1. LivelihoodImpactsthroughAccess toMarkets Annual Program Review 2011 Nairobi, Kenya9 May2011 EliudBirachi 1

3. CIAT, Kigali, Rwanda

4. Programmearea: TSBF, PABRA, SSA CP

5. Marketvaluechainresearch

6. e.birachi@cgiar.org2

8. Anoverview of interventionprojects

9. Modellingmarketaccessframeworks

10. Examples of livelihoodoutcomesfrom Africa programs

11. Lessons and observations3

13. Sustaining wider strategic linkages to support commercialization marketing of agricultural products

14. Modeling sustainable access to markets

15. The value chain based platform approach

16. Creating enabling environment for technology adoption:

17. Role of collective action and credit

18. Evaluating impact of market access on reinvestment in the natural resource base

19. Monitoring Impact of market access on household food security4

21. Increased incomesfrom agricultural production actors

22. Increased investmentsto enhance agricultural production

23. Enhanced capacitiesof agricultural value chain actors to effectively participate in markets

24. Container: Namaha (1.5 kg)

25. Purchase price = sale price

26. Margin: See picture for determination of margin Trading margin 5

27. Overview of SSA CP 6

29. At least 3 NGO partners involved in each project area

30. Collaborations with private service providers and other NGOs established7

31. Overview of PABRA 8

33. Distributors, sellers of inputs

34. Bulk traders, buyers and processors

35. ICT/Information service providers

37. Materials

38. SeedsInternal -Synergy Warrantage credit Members’ guarantee Empoweringfinancialcapacity MUSO A marketframeworkfortechnologyadoption Research Policy Figure: A model for intervention in agricultural value chains 9

39. Regional Platform (e.g. EAFU, ECGA, SACAU) National Platform (e.g. CGA) Bean Traders Platform Bean Impact Zone 1 Bean Impact Zone 2 Bean Impact Zone 3 Bean Impact Zone 4 Bean Farmers in Selected PABRA countries Creating systematic impact through agricultural value based platforms 10

40. Inter-linking with regional trade policies 11

42. Associations are able to borrow credit to invest in ISFM and pay back regularly- (borrowed USD 8900 this season)A farmer training session in progress in South Kivu One of the farmer operated input kiosks. 3 tons sold to farmers last season 12

44. As a result, the net price gain for farmers was USD 0.4-0.5/kg of soybean and USD 0.9-1.0/kg of beans (over 50% in both cases)13

46. for productive investment (green) fund

47. For social welfare (red) - protects investment fund

48. 33 schemes in CIALCA sites, farmers raised over USD 5400 in one year

49. Potential to support warrantage and business plan implementationDemonstrating mutual savings schemes to farmers 14

50. A focusonpartnershipsforuptake of technologies: Collectiveaction Collectiveaction: Wheredo farmergroup lie in thesupplychain? Farmer groups/associations National research institutions NGOs Private sector: processors, credit providers, traders Focus: farmer groups to play a bigger role in product supplies Farmer groups 15

51. Collectiveaction: Impactsof groupsontechnologyuptake 16

52. Collectiveaction: Benefits (Economic surplus)fromtechnologyuse in the DRC 17

53. Market access and householdincomes per year (Uganda case) Bean is leading contributors 1 USD = 2200 UGShs 18

54. Market access and re-investmentof agriculturalincomes: earlyindications in Uganda Re-investment in NRM: Aggregate of land improvement activities 19

55. Contributionstorevenue and prices in the DRC and Rwanda- beans Beans contributed to at least 40% of household income for 53% of households in North Kivu, DRC 20

56. Market access and incomes: Effect of linkages to profitable markets and value addition Rwanda: bean prices in Kibungodistrict (about 100 km from Kigali) are USD 0.35 per kg of beans, in Kigali price was USD 0.58 Potential for income is almost 50% higher in Kigali. Producers supply over 35 tons of products over 3 months. Old price = RFrw 90 Finally, in DRC, processing of banana into wines yielded over 90% more returns compared to raw bananas. 21

57. Communicationschannels, Burundi 22

58. Enhancing access to profitable markets: Potential link to ICT platforms 23

59. Market access and gender in agricultutalproducttrade 24

60. Lessonsand observations Agricultural product branding and positioning needed for value capture Market information networks: Can extend benefits from agricultural product trade Forward contracting and warehousing (receipt system) should be encouraged Agricultural product marketing platforms as a means of sustaining market linkages Platforms provide a framework for convergence of successful interventions in agricultural value chains Credit access is a must for effective utilization of new technologies (need to harness internal credit potential as well) The role of groups need to be strengthened to achieve economic scale of production and marketing Finally, linkages to regional blocs (COMESA, EAC, SADC) vital to improve market access for outputs and inputs 25

61. Thankyouforyourattention 26