Post on 15-Jun-2020
SUPPLY AND DEMAND SIDE CONSTRAINTS FOR
SMALLHOLDER FARMERS IN AFRICA: CHALLENGES AND
PROSPECTS FOR FARMER ORGANISATIONS
By:
Africagrowth Institute1
Abstract
The objective of this paper was to identify both the supply and demand side constraints faced by farmer organizations (FOs) in selected African countries in their role to provide food security and improved income levels for small holder farmers (SHFs) in Africa. From the survey data on SHFs and FOs in Ghana, Tanzania, Kenya, Mozambique and Malawi, evidence on constraints in accessing funds, extension services, land tenure, pricing information and market access was documented. The findings have implications for the development of FOs in Africa.
Keywords: Smallholder farmers; farmer organisations; access to finance; access to markets; access to extension services; advocacy; participation; income diversification; accountability and governance
1 AFRICRES/AGRA Position Paper 01/13
2
1. INTRODUCTION
Studies2 have shown that collective action by smallholder farmers (SHFs) serve as an
institutional solution to overcome some capacity weaknesses and constraints they face
in developing economies in the Sub Saharan Africa (SSA). Collective action provides a
platform for pooling resources, information and technology sharing among SHFs. In
addition, farmers speak with one voice on policy issues as well as pricing of agricultural
produce3. However, despite the history of FOs in Africa, recent empirical evidence4
documents capacity gaps inherent among FOs.
The need to provide an understanding of challenges faced by SHFs and acknowledging
the role of aggregation in ensuring success of collective action forms the basis for this
paper. To this end, Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), in collaboration
with Africa Investment Climate Research (AFRICRES), contracted Africagrowth
Institute to undertake an exploratory approach to assess the key challenges faced by
SHFs and the capacity strengths and weaknesses of FOs across five countries5 in Africa.
The main objective of the study was to identify both the supply-side and demand-side
constraints faced by SHFs and how FOs can be best used as vehicles in addressing these
constraints6. The rest of the paper is organized into the following sections; Section 2
gives an overview of SHF in Africa, Section 3 discusses the role of FOs in supporting
SHF, Section 4 explains the survey methodology. Section 5 discusses the findings from
the empirical analysis standpoint while Section 6 concludes the study.
2. OVERVIEW OF SMALLHOLDER FARMING IN AFRICA
African countries cannot afford to ignore developmental trends and challenges facing
small holder agriculture because the sector’s development is directly linked to wider
economic development in the various economies in the continent. At the beginning of
the 1990’s, 85 per cent of the population of Africa resided in rural areas and more than
a quarter of that was engaged in agriculture and, overwhelmingly, on small holder
2 Valentinov (2007), Bernard and Spielman (2009), Markelova et al. (2009), Ouma et al. (2010), Shiferaw et al. (2011) 3 Rao and Qaim (2011); Fischer and Qaim (2012) 4 Barrett (2008); Barham and Chitemi (2009) 5 FO profiling report: Ghana, Tanzania, Kenya, Mozambique and MalawiMalawi 6 The five countries covered in this study include Ghana, Tanzania, Kenya, Mozambique and Malawi.
3
operations (Delgado, 1999). Much has not changed since then and small holder
agriculture is still the mainstay of much of Africa’s rural population. It is important to
note that the majority of the poor and food insecure in Africa live in rural areas, and
most of them depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. Further, more than 30
percent of the people in SSA are chronically hungry and are SHFs. The last two decades
have seen food production in Africa lagging behind population growth. Low
productivity has been cited as the major culprit (Garvelink et al, 2012). In addition to
this, SHFs’ access to markets, credit, and technology is limited. This has been
exacerbated by volatile food and energy prices and, very recently, by the global financial
crisis. Despite the number of sound agricultural policies adopted by most African
countries, implementation has been a major setback. Moreover, growing
disenchantment of some developmental agencies within the agricultural sector has
amplified the gap between policy formulation and implementation.
SHFs in Africa can be characterised on the basis of the agro-ecological zones in which
they operate; the type and composition of their farm portfolio and landholding; or can
be characterised on the basis of annual revenue they generate from farming activities. In
areas with high population densities, SHFs usually cultivate less than one hectare of
land, which may increase up to 10 hectares or more in sparsely populated semi-arid
areas, sometimes in combination with livestock of up to 10 animals (Dixon et al, 2003).
On the basis of farm revenue, the operational level of SHFs range from those
producing crops only for family consumption to those in developed countries earning
as much as USD 50,000 a year. Most SHFs’ operations occur in farming systems with
the family at the centre of planning and implementation of key decisions (Salami et al,
2010).
The importance of small holder farming cannot be overstated. Foremost is the
enhancing of food availability at family level among the rural population in Africa.
According to Ravallion (2001), a 2 per cent rise in average household income leads to a
fall in the poverty rates by about 4 percent on average and this will have the potential to
increase the purchasing power of SHFs.. In addition, the World Bank (2008) noted
4
that growth originating from agriculture is about four times more effective in reducing
poverty than GDP growth of other economic sectors.
In as much as SHFs improve their productivity which, automatically, boost food
security and reduce incidences of poverty in the continent, they also face a number of
limitations. Land tenure presents a serious challenge for SHFs. The uncertainties
regarding land tenure in some African nations and the inadequate access to land have
been a critical challenge to smallholder farming. The constraints relating to the tenure
system, such as insecurity of land tenure, unequal access to land, and lack of a
mechanism to transfer rights and consolidate plots, have resulted in low investment
levels in African agriculture, high landlessness, food insecurity, and degradation of
natural resource.
Financing agriculture and access to credit is another constraint that SHFs face. In terms of
investment, SSFs in Africa depend on savings from their low incomes, which limits
opportunities for expansion. For example, a survey of a sample of 344 rural households
in Tanzania between May and August 2001 showed that half of total rural household
income came from farming, 46.6 per cent from non-farm employment and less than 4
per cent from remittances. In most cases, SHFs could not meet the rigours of
commercial lending as well as micro-finance institutions (Salami et al, 2010).
Further, access to input and output markets is a challenge that is faced by small holder
farmers in Africa. Improved access to input and output markets is a key precondition
for the transformation of the agricultural sector from subsistence to commercial
production. Most SHFs in Africa do not participate in value addition of their produce
thereby contributing to low participation in outputs markets. In addition, in some
African countries, the markets are thin and, in some cases, do not exist at all (Salami et
al, 2010)
Poor infrastructure continues to impede agricultural activities in Africa. The key
challenges are inadequate and poor conditions of the transportation systems. The road
system, which is the most important for market development in terms of distribution of
5
inputs and output to and from farms, is the most serious infrastructural bottleneck
facing agricultural development. According to the 2005/2006 household survey,
conducted in Uganda, 30 percent of agricultural communities surveyed did not have
access to roads that were passable even in the dry season and two-thirds of communities
lacked any bus or taxi connections (Salami et al, 2010).
Agricultural extension and innovation has also been identified as a challenge facing SHFs
in Africa. Research and extension services are disintegrated, poorly-funded and
ineffective for any meaningful technological transfer to take place. This is exacerbated
by the fact that, on average, most African countries spend less than 0.7 percent of
agricultural GDP on research compared to developed nations which spend up to 3
percent (Karugia et al. 2009).
Further, policy-Related and Institutional Constraints are other challenges that these small
holder farmers face. The main policy bottlenecks include those that pertain to land
tenure and land distribution to different segments of the population, marketing of
agricultural commodities and inputs, and price regulatory frameworks (Salami et al,
2010). In addition to this, these small holder farmers face a constraint of climate Change
and Related Food Security Challenges. Climate change, resulting mostly from global
warming, has been among the major causes of reduced agricultural production and
productivity in many parts of Africa. Over the continent, most crop and livestock
farming is rain fed, and therefore, susceptible to weather fluctuations.
Notwithstanding these exogenous factors, SHFs also face the challenge of limited skills
and farm management practices. Many small holder farmers lack formal education and
apply rudimentary farm management techniques in their operations resulting in low
productivity output and profitability.
3. THE ROLE OF FOs IN ENHANCING PRODUCTIVITY OF SHFs IN AFRICA As a result of the need to open up markets and reduce government control of factor
markets, most governments across Africa, with support from World Bank,
6
implemented the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) covering all economic activity
areas including the agricultural sector. This, significantly, lessened central
governments’ role in the market in, for instance, the provision of public goods and
services such as agricultural extension services, government backed producer prices etc.
(FAO; 2010). The diminished role of central governments in the agricultural market
created a vacuum which needed to be filled. Soon, a number of supply chain players
took advantage of the market gap. , As a result, this left SHFs at the mercy of these
enterprising players resulting in most of them being marginalised. The opening up of
markets came with some unforeseen challenges which ultimately affected the operations
of SHFs. With the growing need be more vocal ,to bargain for better produce prices, to
access produce markets, to access technology and better extension services, SHFs
quickly organised themselves into producer groups throughout the continent and used
these channels as platforms for resolving pertinent issues.. In particular, NASFAM in
Malawi successfully campaigned for the removal of 7% withholding tax on tobacco sold
through affiliated groups. Benarnd et al (2007) concluded that FOs have successfully
managed to develop channels for governments to reach the rural poor. In addition, the
increased marginalisation of SHFs in the face of supermarket revolution and the rise of
food quality and safety standards added on to the growing debate of FOs as vehicles
that can be used to turn SHFs’ fortunes. Furthermore, climate change and economic
shocks have exacerbated the marginalisation of SHFs and increased the need for
organised agriculture.
FOs have been heralded as leading contributors in poverty reduction and attainment of
food security. Formed through the principle of voluntary and self-driven participation,
FOs have a number of overlapping mandates. Their taxonomy range from village based
producer groups to global producer groups. While the village based groups tend to be
based primarily on social bonds, the districts, national, continental and global tend to
be bridges for farmers to participate in economies outside their locality. Bekele and
Muricho (2011) grouped FOs into categories viz- a viz, i) commodity specific
commercial organisation, ii) advocacy organisations which aim to represent the interests
of their members in numerous policy discussion, iii) development organisations that
aim to improve local capacity and access to information and technology and iv)
7
multipurpose organisation that engage in various economic, social development and
empowerment activities. These farmers’ groupings depend on the type of market failure
or transaction costs that the SHFs are facing as well as their spatial integration.
High transaction costs associated with SH farming undermines their ability to adopt
new technologies and increase productivity which ultimately leads to marketable
surpluses. According to Kassam, Stoop and Uphollf (2011), FOs assist members by
enhancing their participation and consultation with stakeholders. This ultimately
reduces transaction cost for SHFs and improves productivity. Studies in Kenya and
Nigeria have revealed that there is a positive correlation between being a member of an
FO and access to technology (Bekele and Muricho; undated). Through collective action
in buying farm inputs and selling farm produce, SHFs enjoy economies of scale and
hence aid in improving their farming practices.
Reduction of the government expenditures in public goods provision across Africa have
led to poor and ill funded agricultural extension services. In the quest to improve
productivity, some FOs have taken the central role of extending extension services,
credit, collective transportation, marketing and procuring of inputs for their respective
members. For instance in Malawian offer some extension service alternatives for
members such as farmer to farmer training under the Malawi Contact Farmer System.
Post-harvest losses are quite costly within the SHF farming sector. ICRISAT (2013)
estimates that between 30-40 percent of produce is lost or wasted between “field and
plate” worldwide and it cost around $ 4 billion on post-harvest grain losses in SSA
alone. Lack of proper post-harvest handling facilities, which is a result of lack of
investment in agriculture and poor agricultural policy implementation, by most
government has resulted in a slow development of post-harvest handling facilities. To
this end, most FOs have taken the onus of providing members with processing, storage
and marketing services for their respective members.
The rise of preferred supplier schemes which are championed by well-established
agribusinesses has limited most SHFs in accessing profitable mainstream agricultural
8
markets. In most cases, these markets are associated with strict food quality and safety
standards compounded with rigid certifications processes. Both certification and
maintenance of safety standards increase transaction costs for most of the SHFs thereby
limiting their participation is such market channels. In order to limit the costs
associated with certification, FOs have tended to apply for group certification which
lowers the cost of individual SHFs in obtaining one. In some cases, FOs offer new entry
points for farmers’ access to market. For instance, the Ethiopia Commodity Exchange
offers new entry in the farming business and alternative market channel.
FOs also play a crucial role in linking SHFs to global value chains which are, in most
cases, very profitable. In addition, they also link SHFs to international agencies
initiatives such as the Purchase for Progress (World Food Program initiative). Through
these initiatives, SHFs are connected to stable and viable markets (Collin and Rondot,
1999). Although FOs are important vehicles for SHFs agricultural development, as
highlighted in the previous sections above, most of them still lack the capacity to serve
their members. This has been exacerbated by group heterogeneity and dynamics which
often makes it very difficult to coordinate FO activities leading to poor performance. In
addition, spatial distribution of SHFs also leads to coordination failures. Given such
scenarios there is need for soliciting of services from specialised service providers (SPs).
SPs play the crucial role of taking forward FOs’ needs through capacity building,
mentoring, training, and participation in on farm trials. Given such background, it is
imperative to have a platform on which FOs and SPs interact and share information
and knowledge. Ad-hoc interaction helps in the mitigation of negative impacts
associated with information asymmetries and lows levels of technology adoption.
4. METHODOLOGY
Data collection for the paper was done on a two stage approach with the aid of
structured questionnaires. The two stage approach was done concurrently and the basis
for that was to capture both the individual SHF’s capacity gaps and the role of
aggregation in addressing those capacity gaps. The structured questionnaire for the
9
SHFs was designed to capture the benefits associated with being a member of FO. In
addition, the questionnaire also captured capacity gaps of FOs on a SHF’s perspective.
On the other hand, the structured questionnaire for the FOs was designed to capture
seven performance capacity indicators for FOs which are namely; participation,
accountability, strategic potential, income diversity, marketing, advocacy and
professional capacity.
The surveys were conducted in five SSA AGRA beneficiary countries which are namely;
Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Ghana and Mozambique. It targeted on average 30 FOs and
60 SHFs who are current members of a FOs operating within the breadbasket areas of
the aforementioned countries. Data collection was done through field surveys by
qualified and trained enumerators. FOs were drawn randomly from a database of FOs
that AFRICRES built using lists of FOs in the selected countries solicited from the
World Food Programme (WFP) and AGRA. On the other hand SHFs were drawn
through both simple random and snowballing sampling procedures in cases where
farmers listing were present and not present respectively. Table 4.1 shows a summary of
the survey regions and sample sizes.
10
Table 4.1: Survey region and number of respondents
Country Region Districts Number
FOs Profiled
Number of SHFs
interviewed
Mozambique
Zambezia Morrumbala, Mopeia, Lugela, Alto-Molocue,Nicoadala, Mocuba
9 15
Sofala Grudja, Bândua, Nhamatanda-Sede 5 10
Manica Muzongo, Manhene, Machipanda, Chitewe, Vanduzi- belas, Vanduzi
15 30
Kenya
Central Kenya Nyandarua South, Nyandarua Central
5 10
Rift valley Eldoret West, Transnzoia West, Wareng, Nandi Central, Uasin Gishu
15 30
Western Kenya Bungoma East, Lugari, Bungoma North, Busia, Kakamega Central, Likuyani
10 20
Tanzania
Mbeya Mbarali 7 13 Njombe Njombe, Wanging'ombe 8 12 Morogoro Mvomero 8 14 Singida Ikungi, Singida Urban 9 17
Malawi Central Region
Mchinji, Lilongwe, Kasungu, Chimwala, Salima, Ntchisi, Dedza, Dowa
30 60
Ghana
Southern Region
Ejura Sekyere Dumase Municipality 18 28
Northern region Savelugu Nantong, Tamale, Mion, Kumbugu, Tolon
15 38
Total 154 297 Source: Field Research Data, AFRICRES, 2013
5. EVIDENCE FROM FIVE SELECTED SSA COUNTRIES
5.1 Demand and supply-side constraints from a smallholder farmer perspective
This section discusses the major challenges faced by SHFs as identified in the survey.
One of the major challenges was identified as limited access to funding from mainstream
banking. Only 1 per cent of the SHFs in Ghana had access to commercial banking
finance. Limited access was also recorded in Mozambique and Tanzania with 2 and 7
percent respectively. Overall, only 10 percent of the surveyed SHFs had access to
commercial banking financing options. In most cases, SHFs lacked the strict lending
requirements of commercial banks. The results indicated that SHFs had access to other
funding options such as FOs, community money lenders and local stores. SHFs in
Kenya enjoyed high financial support from FOs while the contribution of FOs in the
11
other four countries account for less than one fifth of SHF financing. Needless to say,
SHFs in Ghana have the lowest financial support from FOs.
Table 5.1: Source of agricultural finance Tanzania Kenya Malawi Mozambique Ghana
Commercial bank 7% 38.9% 27% 2% 1% Community money lender 33% 0% 0% 5% 7% Farmers’ Organisations 17% 31.1% 7% 16% 2% Savings club/local store 19% 13% 15% 2% 0% Others 24% 17% 51% 75% 90%
Source: Field Research Data, AFRICRES, 2013
Land tenure constraints were also identified as an inhibiting factor to unleash the
potential of small holder farming as shown in table 5.2 below. Most of the SHFs have
small plots which limit the scope of their agricultural activities. SHFs in Ghana have
the highest average farming land at 11.2 ha while SHFs in Kenya scored the smallest
farm size at 1.5 ha. Most SHFs surveys still do not use irrigation and this is largely
because of high initial capital cost normally required to operate a sustainable irrigation
project. The largest average land under irrigation was recorded in Ghana at 16.3 ha. In
addition, land leasing is common practise in most of the countries surveyed except for
Mozambique. Highest average leases were recorded in Tanzania at $ 134 per ha
annually while SHFs in Malawi pay the lowest lease fees at $ 56 per hectare.
Table 5.2: Land Tenure
Kenya Tanzania Malawi Mozambique
Ghana
Average size farming land 1.5 6.6 3.7 3.2 11.2 Average size of owned irrigated land
0.0 0.4 0.4 1.0 16.2
Average owned un-irrigated land 1.5 2.7 2.3 2.2 10.4 Average leased irrigated land 0.0 0.6 0.2 N/A 9.6 Average leased un-irrigated land 0.1 1.1 0.8 N/A 12.25 Average communal un-irrigated land
0 1.8 0 0 0
Leasing conditions: Average lease amount $US115 $134 US$56.00 N/A $US68
Average lease period in years 1.2 1.2years 1 year N/A 4
Source: Field Research Data, AFRICRES, 2013
Access to inputs market is also another constraint that is faced by small farmers from the
surveyed African countries. This is a key precondition for the transformation of the
12
agricultural sector from subsistence to commercial production. The role of FOs in
easing the access to input markets and through central purchasing cannot be
overstated. At 24 per cent, SHFs in Ghana registered the highest percentage in
improved access to inputs through joining FOs. The lowest percentage was recorded in
Tanzania with only 1.8 per cent of the SHFs acknowledging to improved access to
inputs after joining their respective FOs.
Figure 5.1: Access to input markets
Source: Field Research Data, AFRICRES, 2013
Further to this, SHFs face limited access to output markets. Most SHFs’ participation in
mainstream agricultural output is very low. Notwithstanding this, the survey indicates
an overwhelming percentage of SHFs who participate in the local markets. About 79
per cent of the SHFs from the surveyed countries participate in local markets as
indicated in table 5.3 below. Only 6 per cent of SHFs had access to regional markets.
Very few SHFs have access to international markets as indicated in table 5.3 below.
Only 2 per cent of the SHFs had access to international markets. Kenyan SHFs
recorded the highest percentage of international market penetration at 8 per cent. Of
particular importance Access to international markets is usually a profitable venture.
In this study, however, this is underscored with low participation of SHF.
0
5
10
15
20
25
6
24
6
2
11
13
Table 5.3: Scope of Market Access Ghana Mozambique Malawi Tanzania Kenya
Local 68% 89% 72% 91% 73%
Regional 0% 7% 13% 4% 7%
National 24% 0% 7% 0% 3%
International 2% 0% 0% 0% 8%
Family consumption 6% 4% 9% 6% 8%
Source: Field Research Data, AFRICRES, 2013
Given the low market penetration on international, national and regional markets, it is
imperative to strengthen the role of FOs in improving market access for SHFs. Of the
interviewed SHFs, 8 per cent reported an increase in access to output markets after
joining a FO. Figure 5.2 below shows the percentage of FO members who registered an
increase in market access after joining an FO.
Figure 5.2: Access to Output Markets
Source: Field Research Data, AFRICRES, 2013
Compounding to the problem of market access is the availability of market price
information. Agricultural radio talk shows were the most effective way of market price
dissemination with very few farmers having access to modern cost effective methods of
accessing market price information such as the SMS as shown in table 5.4 below. In
addition, social networks also scored high percentages, however, reliability of price
information is debatable. Notably, agricultural produce buyers in Tanzania play a
crucial role in price information dissemination.
0
5
10
15
20
25
Malawi Ghana Mozambique Tanzania Kenya
6
2
11
2
22
14
Table 5.4: Source of Price Information Kenya Tanzania Malawi Mozambique Ghana
Agricultural radio talk shows 37 7 27 9 40
Agricultural television sessions 51 2 12 0 0
Produce buyers 0 91 0 19 0
SMS 10 0 9 0 8
Agricultural extension officers 0 0 14 0 0
Social networks 0 0 34 67 49
Print media (farmers’ magazines etc.) 4 0 0 0 2
Not applicable 2 0 5 0 1
Source: Field Research Data, AFRICRES, 2013
Agricultural extension plays a crucial role in linking research and farmers. However, from
the survey, very few SHFs have access to agricultural extension. Of the surveyed
countries, 14 per cent of the SHFs recorded an increase in access to extension services
as a result of being a member of a FO. Thirty percent of SHF in Malawi acknowledged
to having increase in extension services after joining a FO. Ghana, on the other hand,
had the lowest percentage (3 per cent).
Figure 5.3: Access to Extension Services
Source: Field Research Data, AFRICRES, 2013
Post-harvest handling of agricultural remains a critical challenge in the smallholder
farming sector in the surveyed countries. Proper storage of farm produce averts pressure
associated with selling produce when price are low. However, of the surveyed SHFs,
produce storage is still done using traditional methods which are not optimal and in
many cases leads to produce loss. Most SHFs do not have access to warehouses, which
offer optimal storage conditions of their produce. Of the surveyed SHFs, Ghanaian
SHFs had the best storage means available, 42 per cent indicated that they had access to
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Malawi Ghana Mozambique Tanzania Kenya
30
3 6
12
19
15
a warehouse to store their produce while. Tanzanian SHFs, on the other hand, had the
worst storage facilities, with only 4 per cent having access to warehouses as shown in
table 5.4 below.
Figure 5.4: Modes of Storage for produce
Source: Field Research Data, AFRICRES, 2013
Access and availability of draught power plays a critical role in farming activities and,
in particular, the planning time-sensitive farm operations such as ploughing, planting
and cultivation. Of the surveyed SHFs, 83 per cent in Ghana acknowledged that they
hire draught power from locals followed by Kenyan SHFs at 58 percent. Furthermore,
SHFs indicated that they also source their draught requirements from their respective
FOs. Kenya recorded 12 percent with only 2 per cent of SHFs in Tanzania sourcing
draught power from their respective FOs. Although most of the SHFs in Malawi
acknowledged to having their own draught power, this accounted to labour intensive
time consuming rudimentary operations such as hand tilling and hoeing. This trend
was also observed in Mozambique.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100
Mozambique
Ghana
Malawi
Kenya
Tanzania
16
Table 5.5: Sources of draught power Tanzania Kenya Malawi Mozambique Ghana
Source of draught power Own 20 10 49 16 1 Hire from locals 55 58 2 37 83 Hire from central mechanisation unit 0 20 0 5 5 Hire from FO 2 12 5 4 11 Hand hoeing 23 0 44 39 0
Source: Field Research Data, AFRICRES, 2013
SHFs also face a challenge of record keeping. Without proper records, it is difficult to
determine farm labour productivity and profitability. It only results in guess work which
can severely undermine growth prospects and often exposes famers to various business
risks. Of the surveyed SHFs, 44 per cent indicated that they do not keep any form of
records. This presents an opportunity for Farmer Organisations to assist the farmers
keep record of the various measurable processes. Table 5.6 below indicates the types of
records that are kept by the small holder farmers in the African countries surveyed.
Table 5.6: Types of Farm records Type of farm records Kenya Tanzania Malawi Mozambique Ghana
Farm inventory records 52 2 15 4 10
Farm marketing records 10 43 18 55 10
Farm production records 13 2 18 8 11
Farm weather records 0 0 0 0 11
Do not keep any records 25 53 49 33 58
Source: Field Research Data, AFRICRES, 2013
SHFs in Kenya scored the highest in farm inventory record keeping with 52 per cent.
Only 2 per cent of the surveyed SHFs in Tanzania acknowledged to keeping marketing
records. Only Ghana’s SHF keeps farm weather records. This is important area that is
overlooked because, in most cases, SHFs heavily depend on rain-fed agricultural
operations. Changes in weather patterns need to be well documented in order to
optimise on planned farming activities.
17
5.2 Demand and supply-side constraints for smallholder farmers: A farmer
organisation perspective
This study also highlighted the role of aggregation in mitigating some of the challenges
faced by SHFs. In order to ascertain the extend of to which FOs respond to some of the
challenges faced by SHFs, six capacity performance indicators of FOs were analysed viz-
a-viz marketing, advocacy, participation, income diversity, professional capacity and
accountability, As a result of the need to enable market access of their members, FOs
play the crucial role of soliciting marketing opportunities for their members. Market
access is achieved through a number of attributes which include among others, produce
bulking, collective transportation, produce quality assurance and produce price
lobbying. Through bulking, FOs ensure that SHFs reach the required market volumes.
Of the 5 countries, the quality assurance element received the highest, with Kenya
scoring the highest at 77 per cent. This is important in establishing homogenous
product units which can penetrate the market easily. The transport element scored the
least overall with FOs in Tanzania receiving 11 per cent. This goes to show that most of
the FOs do not, sufficiently, offer transport to their members to get their produce to
the market on time.
Table 5.7: Marketing Access Tanzania Kenya Malawi Mozambique Ghana
Storage 29% 42% 42% 48% 60% Transport 11% 46% 36% 36% 50% Quality Assurance 22% 77% 46% 37% 60%
Source: Field Research Data, AFRICRES, 2013
Agricultural policy and price lobbying forms an integral part of agricultural
development. The FOs surveyed all scored well in regards to outreach, with FOs in
Mozambique performing best with 71 per cent. However, most FOs across the 5
surveyed countries do not have proper modes of communication. Needless to say, use
of digital communication technology such as internet and social networks is quite low
with a score of 19 percent for mode of communication. This might be attributed to
unavailability of infrastructure as well as low literacy levels in FOs management
structures. Notwithstanding this, most FOs are fairly networked with the exception of
18
Tanzanian FOs. Networks provide a platform for policy and price debates as well as
sharing new information and technological issues.
Table 5.8: Advocacy Tanzania Kenya Malawi Mozambique Ghana
Mode of campaign 13% 43% 35% 14% 36% Outreach 36% 70% 63% 71% 56% Mode of communicat ion 15% 16% 28% 15% 21% Networking 39% 70% 51% 50% 50% Frequency of Lobbying 67% 39% 35% 65% 46%
Participation was another key indicator examined in the survey. From the survey, the
participation attribute scored the highest overall average, with Kenya scoring 92 per
cent. This indicates that FOs have developed sound feedback mechanisms to cater for
their members’ grievances. Another challenge that is faced by most FOs is low youth
participation in FO leadership positions as well as FO activities as shown in table 5.9
below. The youth participation element scores the least overall score with Mozambique
scoring 6 per cent. This downplays the role that youth play in SSA agriculture. This
calls for the need for sensitizing youth in FO activities.
Table 5.9: Participation Tanzania Kenya Malawi Mozambique Ghana
Female Part ic ipat ion 44% 50% 36% 20% 20% Youth Part ic ipat ion 43% 44% 27% 6% 25% Active membership 55% 78% 55% 71% 67% Part ic ipat ion Channels 79% 92% 90% 78% 80%
Source: Field Research Data, AFRICRES, 2013
FOs, in surveyed countries, also faced the challenge of low income diversity. This has
been attributed to lack of diversification of the product-base and low external financial
assistance. The Table 5.10 below shows average scores on the income diversity indicator
from the profiling survey. The diversity of income sources element recorded the highest
overall score, with FOs in Tanzania achieving 81 per cent. This means that most FOs
do not rely only on their membership and annual subscriptions. The donor assistance
element records the lowest score; with FOs in Tanzania scoring 12 per cent. This might
be due to low capacities to develop good proposals for funding or technical assistance.
19
Table 5.10: Income Diversification Tanzania Kenya Malawi Mozambique Ghana
Divers i ty o f income sources 81% 71% 76% 59% 63% Divers i ty o f Product base 68% 65% 53% 48% 53% Donor Ass i s tance 12% 30% 26% 27% 28% Access to f inance 52% 90% 55% 50% 33%
Source: Field Research Data, AFRICRES, 2013
Lastly, the professional capacity indicator was also considered in the survey. The
diversity of staff element for Kenya scored 95 per cent. This indicates that the FOs have
a specialized management component, for instance they have presidents, treasurers,
secretaries and other management team members.. The educational qualification
element scored the least with Mozambique recording 18 per cent. Most FOs in the
surveyed countries are headed by leaders with low education. This, in particular, may
lead to low adoption of new farming technologies and practices.
Table 5.11: Professional Capacity Tanzania Kenya Malawi Mozambique Ghana
Educat ional Qual i f icat ion
20% 30% 21% 18% 45%
Access to Training 10% 73% 58% 64% 81% Divers i ty o f Staf f 81% 95% 90% 31% 63%
Source: Field Research Data, AFRICRES, 2013
Contrary to all other indicators analysed, FOs showed strength in accountability as
shown in table 5.12 below. From the survey, the reporting quality element recorded 70
percent for FOs in Malawi. This implies that meetings are not only held regularly, but
they are participatory in nature. In addition, members also receive meeting agendas well
in advance which encourage fruitful deliberations. However, the record quality
attribute recorded 57 percent for FOs in Mozambique. This indicates average
recording of meeting proceedings.
Table 5.12: Accountability Tanzania Kenya Malawi Mozambique Ghana Legal Compliance 44% 84% 96% 68% 79% Performance Evaluation
76% 83% 76% 55% 79%
Reporting Quality 66% 87% 79% 71% 75% Record Quality 58% 84% 81% 57% 67%
Source: Field Research Data, AFRICRES, 2013
20
6. CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
The role of FOs in enhancing capacity performance of individual SHFs cannot be over-
emphasized. This paper highlighted some of the demand and supply side constraints
that are faced by SHFs and FOs in 5 selected SS African countries that were examined
based on a structured questionnaire administered to 297 and 150 SHFs and FOs
respectively. The survey identified some of the challenges faced by SHF and examined
the role of aggregation in mitigating some these challenges.
Leading challenges for SHFs included among others; limited access to funding , land tenure
constraints, poor access to inputs and outputs markets , unavailability of market price
information, agricultural extension, post-harvest handling, record keeping. The challenges’
intensity and extend, however, differed across the sample. For instance, while low
access to finance was found in Ghana, Kenyan SHFs enjoyed a relatively high access to
finance. With respect to land tenure, which represents the availability and cost of
farming lands, the study revealed low levels of access to farming land in the four
countries except Ghana. With regards to market access, while the study finds that
majority of the SHF mainly focused on local markets with very limited access to
international markets, less than 30% of SHF in each of the surveyed countries
indicated an improvement in access to inputs from for being part of a FO. Only
marginal improvements were recorded in access to output market. Information on
output prices was difficult to access by the SHF across the sample whereas access to
extensions services remained a major challenge. For The FOs surveyed identified
marketing strategy, advocacy, participation, income diversity, and professional capacity
as major challenges. These challenges mirrors the various challenges faced by the SHF.
Hence addressing the challenges at the FO level would go a long way in developing
SHF in Africa. Since most of the challenges are country specific, identifying the capacity
needs of SHFs and FOs are necessary in solving these challenges.
21
The general conclusion is that membership of a farmer organization does not
necessarily solve the challenges faced by SHF. This is because FOs, broadly, lacks the
capacity to adequately address the challenges faced its members. We, thus, recommend
that SHF specific challenges should be identified at the FO level and that specific
programmes be developed to solve these challenges. This could pave way for the
employment of SPs as a means of providing capacity for both the SHFs and FOs.
22
References
AFRICRES. (2012). A profiling of farmer organisations and service providers in Ghana and Nigeria. Nairobi, FOSCA
Bekele, A. S. and Muricho, G. (2011). Farmer organizations and collective action institutions for improving market access and technology adoption in sub-Saharan Africa: Review of experiences and implications for policy: Accessed 18/11/2013 http://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/16491/AGRA-ILRI-Section5.pdf?sequence=9
Bernard, T., Marie-Helene, C., De Janvry, Rondot, P. and Sadoulet, E. (2007). Do village organisations make a difference in African rural development? A study for Senegal and Burkina Faso Bernard, T. and Spielman, D. (2009) ‘Reaching the rural poor through rural producer
organizations? A study of agricultural marketing cooperatives in Ethiopia’, Food Policy, Vol. 34, pp. 60–69.
Collion, M. and Rondot, P. (1999). Partnerships between agriculture services institutions and producers’ organisation: Myth or reality? ODI Agricultural Research and Extension Network, 80, 1–13.
FAO (2010). Producer organisations: Reclaiming opportunities for development –
Policy Brief, FAO Regional Office for Africa, Rome FAO (2011). The state of food and agriculture: Women in Agriculture- Closing the
gender gap for development, Rome
Fischer, E. and Qaim, M. (2012a) ‘Linking smallholders to markets: Determinants and impacts of farmer collective action in Kenya’, World Development, Vol. 40, pp. 1255–1268.
Future Agricultures. (2009). Challenges and opportunities for strengthening farmers organisations in Africa: Lessons from Ethiopia, Kenya and Malawi. Policy Brief No. 031. Brighton, United Kingdom: Future Agricultures Consortium. Available at: www.future-agricultures.org.
Kassam A. H., Stoop, W. and Uphoff, N. (2011). Review of SRI modifications in rice
crop and water management and research issues for making further improvements in agricultural and water productivity. Paddy and Water Environment, 9,163–180
23
ICRISAT (2013). Postharvest management; Accessed 18/ 11/2013 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2dAi5uKowkoJ:exploreit.icrisat.org/page/postharvest_management/901/374+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=za
Delgado, C. (1999). “Sources of growth in smallholder agriculture in Sub- Saharan Africa: the role of vertical integration of smallholders with processors and marketers of high value-added items”. Agrekon (special issue--May): 165-189.
Dixon J., Tanyeri-Abur, A. and Wattenbach, H. (2003), “Context and Framework for
Approaches to Assessing the Impact of Globalization on Smallholders”, In Dixon J., K. Taniguchi and H. Wattenbach edited, Approaches to Assessing the Impact of Globalization on African Smallholders: Household and Village Economy Modeling, Proceedings of Working Session Globalization and the African Smallholder Study, FAO and World Bank, Rome, Italy, Food and Agricultural Organization United Nations
Garvelink, W. J., Wedding, K. and Hanson, S. (2012). “Smallholder Agriculture: A Critical Factor in Poverty Reduction and Food Security in Africa”. Accessed online at http://csis.org/publication/smallholder-agriculture-critical-factor-poverty-reduction-and-food-security-africa on 15th November 2013
HLPE (2013) Investing in smallholder agriculture for food security. A report by the
High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome.
Karugia J., Waithaka, M., Freeman, A., Prabhu, R., Shiferaw, B., Gbegbelegbe, S., Massawe, S., Kyotalimye, M., Wanjiku, J. and Macharia, E. (2009), “Responding to Food Price Crisis in Eastern and Southern Africa: Policy Options for National and Regional Action”,. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) -Eastern and Central Africa Working Paper, No. 27.
Markelova, H., Meinzen-Dick, R., Hellin, J. and Dohrn, S. (2009) ‘Collective action for smallholder market access’, Food Policy, Vol. 34, pp. 1–7.
Ouma, E., Jagwe, J., Obare, G. A. and Abele, S. (2010) ‘Determinants of smallholder
farmers’ participation in banana markets in central Africa: The role of transaction costs’, Agricultural Economics, Vol. 41, pp. 111–122.
Rao, E. J. O. and Qaim, M. (2011) ‘Supermarkets, farm household income, and
poverty: Insights from Kenya’, World Development, Vol. 39, pp. 784–796.
Ravallion, M. (2001), “Growth, Inequality, and Poverty: Looking Beyond Averages”, Policy Research Working Paper 2558, Washington D.C. USA, The World Bank
24
Salami, A., Kamara, A.B. and Brixiova, Z. (2010), Smallholder Agriculture in East Africa: Trends, Constraints and Opportunities, Working Papers Series N° 105 African Development Bank, Tunis, Tunisia.
Sanchez, P., et al. (2005) Halving hunger: it can be done. New York: UNDP, p5.
Available at: http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/HTF-SumVers_FINAL.pdf
Shiferaw, B., Hellin, J. and Muricho, G. (2011) ‘Improving market access and
agricultural productivity growth in Africa: What role for producer organizations and collective action institutions?’, Food Security, Vol. 3, pp. 475–489.
World Bank (2008), The Growth Report: Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Development, Washington D.C., Commission on Growth and Development, World Bank.