed ** – Ministry of Livestock Nigeria
 * ** Q ** . Have you considered institutionalising extension so that it is a forum where they can address challenges of access to information?
 * ** R ** : Considering site visited yesterday – extension was not imbedded strongly in the management of the CP.


 * Christopher Fernando ** –
 * **Q**: There must be an extension worker. Are these staff qualified or unprofessional? Is the extension worker being supervised by a veterinary surgeon?
 * ** R **: Basic qualification – most are diploma holders and few are degree holders. We have a national policy of engaging workers as Community animal health workers in in Karamoja? This is not allowed in other districts and so since EADD did not break the law, we decided to go for the trained extension workers. Noted that linkage of supervision with qualified veterinary surgeon was weak.


 * Sophie, NARO **
 * ** Q ** : were you working in isolation?
 * ** R ** : No – extension workers were in the following


 * B. **** PROPOSED STRATEGIES **
 * Milk fever, mastitis, Brucellosis should be done under supervision of a vet – hard to detect and can be handled by vet and the rest can be done by the extension worker
 * Extension workers should have a basic qualification and obligation should be to mother organisation (PO)
 * There should be a clear documentation and communication strategy for demonstrating the value of extension services – for every shilling invested, what is the result/value
 * Involve the youth more in extension
 * There should continuous assessment of the health status of the animals rather than the farmer calling the extension worker since it can affect the quality of milk (noted yesterday that 40% of the milk is rejected. The capacity of the extension workers should be harnessed to give more holistic service provision to even include training and retaining rather than just AH and breeding
 * Customers pay for the solution to the problem. Unless we identify the problem – since farmers have a lot of problems. So we need to identify farmers’ problems along the value chain (top problem) with innovation solutions and they have to package their solutions and pitch to the farmers. This is where we need to work and provide a solution to these problems.
 * In the beginning when registering farmers – we need to agree that some of their funds (profit) can go into training and this can support Project and Government efforts
 * There should be a joint training program, EADD, PO, Government, processor involved in the value chain and each needs to have some level of commitment
 * We need to separate what the private sector can do and the Government can do. If we have a livestock organisation advocating for extension (at least at s/c) and the farmers can move to the s/c since they may have difficulty moving to the farmers
 * We need to build an institution – youth can offer general extension since it has been shown to be effective with crops and we can explore this
 * We need to create a relationship between extension worker and farmer –
 * Extension needs to be more holistic – include brochures, information pinned at the DFBA using the profits from the milk business
 * Linkage between PO and Government can be utilised using advocacy for better services – e.g. roads, power and there will be better extension service delivery
 * Extension workers mainly emphasise husbandry practices (feeding, AI, routine check-up) and this is where they stop at. Extension advise is limited – we need to provide business advice e.g. advise on how to improve income from the farm to get out of poverty.
 * Information needs not be free so that farmer values information
 * Projects do not mention what we mean from the word go. Usually POs farmers pay for membership fee – if they can do this for joining, why can’t they do this for extension services and should be demand driven
 * EADD should come up with a training module as a withdrawal plan and the PO takes it as a responsibility that they will take on after EADD.
 * Have a committee on production and marketing committee since current focus is on milk marketing
 * Business model – good idea to promote extension especially of co-op sees value
 * Allan’s summary**
 * Consider specialisation of extension services
 * Documentation of value of extension worker
 * Extension needs to be more holistic – embedded services with AH and breeding workers
 * Use of mobile technology is doable for dissemination of extension services to the farmers
 * Continuous assessment of animal health – herd health program


 * Way forward **
 * Summarise steps that can work and share with others
 * Next steps – in 3 months (Information to be sent) Dr. Allan to provide feedback (Contacts in Wiki)

** Implementing pig business hubs in Masaka district to address unfair trade of pigs in Uganda **
- How do we attract partners to introduce weighing pips as a basis of determining farm gate prices in Uganda and who will fund the development of the standardization procedures as practiced elsewhere in the world? - How can partners access grants to establish business hubs in Uganda? - What makes pig production risky? - Farmer fear check off systems and see them as synonymous with loans – bad experiences with loans - Which weighing system before or after slaughter? At the farm or auction house? Standard rules and regulations of weighing - Creating hubs is way to go? Need to look at similarities and differences of the pig and dairy business when thinking about hubs - Rural agribusiness – will it be different or integrated with hubs - What happens if pig dies? Solutions and opportunities Attract farmers – weighing as method of determine farm gate prices) - Set up protocol and regulations/procedure at national government level - Risk associated with pigs that are not bought? - Customize weighing bands - Form cooperative society and register them with government - Carry out census of pigs – are numbers convincing? - Bulk purchasing - Create linkages with actors - Lobby actors to change way of trading in pigs - Organize farmers inputs and services first before forming hubs - Weight is half of the story – - Weight vs. value (BMI) theory –support training around this theory - weighing at auction will result is offals, legs head to waste (used as payment) - what value will weighing bring to the trader and farmers - How shall we take care of breeders of piglets? - Buying in bulk has implication of slaughtering (traders tend to slaughter few pigs at a time?) needs to consider this. - Need to look critically at production of pigs - Carcass equivalent of pigs is one aspect that traders take into account. Not just weight per se - There more than one model in the hub proposal – need to test these as farmer may be interested in different components of the hub e.g. inputs and services, credit, auction, slaughtering etc. - How do pig breeders fit in - Use of the term ‘cooperative’ needs to be avoided. Farmers have had a bad experience with coops - Develop ‘piece disclosure chart’ to guide pricing
 * Mayega Lawrence Nyombi's case**
 * Case study description:**
 * Feeds is s problem with many smallholder farmers
 * Pigs the main asset for smallholder
 * When feed problem are high they sell pigs to alleviate the problem
 * Traders have monopoly in fixing prices. No fair trade, consultation with farmers in setting prices
 * Farmers cannot assess credit to invest in pig sector hence their business plans don’t work
 * Hence plans to impellent pig business hubs
 * Farmers will be mobilized in cooperative
 * The hub will comprise of :
 * Feed bank – access feeds and payoff from pig sales
 * Slaughter slab/house
 * Auction market – will act a meeting point for farmers and traders, where smallholders can bulk pigs and engage in contract farming and a point to access credit facilities and inputs
 * Questions**
 * Issues arising from discussions**
 * Numbers are small at household level
 * Turnover low at HH level – hence difficult to attract credit
 * Proposing to do it at the market due to cost effectiveness
 * Built in platform to be built to make it easier
 * Farmers to arrange for transport
 * By law to support operation of the market. (only one function that day)
 * Minimum pigs to be delivered on the market
 * Farmers gets confirmation of weights at the market
 * Hub will help bulk pig, cut down costs, may be attractive to the traders (raising numbers)
 * Grace period to pay off? Need to thought through

Improving value chain performance for farmed fish in Uganda: Walimi fish farmers cooperative society

 * Theodora Shuwu Hyuha, Joseph Molnar, John Walakira, James Bukenya & Gertrude Atukunda**** 's case **

WAFICOS is Walimi fish farmers cooperative society

Started with 20 members, now 500 members, life membership (joining fee) 380,000Ugs lump sum and annual subscription fee. Members are farmers, traders, researchers. The AGM is held every year and the executive (12 members) is elected for 2 years. They are member of the National Farmers organization. The secretariat runs the daily activities. Benefits: marketing of products through WAFICOS ; technical advise to the members (sometimes outsource training) Secretariat staff: business administration; technical skills on aquaculture production, the coop charged a fee for training. Feeds and seed supplies (quantity and quality) - Only 1 registered supplier which is a member (Uga Chick). He got an extruder through an USAID fund, through WAFICOS. Uga Chick has excess demand, so prefers to sell eslewhere - NAFIRI is developing a few feed KAJJAASI, in collaboration with a Chinese company. It’s in the phase of pilot testing but people can purchase it. The quality seems better also the feed is not floating. - The hatcheries require high protein and high quality feeds that is imported from Mauritius or Israel (very specialized item) Market - There is a market: GreenField processor (required uniform fish, at a certain time) but this is not possible to get as they don’t have information on the individual ponds so as to be able to meet the demand of that market - There are also individual demands, the price is increasing - 6,000 -/ per kg for farmer, other at 10,000-/ - During project time, there has a way to maintain cold chain (truck) but it’s not working so farmers sell directly to the buyers Solutions (in bold, these selected by Theodora) - R&D, research on available resources maybe working with Uga Chick to decrease cost of production (get cheaper substitutes ) - Increasing networks among farmers - Check with NAFIRI what their plans are (on- going) - UGA Chick is a member of the coop so need to ask why they can’t supply the coop members. Does Uga Chick needs help to increase capacity - **Is there a farmers database, to try and assess feed requirements over time (e.g. by quarter) so as to help Uga Chick feed supplies? This is the 1st priority but need technical/ research assistance to implement** - It is important to know that at some point there was excess supply of feed in Uganda and this is the reason they started exploring markets outside Kenya - Limited or no extension services so farmers are unable to project their feed requirements- this is already offered by WAFICOS but more is needed - Use M&E to better plan the feed requirements - Feed requirements are different by farmer type and farmers are currently not feeding at optimal levels, currently using locally available resources. Another option is to revise expectation on potential fish size (small fish can also be sold). Use commercial feed as supplement. - Farmers are doing all the stages of fish development (seeds, …), may need for specialization and business plan - **Partner with other coop and financial institutions to solve problems (implement the business plan), 3rd priority** - Need to quantify the demand for fish - Identify new markets as prices are not reliable - Stakeholders meeting to discuss WAFICOS problems and propose way forward - NAFIRI as a PPP, WAFICOS can work with them and strengthen the partnership - On the seeds, self regulation of seeds since the hatcheries are members of the coop (standards f seeds that they must adhere to). This could be done in collaboration with NAFIRI. - **Business plan for WAFICOS, 2nd priority**

Final few words

 * Derek Baker (PIM)**:
 * We were trying to standardize our methods to look at e.g. fish, kassava, coconut, maize etc. What you saw in the tools is that they're too generic for some uses, too specific for others.
 * My primary interest was to gather some feedback from practitioners and for some of you practitioners, it's all about the questions to be asked and for you researchers it's how to turn that information into advocacy, advice etc.
 * Over the last 3 days I've been really impressed with how people have been grasped by the VC. Producers exist within that network etc. That understanding is difficult to promote - it's far greated in this room than in some parts in my office.
 * I still don't feel like I've had strong feedback on the analytical feedback. The peer assist group I was in hit the nail on the head with areas where we're trying to make progress and the kinds of information we need etc. and how to feed it back to the partners. That did get the energy moving.
 * That's what I took away from this.
 * As a whole 3 days we missed that loop back to those that need to do the research on this with the data collection etc.
 * I tried to listen to the second round of the production of the posters, it was my delight to hear that that was what people were talking about.
 * I am very happy - and we still need to work a lot on analysts. You need another conference on the same topic.
 * Having comms tools such as this wiki, an ILRI team in Uganda etc. is sthg that we can build on.


 * Acho Okike (L&F)**:
 * When we discussed with Derek what we would get out of today we divided tasks and I would do the thank you's.
 * The richness of the mix between producers, market-oriented people, researchers etc. was a great thing. I was pleasantly surprised beyond the institute.
 * There are other people that use these tools etc.
 * Livestock & Fish is organized in 3 output areas, of which the 1st is tool development, 2nd testing and piloting and 3rd is partnering.
 * I have been impressed by the number of issues etc. and there's a lot more that can happen at a second level.
 * We have Isabelle, Froukje, Epi, Emily etc. who are part of the design team. Our initial plan is that out of these experiences etc. we stay one extra day to pull these things together to find out if they work well.
 * People who have contributed have enriched the tool development process.


 * Suzanne Njeri**:
 * Three years ago the Kenyan gov't started the fishery development program with 600 fish ponds in x?? constituencies. It was the first time we had a ministry of fisheries. There were 5 sectors. The Government invited everyone to start their fish pond. Everyone ran for it since the government was paying for the fish pond and youth involved (reducing unemployment). It was a nightmare but a great lesson: some fish ponds collapsed, others forgot they don't have water, some people had to bring liner (expensive) and the feeds. The fingerlings were mixed sex. All species were in the same place.
 * 3 years later, I would want to say that 25-30% of those fish ponds are actually active. Some farmers have extended fishponds and improved their production schemes.
 * We started an organisation that is very similar to WAFICOs - what we've done is to address the 5 major pillars: feeds, seeds, liners/nets, extension, marketing. In seeds we started doing sthg. In feeds we are currently importing from Uganda but we are wondering if it's cheaper to get sthg from Mauritius. With liners/nets we ?? With extension we realised that Unis are coming to us. On marketing, the size of fish etc. matters. Many traditional constituencies are not interested in cooking fish. Farmers themselves are not utilizing the fish they're growing.
 * We are trying to change the mindset. Casual labourers
 * For me it's been a very rich experience seeing that there's many things I can impact on.


 * Christopher Mulindwa**:
 * Thank you ILRI for inviting me to this conference.
 * One of the benefits from this workshop has been meeting new people, i.e. new opportunities.
 * We have been promised further assistance e.g. on financial knowledge.
 * I've been exposed to new ideas that can be combined together with farmers etc. We are sharing with farmers.
 * I promise you that the information I got I will share with everyone.


 * Jo Cadilhon**:
 * Thank you all (Danilo, Rachel, Diana, Iddo, Diana BvD, Photo team, Ewen etc.)
 * Value chain toolkit conference. We focused on livestock and fish but in the next event we'd like to move on to other commodities e.g. partnering with CTA to look at dairy production across Africa.
 * How do you get to know about all new developments? On the event wiki page you have a link to the toolkit on CGSpace. We have identified many issues and challenges around value chain and we also have a discussion group to discuss other issues on value chains. This Dgroup hosts a Dgroup on the Agrifood Chain Toolkit to give feedback on using these tools etc.
 * You can learn about new conferences via this Dgroup.

Feedback on the questionnaire tool

 * Fish trader - Section: Quality attributes**
 * Easy to go through because he internalized it. He used a different sequence of asking it.
 * He used the specific questions by columns.
 * Information: he considers genuine.
 * Issues that were skipped because they were not relevant.
 * Grading system question was difficult to understand.
 * Other questions were understood by respondent in the way they were written.


 * Dairy trader (milk collector) – Section: Quality attributes**
 * Used questions as written
 * Respondent was doing specific analyses of the milk. Questions might need to be reformulated for those that collect from the farmer, as they do not have analytical tools
 * Although questions are not tailored to them, they still seem to provide good quality information
 * Grading system also not applicable to this VC actor


 * Dairy consumer – Section: consumption (C)?**
 * Went smoothly, questions asked as they are written
 * Quality attributes (D2): confusing. Ticking the quality attributes, might need to ask to give about 3 attributes instead of only one.
 * There is repetition in section C and D: why did you choose this retailer (duplication C5 and D6)


 * Fish consumers – Section: household attributes**
 * Information collection was smooth the only thing he didn’t have the district codes available


 * Dairy processors / retailers – section: change in number of suppliers**
 * Change of number of suppliers: there is no yes / no question at the top (this is because the previous part of the questionnaire)
 * How to define small / large producers, what is the basis of that?
 * How are you going to use open-ended information? Coding of information (use of NVivo?)
 * Volume: need to better identify the time period. There is an issue because of seasonality) (decreasing in dry season and increasing in wet season). The question may not get out the answer that we are looking for. Need to think about how to rephrase this.


 * Dairy processor – section: who are you buying from?**
 * Challenge was to get the information over the last 12 months, recall is not possible
 * Volumes from men and women they had no idea about
 * Ask for total volumes collected over the year, then get shares of who this was collected from (but considered difficult to do it in that way, might use beads or other ways)
 * Might add a question if the information was based on written records or on guesses.
 * Might send the questionnaire in advance, then they can prepare their records
 * The recall period might need to adjusted to the commodity that you are working on (for milk you could ask for the past 7 days, but for selling sheep it wouldn’t work).
 * The group asked about the peak and low instead to solve the problem
 * For Uganda pig work they asked by month and used a table form which was easier to use
 * Section on quality attributes was no problem
 * Getting the prices in peak and low was easy to do


 * Fish processors – Section: A and B (description and VC position)**
 * The question is not written as a question, would help to have a guiding question (tell the enumerator what is expected)
 * Not confusing to have a generic tool that was not only for the target commodities


 * Dairy producers – Section: stock of animals**
 * The coding in section B is not in sequence
 * Misunderstood the questions on interviewing a specific cow rather than the herd
 * Section D has a duplication in questions
 * Graphical representation of months and cows might give better results? The information that is required to draw a lactation curve is already in the table
 * The full questions are not included? Might be easier to read out a question.
 * What is missing is the instructions on how to do it and the fact that you would need to choose three cows at different stages


 * Pig producers – section on productivity indicators**
 * Emily used a larger table with more questions


 * Fish producers – section on productivity indicators**
 * Too few questions to understand productivity
 * The questions were not asked in the form that they were on the sheet


 * Dairy input suppliers – section C**
 * Need to add a question on visits
 * There are missing codes for quantities (only kg, liters etc) needs a time period
 * C12. Distance: need to ask the maximum distance


 * Dairy transporter – Section C**
 * The use of the coding did not work well. Picking up codes seems not to work well. Too many codes.
 * The transporter was not the owner, not the right person to ask the questions. He couldn’t answer all the questions. Need to make sure that the person that is being asked to the owner of the business (instructions at the top of the questionnaire). Similar issue for producers. Add a box on who has been answering each of the questions.
 * Got issues on volumes of transporting (answered the capacity of the truck not how much was actually transported.
 * Database: needs options to fill out several options in an answer


 * Fish Input supplier – Section: ranking of inputs and services**
 * Education level vs. number of years of schooling
 * Affiliation to certain organization
 * Whether the supplier is private or public


 * Feed shop of dairy coop society**
 * There is no indication of what the products are for that they are selling
 * Source of raw materials?
 * Feeds tool (developed by the feeds team) seemed to be more user friendly (Ben?)


 * General**
 * At ILRI there is a tradition to have questionnaires that are too long so there is a trade-off with the quality of responses
 * Need to focus on the most important variables only, other data is not going to be used
 * Toolkit need guidelines on what the questions are for (what are you assessing in each of the sections so that people can decide whether they need the questions or not)
 * Need to make sure that the questionnaire is clear and that supervision in the field is good
 * There is a need for good balance between amount of info that can be included and the length of the questionnaires
 * Questionnaires need to be designed based on the specific needs of the research
 * At NARO they have had the experience that farmers are no longer willing to talk to researchers; solution is to engage them in a conversation rather than administering a questionnaire. Question is whether this can be done in as systematic way to interview 100 farmers in a consistent way
 * Need to also consider that the information will be accumulated in a database so that certain strategic questions can be answered based on work done in many different projects
 * Need to find a compromise

Evaluation of the meeting: