Value Chain Analysis for Cassava Flour and Related...

Farm Concern Intl’ [Final report: Analyzing Value Chains for specific commodities: The case of Cassava flour]

Final Draft

Presented to; ASARECA

By;

Mumbi Kimathi1, Peter Ngeli2, and Janet Wanjiru3,

1, 2, 3 Farm Concern International, Regional Office, P. BOX 15185, 00100, Nairobi. [email protected] ; www.farmconcern.org

Value Chain Analysis for Cassava Flour and Related Products

A case study of Uganda & Kenya


Table of Contents

List of tables .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................................ 4

Appendix List ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4

Acronyms and abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................................... 4

Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6

1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 7

2. Background information .................................................................................................................................................... 7

3. Justification.......................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Research goal; ............................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Research objectives;.................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Expected research outputs ........................................................................................................................................................ 9

4. Research Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................... 10

5. Results and Discussions.................................................................................................................................................... 12

5.1. Production result in Uganda and Kenya........................................................................................................... 12 5.1.1. Production level and trends ........................................................................................................................ 12 5.1.2. Comparisons between zones in Kenya and Uganda ................................................................................... 13 5.1.4. Post harvest Handling ................................................................................................................................... 16 5.1.5. Production Constraints and opportunities ............................................................................................... 17

5.2 Processing ................................................................................................................................................................. 19 5.2.1 Processing levels and trends ....................................................................................................................... 19 5.2.2 Processing constraints and opportunities ................................................................................................ 21

5.3 Marketing .................................................................................................................................................................. 22 5.3.1 Marketing systems.......................................................................................................................................... 22 5.3.3 Market sizes /Flows and Prices ................................................................................................................... 24 5.3.4 Marketing Constraint ..................................................................................................................................... 28 5.4 Partnership ........................................................................................................................................................... 32 5.4.1 Partnership framework................................................................................................................................. 32

5.5 Consumption ............................................................................................................................................................. 32 5.5.1 Form consumed .............................................................................................................................................. 32 5.5.2 Consumption Trends and Behaviour.......................................................................................................... 32

5.6 Business Development Services (BDS) ................................................................................................................ 35 5.6.1 Zone X .................................................................................................................................................................... 35 5.6.2 Zone 3..................................................................................................................................................................... 35 5.6.3 Zone 2..................................................................................................................................................................... 37 5.6.4 Zone 1..................................................................................................................................................................... 38 5.6.5 Zone 0..................................................................................................................................................................... 39

5.7 Cost benefit analysis.............................................................................................................................................. 42 5.7.1 Cost benefit analysis (Bukedea and Kwale) ............................................................................................. 42 5.7.2 Trading costs - Bukedea ............................................................................................................................... 43

5.8 Comparisons and Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 44 5.8.1 Zone x general characteristics.................................................................................................................... 44 5.8.2 Zone 3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 44 5.8.3 Zone 2 ............................................................................................................................................................... 44 5.8.4 Zone 1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 45 5.8.5 Zone 0 ............................................................................................................................................................... 45


APPENDIX ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 47


List of tables

Table 1 Cassava production in Kilifi District (Year 2004 & 2005) ......................................................12

Table 2 Production constraints and opportunities ..............................................................................17

Table 3 Processing constraints and opportunities...............................................................................21

Table 4 Cassava Varieties sold in Kampala’s Informal Markets ........................................................24

Table 5 Market figures summary for Uganda zones ............................................................................25

Table 6 Market figure summary.............................................................................................................25

Table 7 Uganda’s market value .............................................................................................................25

Table 8 Common market cassava varieties ..........................................................................................26

Table 9 Margins and profitability summary (Amount in US$) ............................................................27

Table 10 Marketing Constraints summary in Kenya.............................................................................30

Table 11 Marketing Constraints summary and Opportunities in Uganda ..........................................30

Table 12 Cassava Transportation in Masindi .......................................................................................35

Table 13 Cost benefit analysis (Bukedea and Kwale) .........................................................................42

Table 14 Cassava Flour traders - Bukedea ...........................................................................................43

Table 15 Cassava Fresh tubers Trading Cost Items - Bukedea ...........................................................43

Table 16 Zone X general characteristics ..............................................................................................44

Table 17 Comparisons and recommendations Zone 3 .........................................................................44

Table 18 Summary – Comparisons and Recommendations Zone 2.....................................................44

Table 19 Summary -Comparisons and recommendations Zone 1.......................................................45

Table 20 Summary –Comparisons and recommendations ...................................................................45 List of Figures

Figure 1Production comparision per zone in Kenya & Uganda .................................................................14

Figure 2 Cassava Varieties – Uganda & Kenya .........................................................................................16

Figure 3 Production challenges in Uganda ................................................................................................18

Figure 4 Production (ton per ha) in Kenya & Uganda ...............................................................................18

Figure 5 Marketing Channels - Uganda .................................................................................................22

Figure 6 Marketing Channels – Kenya....................................................................................................22

Figure 7 Marketing challenges in Uganda .................................................................................................31

Figure 8 Marketing challenges in Kenya ...................................................................................................31

Figure 9 BDS Mapping Lira District ........................................................................................................38 Appendix List

Annex 1Cassava trading in Kampala’s Informal Market .....................................................................47

Annex 2 Bukedea Market Cassava Trade..............................................................................................47

Annex 3 Seasonality Analysis Bukedea .................................................................................................48

Annex 4 Capacities for Sampled Processors; Masindi Market ............................................................49

Annex 5 Turn over and pricing for sample farm inputs; Apac Town Input suppliers......................49

Annex 6 Post Harvest Handling Practices; Lira Producers .................................................................49

Annex 7 Cassava Trading in Lira Market .............................................................................................50

Annex 8 Seasonality Analysis; Lira Traders .........................................................................................50

Annex 9 Cassava Trading; Nakasongola Traders .................................................................................51

Annex 10 Buying practices and prices; Nasongola ..............................................................................51

Annex 11 Cassava trading in Kenya ......................................................................................................51

Annex 12 Processing capacity for sampled processors; Kwale District ............................................53

Annex 13 Cassava Trading; Malindi district .........................................................................................53

Annex 14 Consumer preferences in Uganda..............................................................................................53

Annex 15 Consumer preferences in Kenya................................................................................................56 Acronyms and abbreviations


ABP …………………… Average Buying Price ACMVD …………………… Cassava Mosaic Virus Disease AEP …………………… Agricultural and Environmental Programme ASARECA …………………… Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa ASIDI …………………… Agency for Sustainable Development Initiative ASP …………………… Average Selling Price BDS …………………… Business Development Services CCP …………………… Crop Crisis Management CMVD …………………… Cassava Mosaic Virus Disease CRS …………………… Catholic Relief services DAO …………………… District Agricultural Officer DRC …………………… Democratic Republic Of Congo EACMVD …………………… East Africa Cassava Mosaic Virus Disease EARRNET …………………… Eastern Africa Root Crops Research Network ECA …………………… Eastern and Central Africa ECAPAPA …………………… East and Central Africa Programme for Agricultural Policy Analysis FCI …………………… Farm Concern International FGD …………………… Focused Group Discussions ICR …………………… International Care and Relief IITA …………………… International Institute of Tropical Agriculture KARI …………………… Kenya Agriculture Research Institute MADIFA …………………… Masindi District Framers Association MFIs …………………… Micro-Finance Institutions MOA …………………… Ministry Of Agriculture NAADS …………………… National Agricultural Advisory Services NADIFA …………………… Nakasongola District Farmers Association NARI …………………… National Agricultural Research Institute NARO …………………… National Agriculture Research Organisation NGO …………………… Non Government Organization PR …………………… Producer REFSO …………………… Rural Energy for Food Security Organization VNMS …………………… Value Network and Marketing Systems HA ………………….. Hectares KGS / KG ………………….. Kilogram M ………………….. Meters KSH ……………………. Kenyan shilling USH ……………………. Ugandan shilling


Acknowledgement This report acknowledges the partnership of diverse people and institutions whose contribution was solid towards the success of the study. Farm Concern International and is greatly indebted to ASARECA- ECAPAPA, for the financial support to undertake the study, collaborating institutions International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) team, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology – (JKUAT) and much appreciation also to cassava producers, traders, and all other private and public sector players both in Kenya and Uganda for not only for their time but also their skills and


1. Executive Summary Benefits of cassava at production level, along value chains, markets and at consumer level is enormous however, cassava has not graduated from a subsistent / semi-commercial level to commercial products with significant market shares in the consumer, business and industrial markets. Though cassava is not fully commercialized, it plays a major role in the informal marketing systems and is a part of the diets for millions of rural households. Incomes realized from cassava along value chains and at production levels are relatively high, a positive indicator for mainstreaming cassava value chain. Markets assessed in Uganda included Kampala, Mbale, Ndebbi, Bukedea, Masindi, Apac, Lira and Nakasongola recording annual turnover estimated at USD 5,405,524 with Kampala and Lira recording an estimated USD 1.8 Million and US 1.7 Million respectively. Kenya’s markets assessed included Nairobi, Kwale, Mombasa, Malindi, Kilifi and Mbeere recording a total turnover estimated at USD 886, 733 with Nairobi, Mombasa and Mbere accounting for the highest sales estimated at USD 287,551, USD 368,962 and USD 162,982 respectively. The study findings also indicate that though most industrial segments report a non-utilization status for cassava chips, there is an enormous demand potential with major private sector players highlighting keenness to include cassava chips in the processing of animal feeds. The animal feeds processors in Kenya offer an annual demand potential of an estimated 200,000 metric tonnes at an estimated value of USD 0.11 per kilo, if cassava chips were to be replaced for other energy sources. Similarly Uganda animal feeds processors pose a high potential for cassava chips at a unit price of USD 0.11. There are enormous industrial processing opportunities in the baking sector for cassava flour as energy ingredients which call for clear policies in addition to demand creation through product awareness to stimulate utilisation especially at consumption level. Despite these enormous opportunities for cassava the existing institutional framework in both countries does not favour the optimal exploitation of the emerging and potential opportunities. First the organisational capacities of producers in both countries are wanting, removing the interest of key private sector players. Value addition technologies though available to the minority of the producers are still underutilised due to among other reasons lack of clear guidelines on standards and policy issues from the public sector giving a solid direction to the sector. Generally the efforts by key stakeholders in the value chain are disintegrated with no clear partnership structures crucial in value chain. At production, production capacities in both countries are still constrained by factors such as poor group organisational capacities, lack of commercialisation skills, crop diseases such as cassava mosaic , poor access to improved planting materials, limited land sizes, inadequate inputs for production, inadequate labour, poor market linkages or access to profitable markets and poor access to credit facilities. The main value addition challenges for the zones in both countries are poor access to value addition technologies and knowledge. Key constraints for intermediaries along trading systems in both countries include limited or poor and latent demand for most of the products , high trading costs notably transportation and market fees affecting their business profitability, lack of storage facilities, poor access to market information, seasonal availability of the products, poor access to credit facilities , and poor linkages with producers. Processing constraints on the other hand include poor quality raw materials, seasonal inadequate supplies, products’ perishability, poor demand for the products, products’ price fluctuations, high transportation costs and stiff competition from other products like maize, sorghum and millet. At consumption, there is still a lot of unutilised market due to reduced or no awareness on cassava flour and related products. These weaknesses at various levels of the value chain make it inefficient and ineffective. The report generally recommends institutional formations or frameworks based on the principles of commercialisation. There is need for a participatory identification of key players, and strengthened partnerships amongst all value chain players. There is need to consider application of approaches that promote clear and profitable partnerships of the producers with both the public and private sector players for mutual benefits. There is need to strengthen access to business development services by all players along the cassava flour and related products’ value chain for improved performance. At production level the organisational and commercial capacities of the producers need to be strengthened and linked to key private sector players for profit generation. Producers who are competitive and attractive to the private sector help define and give direction to value chains. The producers need strong and clear linkages to key suppliers of production and processing technologies. Traders and processors need to diversify their campaigns and operations to include more products for different market segments for a broadened utilisation of cassava products. On policy, there is need for advocacy for cassava policies in both countries that promote the interests of all the players along the value chain. 2. Background information Cassava is one of the most important root and tuber crops grown for food in eastern and central Africa (ECA) region. It is the chief source of dietary energy for the majority of the people living in the low and mid land altitudes in the region. It sustains food security and contributes to poverty reduction in harsh environmental


conditions by producing high yields that other crops can not match. Cassava has potential of producing many high value products such as flour, starch and maltose for industrial use. Post harvest processing can also lead to production of long shelf life crisps and chips which add to the market value of the raw product. Cassava has played a vital role in Uganda’s food systems for several decades and is widely produced in the northern and southern Uganda however, unlike other key products like maize, wheat and potatoes; Cassava has not evolved from a subsistent crop to a commercial crop. The situation is similar in Kenya which despite the high potential in the cassava sector market led production is still wanting. The stagnation of cassava as a semi-commercial crop limits its absorption into mainstream market chains in local, national and regional markets. Poor market linkages lead to low utilization of value-addition technologies which contributes directly to poor market opportunities. The potential market opportunities are not utilized and this is generally blamed on low production and low output levels which exacerbate poverty. Increased production, stimulated by high demand and supportive policies requires post harvest technologies capable of processing large quantities of high quality products for medium to large-scale agro-industries. This requires good knowledge of the commodity chain and availability of processing technologies that will allow processing to industrial scales. This will catalyze development of ‘new food’ and non-food products thereby expanding the market and creating future income-generating opportunities. Marketing studies have exposed the existence of relatively huge potential markets for cassava products. In addition, the increasing urbanization in the ECA is also presenting new opportunities in terms of changing food preferences in favour of value-added products that have a longer shelf life. Development practitioners, governments and donors agree that markets are an important driver for economic growth and development, and efforts are being directed to searching for ways and means of enabling farmers win such markets. One way is production of quality, value-added products at competitive prices. The new strategic plan of the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA) envisages market-oriented research for development covering sectors with a broad-based growth potential and the capacity to reduce poverty. These include basic staples and commodities with a growing domestic market (cereals, livestock, dairy products, edible oils). The commodity focus suggests using the value chain concept embracing the agri-food system as a whole - from production to consumption. Value chains can be considered as systems of innovation and contributes to derivation of research topics from the technical change needed to meet the requirements for market success. This requires compilation of new types of data indicating economic change and sub-sector growth trends, and seeking of new links with agribusiness companies, both “upstream” in the value chain (input companies and dealers) and “downstream” (processing companies and traders) as clients and partners and to engage in joint research with private companies, like seed producers, animal feed processors. Over the years, Eastern Africa Root Crops Research Network (EARRNET) has promoted many productivity increasing technologies such as improved cassava varieties, agronomic practices and processing. Recently, EARRNET and ECAPAPA have been working together to facilitate the development of quality standards and policies for cassava and cassava products in Kenya, Madagascar and Uganda. For a start, quality standards will allow the inclusion of cassava products in production of high value industrial products such confectionery and animal feeds. With time, they will promote trade in cassava products between countries that subscribe to the harmonized standards. 3. Justification EARRNET and other collaborators have been piloting a number of approaches to facilitate adoption of value-addition technologies. However, these interventions are new, and relatively isolated from each other. As a result, a cohesive body of knowledge, practices and approaches has not yet been accumulated, documented and shared among stakeholders as to how cassava value-addition technologies can be introduced. There is need to address these hindering issues of cassava promotion by first understanding the business potential of cassava flour and potential marketing strategies that would benefit smallholder producers in ECA. Stability of foods chains in developing countries is an emerging concern particularly with increased urbanization which has led to a drastic increase in consumer demand, higher food prices and depleting rural labour; a threat to rural production systems. Against this backdrop, there is an urgency to increase the market shares of traditional food crops into mainstream value chains in domestic and regional markets. Other emerging concern is the impact of climate change which requires a systematic upgrading of production systems and with a special focus on smallholder systems which are characterized by low ability to respond to trends and external forces. Cassava’s unique production and marketing systems responds to various emerging global needs offering Cassava roots and by-products a market entry opportunity. Cassava roots are high in calories, and the leaves are a good source of protein and vitamins A and B. Cassava plays the role of safeguarding against food shortages due it performance in poor soils on marginal lands with minimal amounts of fertilizer, pesticides and water.


To assess the value chain status and market situation of Cassava, ASARECA, commissioned Farm Concern International to conduct a cassava flour value chain analysis for Kenya and Uganda with an emphasis of production systems in leading producing districts and major markets in both countries. The market study assessed the market size and market value of cassava in countries, status of business development services and value chains status.

Research goal; The goal of the research was to carry out a market oriented value chain analysis of cassava flour and related products, in Uganda and Kenya, and have the findings/ information analyzed, documented and shared among stakeholders as to how cassava value-addition technologies can be introduced.

Research objectives; 1. Analysis and identification of priority business needs for cassava flour 2. Identification of profitability of investment opportunities for cassava flour 3. Development of marketing strategies based on a value chain analysis of institutional formation, development

and growth, quality standards and their linkages with input suppliers and output dealers 4. Stimulate the formation of public-private sector partnerships

Expected research outputs • Awareness on production and availability of high quality cassava flour created • Strong institutional framework that promotes increased productivity, high quality produce and product,

information flow and market access developed • Structure and performance of cassava flour sub-sector identified, analysed and documented • Technological and marketing innovations, approaches and strategies that enhance processing and demand for

cassava flours identified, documented and promoted within ECA


4. Research Methodology The methodology applied in this study was highly a hybrid of various tools under the ‘The Value Networks and Marketing Systems’ VNMS Research Tool developed by Farm Concern International, as a hybrid of private sector and development market research tools, designed in response to shifting gears from a conventional chain analysis or market research to a multi-portfolio analysis of a dynamic economy leading to identification of key hubs in an economy and a comprehensive analysis of opportunities and threats. The VNMS Research tool aims at establishing size of market demand, analyzing consumer markets and buying behaviors, identification of market segments and selecting target markets, analyzing value networks and marketing channels systems; includes value chain analysis, supply chain analysis and marketing channel analysis, canning business markets environment, and targets group integration in value network profiling, business viability analysis and product value analysis. The focus was at the entire value networks ranging from production systems, BDS mapping, marketing systems for cassava flour and related products. A total sample size of 498 was interviewed through; 1. Questionnaires; Most of the information was collected using structured questionnaires each with questions targeting various categories or players along the value chain. A pre-test was carried out and adjustments made. 2. Semi structured interviews Check lists targeting development stakeholders, government ministries and research institutions were developed and used to gather information during interviews with the respective targets. 3. Focussed Group Discussions (FGD) Check lists were developed and used to guide discussions with producer groups. Producers were organised into groups of at least 15 members and engaged into focussed discussions. 4. Visual Observation During the researchers process of interacting with the target people observations made were documented Sampling The sample was classified into 4 zones on the basis of producer commercialisation characteristics or levels as follows; Zone 4- Developed/ Commercialised

� Commercial BDS systems established � Relatively high investment levels � Medium / large-scale farmers � Low poverty index � High private sector investments � Cash economy � Active regional and global value chains � Well established business partnerships

Zone 3 - Intermediate � Semi- commercial production systems � Active regional and global value chains � Weak national/ regional value chains � Semi – commercial BDS system � Relatively seasonal value chains � Relatively developed marketing infrastructure � Seasonal cash economy

Zone 2 – Developing � Interest by players � Inconsistent value chains � Under- developed marketing infrastructure � Mix of food and cash economy � Semi – commercial production systems

Zone 1 – Remotely developed � Minimally identified value chains and BDS systems � Largely food economy � Minimal economic activities � Large parcels of land characterised by low productivity

Zone 0 – Totally undeveloped � Totally underdeveloped value chains � Food economy


� No identified economic activities � No BDS systems � No highlighted interest by buyers

Under zone 3 Kwale and Kilifi in Kenya and Bukedea and Masindi districts in Uganda were sampled. Under zone 2 Apac and Malindi districts in Uganda and Kenya respectively, Zone 1 lira in Uganda and Mbeere and Migori districts in Kenya while as zone 0 was represented by Nakasongola in Uganda and Busia, Teso and Kuria districts in Kenya. Other sites in Uganda included Kampala, Mbale, Nebbi, Pakwach and Jinja classified as major cassava trading and processing centres. In Kenya key market destinations sampled included Nairobi and Mombasa. These areas were categorised under Zone X. The target value chain actors along the value chain were classified into Producers, Processors, Intermediaries, Business Development Service Providers, Development Stakeholders, Government Ministries and Consumers. The sample size for each category was as follows;

a) 4 for BDS providers, Market intermediaries, private sector players per zone per country b) 3 development stakeholders per zone per country c) 3 researchers per zone per country d) 3 government ministries per zone per country e) 5 consumers per zone per country f) 30 producers per zone per country

Training Workshops Training was carried out prior to the data collection exercise. The research team went trough the research goal, objectives and expected outputs. Research tools were also discussed and a research work schedule developed.


5. Results and Discussions 5.1. Production result in Uganda and Kenya

Cassava production in Kenya is characterized by an uneven trend with year 2001 and 2002 recording the highest yields of approximately 601,976T and 608,493T respectively; while the year 2004 had the lowest yields estimated at 388,731 tonnes, however there was a significant 28.2% increase in production between year 2004 to 2005. Western and Nyanza provinces in Kenya were the main cassava producing regions according to the, while other cassava producing provinces include Coast, Eastern, Rift valley and Central provinces which accounts for about 50% of the total production, while top producing districts are Busia, Migori and Kuria. Uganda is the Africa’s sixth largest cassava producer with 2004/05 production records estimated at 5.5 million metric tones. Cassava productivity is the second best after banana in Uganda through cassava is increasingly faces competition from wheat and maize. It Cassava is better than maize in terms of income generation and is more profitable. The enterprise is largely subsistence with 60 % going to consumption and 40% to markets.

5.1.1. Production level and trends 5.1.1.1. Zone 3

Bukedea District has an estimated population of 144,000, an average household size of 6 members and an average of 5 acres of land per household with an estimated 2 acres (40%) being committed to cassava production. (Refer, annexe 8) Over 95% of the population in the district derive their livelihood from farming; 61.9 % are fully on farm and 33.3% on both farm and other employment. Cassava is the main crop in the zone both at income generation and subsistence level. Cassava productivity was noted to be declining consistently from 10kg per plant to an estimated 6kg per plant over the last 3 years in Bukedea, according to the District Agricultural officer. Masindi district on the other hand has an estimated population of 486,000, an average 6 members per household, an average of 6 acres of land size with over 50% of the arable land set aside for cassava production. Masindi is rainy all year round and farmers estimate cassava productivity is estimated to range between 10 to 12 tonnes per hectare. Cassava plays a key role in the production systems in Zone and further an important staple food.

Kwale district has an estimated population of 496,133 with an estimated household size of 7 members, an estimated 39,516 farm families in the district and an average farm size of 5.4 hectares per household. The main production areas (according to the District Agricultural Officer) are Msambweni and Lungalunga with each farmer planting an average of 5 acres of cassava while other areas are Matuga and Kubo. Farming is mainly for domestic consumption while the surplus is sold in the local markets. 69% of the respondents have land between 0-5 acres on crop production, 23% with between 5.1 – 10.0 acres and 8% more than 10 acres. 62% of the respondents use between 0-1 acre for cassava production, 25% between 1 and 2 acres and 13% of the respondents doing over 3 acres. Most producers do not know the varieties grown. Planting is at the onset of rains (March) and the harvests due in 6-8 months after planting. On average, the potential acreage for cassava production doubles the current production acreage. The average production of cassava per acre was 6 bags compared to potential average of 12.4 bags. The cost of production per acre was estimated at between US$ 20- US$ 57 per season. Other key crops in the district include Cowpeas, Sweet potatoes, Pigeon peas, Maize, Beans, and Green grams. Table 1 Cassava production in Kilifi District (Year 2004 & 2005)

Target Ha Achieved hectarage

Yield (tones/Ha)

Production in tones

Value in’000 KG

Division Season

2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 LR 1200 1200 110 325 10 11 1100 3575 550 1787.5 Kikambala SR 0 0 110 0 6 0 660 0 330 0 LR 1500 1500 636 379 7 9 4452 3411 2226 1705.5 Bahari SR 0 0 0 10 0 3 0 30 0 15 LR 2000 2000 2130 1496 7 6 14910 8976 7455 4488 Chonyi SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LR 1000 1200 685 1030 7 7 4795 7210 2397.5 3605 Kaloleni SR 200 50 700 350 8 3 5600 1050 2800 525 LR 250 250 125 152 6 1 750 152 375 76 Ganze SR 0 0 0 11 0 2 0 22 0 11 LR 1500 1500 285 341 6 0.1 1710 34.1 855 17.05 Vitengeni SR 0 0 65 100 7 2 455 200 227.5 100 LR 100 100 150 395 6 4 900 1580 450 790 Bamba SR 20 20 70 77 8 2 560 154 280 77 LR 7550 7750 4121 4118 6.9 8 28617 24938 14309 12469 Total SR 220 70 945 548 7.7 2.3 72725 1456 3638 728

LR + SR 7770 7820 5066 4666 7.1 5.7 35892 26394 17946 13197 Source; Ministry of Agriculture 2004/2005 annual report Kilifi district has an estimated population of 700,000, an estimated household size of 7 members. Cassava is an important food and cash crop in the district especially in Chonyi division while other key cassava producing divisions are Bahari and Kaloleni. The bulk of the crop is usually planted during the long rains. According to year


2006 MOA annual report the district had an estimated land size of 5,012 hectares on cassava which produced an estimated 38,533 tonnes of cassava. There has been an unstable production trend over years.

5.1.1.2. Zone 2

Apac district has an estimated population of 480,000 with an estimated holding size of 6 members (approximately 80,000 households) and each household has an average of 5 acres land and at least half an acre on cassava production. Farmers estimate yields from improved varieties at 10 tonnes of the new varieties compared to 3 tonnes of the local varieties though still mostly common. Kola County produces an estimated 40%, Kwania 35% and Maluzi 25% of cassava while 81% of farmers ; cassava is the main crop although the groups in this district are not commercialized due to marketing uncertainties. Most farms in this region produce an estimated 20 bags of cassava per acre compared to a potential producing capacity of 40 bags per acre with an estimated at 60,000- 80,000 Shillings per acre. Malindi district has an estimated population of 281,552, an estimated household size of 6 and an estimated 2,497 hectares of land on cassava production and yielded an estimated 28,343 metric tonnes according to the MOA 2006 annual report. Soils in the region are mainly loam & sandy as indicated by 50% of the producers interviewed. 79% of the respondents have between 1 and 6 acres allocated to crop production while 21% have between 7 and 12 acres. Farmers allocated 0.5 to 6 acres of land to cassava. The majority (80%) had 0.5 to 3 acres while 20% had 4 and 6 acres as land under cassava. Farming is an important part of this society as 60% of those interviewed derive their livelihood from farming while the rest depend on both farm and off-farm sources.

5.1.1.3. Zone 1 Lira district has an estimated population of 750,000, with an estimated holding of 7 members, an average land of 5 acres per household and though Ministry of Agriculture records a decline from 18,000 hectares in 1990s to an average of 10,300 hectares since 2001. The estimated production as in year 2006 is 10,311 hectares of cassava compared to 189,674, 30651, and 17,876 hectares for maize, millet and sorghum respectively. Lira records an annual production estimated at 309,000 tonnes per year however, the farmers have not been able to achieve the projected output. According to the study every household produces cassava and it is estimated that 40-50 % is for subsistence purpose since cassava is a staple food in this region, while 60-50% is for income generation. Migori district has an estimated population of 700,000 persons and an average holding of 7 members. Households in the district have an average land size of 2 acres each with cassava occupying approximately 0.5 acres. The cassava producing areas include Suba West, Suba East, Karungu, Uriri, Rongo and Awendo. On average, it costs US$ 136 to produce one acre of cassava with 63% of the farmers harvesting an average of 20 bags per acre and the highest getting 40 bags. The least yield per acre is 7 bags. Planting is done during these seasons and the yields are due for harvesting after two years. Over 70% produce on more than 1 acre, the highest being 3 acres and the least half an acre of cassava. The potential acreage for cassava production is well beyond half of the current acreage. An average of 1.5 acres of land per household in Mbeere is available for cassava production out of which 0.5 acres per farmer was on cassava production.

5.1.1.4. Zone 0

Nakasongola district has an estimated population of 127,000, an average of 7 members per household and 5 acres piece of land per household on an average; approximately 50% of the land is cassava production. Farming groups are mainly in poultry keeping and cassava farming, with a fairly established information sharing system between the various players. Over 75% of the sampled population derived their livelihood from farming with key crops including maize, sweet potatoes, cassava and groundnuts Farming is a major source of income in Busia with only 20% of the farmers accessing incomes from off-farm options. Approximately 40% of the respondents recorded approximately 10bags per acre per season while 60% recorded at least 20 bags. The current average acreage under cassava is 2 acres per household compared to the potential of 5 acres per household. Household lands parcels in Teso District range between 1.5 and 5 acres of land, 30% of households had an estimated land size of 8 areas, over 50% of the producers planted had 50% of land on cassava production while an average of 90% of the farmers derive their livelihoods from farming. In Kuria District, Cassava plays an important role in traditional food systems with a harvest valued at approximately US$ 12,142,857 from a production of 42,350 tones in 2006; down from 226,500 tones worth US$ 30,642,857 in 2002, a drastic decline. Cassava production per household was estimated at 1 acre per household from an average land size of 4.5 acres per household. Production costs varied greatly based on level of investments on inputs with production cost per acre ranging between US$ 21 - 143 and most households consumed 80% of their produce.

5.1.2. Comparisons between zones in Kenya and Uganda


Average yields per hectare in Kenya were recognized to be much lower for all zones with Zone 1 and Zone 3 reflecting the highest disparities with Kenya’s Zone 1 performance only at 27% of the yields recorded in Uganda while Zone 3 is at 37.5%. Productivity in Zone 1 is much higher though characterized by a subsistent production while increased commercialization in Zone 3 both in Uganda drops by 16% while Kenya’s Zone 3 increases by 12.5% from Zone 1 though at much lower output than Zone 3 in Uganda. Figure 1 Production comparison per zone in Kenya & Uganda

5.1.3. Agronomic and farm practices 5.1.3.1. Zone 3

Source: Farm Concern International, 2007 Research findings indicate that 9.5% of the producers in Bukedea plant local varieties, 52.4% improved while 38.1% use both. The new varieties are Nigeria, Akena, MH 97/296I, TME 14, Oxfam however, various factors affected adoption; the most preferred variety is Akena for its fast growth, high yield and good taste, Nigeria variety is disease resistant while Mygera has the highest avaliability. Masindi producers had a wider range of varieties including both sweet and bitter varieties. Nyaraboke variety is most preferred for its taste, resistance to diseases, high demand and high yield and the majority (85%) of the producers interviewed plant local varieties. Access to improved varieties is limited by slow multiplication level. Animals drawn implements are the main source of labour for cultivation and farmers were recorded to have good agricultural knowledge and majority practice crop rotation and intercrop cassava with other crops. Local cassava varieties in Kenya are the most popular with an estimated 93.1% of the respondents planting local varieties, 3.4% planting the improved varieties and 3.4% planting both. Improved varieties were indicated to perform well in poor soils however, there are 15 varieties at farm level while at the time of the study four varieties were set for official release though still branded in codes i.e. 0642, 2855, 1838, 3128. Kibanda Meno (local variety which produces 15 tonnes per hectare) is mostly accepted, but prone to diseases especially cassava mosaic and brown streak while Kaleso (local variety) is also susceptible to diseases though can produce approximately 32tonnes per hectare. Both varieties are gradually decreasing in most production systems. Farmers are gaining an interest in Nguzo varieties with a yield of 34 tonnes per hectare. Human labour is key in the production systems with youth accounting for 90% of the human labour, respondents and 10% using animals and tractors. Kwale soils are mainly sandy as indicated by 50% of the respondents, 40% with a mixture of sand and loam, and 10% loam. Cassava planting is done in holes during the wet season and various agricultural practices were highlighted; crop rotation (60%), intercropping (93.3%) and weeding (all). Other practices highlighted include 67% of the producers interviewed cut and use the cassava residue as planting materials for the next season, 30% cut and leave the residue on the surface until the next season and the remaining 3% left them uncut until the next season. The producers source planting materials from own farms and have limited access to improved and certified propagating materials or to any technical assistance.

5.1.3.2. Zone 2 Nyaraboke variety was rated highly with farmers indicating to be the most popular, hardy, sweet and tolerant to diseases. Cassava production is challenged by lack of improved disease resistant and high yielding varieties with approximately 84% of farmers were planting the local varieties, due to lack of access to improved varieties. However, the most preferred varieties produced are Owulu & Ekweng taking shorter periods to mature while improved varieties are TME 14, AKENA and MH 2961 with farmers highlighting them as more resistant to cassava mosaic even though they are still threatened by cassava brown steak. According to VEDCO, TM14 cassava variety is susceptible but takes shorter time to mature therefore preferred by producers while AKENA variety is bitter in some areas providing an opportunity for research. TM14 is more palatable and thus more marketable and Bao variety is also preferred mainly due to a relatively bigger size.

Production Comparison per Zone in Kenya & Uganda

7.2

6.0

8.6

5.9

0.0

2.73.4

2.43.2

0.00.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Zone 3 Zone 2 Zone 1 Zone 0 Zone X

Pro

du

cti

on

in

to

nn

es

pe

r h

ec

tare

Uganda

Kenya


Most farmers in Malindi plants local varieties with few farmers planting improved varieties and others both improved and local varieties while 67% of those interviewed practiced crop rotation to break pest and disease cycles and also to improve soil fertility. The remaining 33% lacked knowledge, had limited land size or had specialised on other crops. All practice intercropping mainly to maximize land space by producing many types of products and Weeding is done either twice or thrice with the majority weeding twice per season. Cassava residue is slashed, burnt, used as mulch, animal feeds or preserved for next planting season. Most farmers produce the local variety, 60% of the respondents use human labour in land preparation and 40% using animals and a few tractors. Most of the producers preserve planting materials by burying the cuttings in the soil though high perishability is a key concern to most farmers in the region and planting is mainly done during the wet seasons.. Approximately 33.3% of the respondents are in self-help groups which have helped the producers increase household incomes, obtain loans and acquire different farming techniques through trainings.

5.1.3.3. Zone 1 Commonly planted varieties in Zone 1 in Uganda are Akena and TME14 while other common varieties include Deludelu, Mbao Nase 4, 10 and 12. For the local varieties the most preferred are ‘Deludelu’ and ‘Ogwok’. Farmers have access to improved varieties, which are preferred to local varieties due to higher production; these are TME 14, NSE 10, NAMULONGE and NIGERIA. Land preparation is largely by human labour though few farmers use animals. Farmer’s have good knowledge of crop rotation and mixed cropping, weeding is three times per season on average. Cassava residue is mainly cut and used as planting material for the next season. Local varieties are commonly grown though the flesh of the varieties planted was usually white and the skin either red or brown. Planting materials mainly sourced from own farms and local varieties are preferred as the cuttings are readily available and partly due to the fact that most farmers are not exposed to other high quality varieties. Cassava is planted during the long rains (February-April) and the short rains (October-November) while harvesting is after one or two years from planting depending on the variety.

5.1.3.4. Zone 0 Farmers in this zone use both improved and local varieties which according to the research findings yield an average of 27 and 12 bags per acre respectively. Farmers’ preference for improved varieties is higher particularly with high yields and resistance to diseases in comparison with the local varieties. The improved varieties include: TME 14 which is high yielding and mature faster & NASE 12; with whiter flour. Land preparation is during wet seasons largely using human labour and mostly by women. Farmers in this region widely practise crop rotation and mixed cropping farming system with farmers largely practicing crop rotation to improve soil fertility and break pest/ disease cycles while they practice intercropping to maximize on limited land space and also produce different other crops. Weeding is done averagely three times. Farmers work closely with local NGOs and other development stakeholders like NADIFA in accessing new varieties as well as for multiplication of cuttings. Common varieties in Busia district are the local varieties with red /brown skin and white flesh with the highest numbers of the producers in the area planting both improved and local varieties; 40% of the producers planted the local varieties alone, 10% planted the improved varieties only and 50% mixed. About 30% of farmers in Busia dig holes with the remaining 70% using the furrow method while crop rotation is commonly practiced by the producers to improve soil fertility, and break disease and pest cycles and 90% of the respondents practice intercropping to maximize on land use, and maximize on crop production, in addition to improving soil fertility. Only 40% of the respondents are clustered into groups, most citing group benefits such as access to loan, financial aids and increase in household income. At least 40% of the producers slashed the cuttings and used them as planting materials for the next season while 30% of the producers cut and use them both as firewood and as planting materials for the next season and 30% slash and burn, or leave the residue until next season. In Teso District, land is prepared mainly by the use of animals with 20% of the producers however relying heavily on human labour and Labour cost approximately US$ 114.3 per acre per season. Cassava planting is mainly during the wet season in furrows however, there are two rainy seasons in the district with onset of rains in April and October. Over 50% of respondents in Teso plant local varieties with 20% planting both local and improved varieties with only 30% of them planting improved varieties only. Farmers in Teso district plant three different varieties namely, Local, Mygera and Nigeria. The varieties have both brown or black skin and white flesh. 50% prefer the local variety for its good quality chips while the other 50% prefer Mygera for its availability and high quality yield. All the respondents practiced crop rotation said to help check disease and cycles and improve soil fertility. While maximizing on land space and need for more yields make them practice intercropping. 20% of the respondents do not intercrop alleging negative effects on production. Weeding is done regularly at least four times in a year. The highest percent of producers in Teso (60%) use cassava residue as firewood and planting materials. 20% of the producers slash and live it on the ground for the livestock. The rest either did nothing to the residue or slash and leave it on the ground.


In Kuria, most producers grow the local brown skinned white fleshed variety, yielding an average of 70 bags per acre while as the red skinned white fleshed variety yield an average of 15 bags per acre. Improved varieties are preferred for their high disease resistance while as the local variety produces high yield and their planting materials are readily available though more prone to diseases. 40% of the producers in the area produce the improved varieties. Cuttings are sourced from within the villages (local varieties) or the Ministry of Agriculture Kakamega for improved varieties at ksh 400 per bag. Soils are loam and sand. Both animals and human labour are employed in the preparation of land. 10% of the producers plant cassava in holes with 90% of them using ridges. Crop rotation and intercropping are practiced and helped improve soil fertility and break pest/disease cycles. Intercropping also help maximize on land use, and crop production. Weeding is done by most producers thrice a year, although some did it four times. In Kuria most of the producers (50%) slashed and burnt the cassava residue, 20% of producers slashed and used the cuttings as the planting materials for the next season. 10% of the respondents used the cuttings as the firewood and planting materials, while others slashed and left them lying on the ground until the next season. Figure 2 Cassava Varieties – Uganda & Kenya Source: Farm Concern International, 2007

5.1.4. Post harvest Handling

5.1.4.1. Zone 3 Cassava flour is not stored for long however Chips are milled prior to consumption and stored in bags for a period of approximately 6 months depending on the drying methods and moisture content of the chips. The storage period for chips is highly influenced by the demand at the household level, market and drying period though the product has a 6 months shelf life. The chippers are not enough and most farmers have no granaries negatively affecting storage though storage facilities are hired at local trading centre. In Masindi there is lack of storage facilities and majority of the farmers cited moisture, weevils and pests as the major storage challenges. In Kwale this is managed through cooperation between extension people and the farmers. Farmers are sensitised on the importance of cassava as food and industrial crop and on the importance of following the right agronomical practices, spacing and weeding. Trainings are also conducted on disease identification and management and conservation of planting materials.

5.1.4.2. Zone 2 and 1

Fresh tubers are stored in the soil to reduce perishability, chips in sacks treated with brine and flour and stored in polythene bags or plastic buckets however minimum storage period for tubers, chips and flour is 12 hours after harvesting/processing, 3 months and 1 month respectively. Perishability of tubers, infestation of chips and flour by rats, mould and weevils are the main storage challenges. In Migori, Cassava chips are dried and stored in sacks with pockets of farmers fermenting chips prior to storage which farmers indicated to be a period between 5 months and 2 years. Farmers achieve a storage period of 1 week to 6 months of cassava flour though poor drying leads to low quality and shorter shelf life. In Mbeere, cassava products are stored in tins on dry places and tubers are preserved through slicing and drying however, high perishability and weevils are the main storage challenges faced for fresh tubers and flour respectively. Tubers are left on the ground for 2 to 3 days while chips are stored in sacs for 2 to 4 months. Challenges include fresh tuber rotting, infestation of chips by weevils and mould infection for cassava flour.

5.1.4.3. Zone 0 Cassava in Busia is largely processed into chips, fermented and dried to achieve a storage period is up to one year. Tubers are only harvested at the time of sale however, storage challenges include; insufficient storage facilities, high perishability, pests and rodents damage. In Kuria Fresh tubers are mainly left on the farm until selling time, while chips and flour are kept in bags and baskets respectively. At least 50% of the producers store chips for an

Cassava Varieties - Uganda & Kenya

26.2

47.6

26.2

8.4

76.6

15.1

9.4

84.4

6.3 1

3.3

46.7

40.0

37.5

40.6

21.9

9.4

76

14.6

63

11.1

25.9

20

42.2

37.8

010

203040

506070

8090

Improved Local Both Improved Local Both

Uganda Kenya

Perc

en

tag

e

Zone 3 Zone 2 Zone 1 Zone 0


average period of one and a half years and the other 50% for an average of 6 months. Flour is stored for an average period of 6 months.

5.1.5. Production Constraints and opportunities Table 2 Production constraints and opportunities UGANDA KENYA Zone Constraints Opportunities Constraints Opportunities Zone 0

� Diseases & Pests – Brown streak virus and Cassava mosaic virus

� Poor access to improved planting materials

� High post harvest losses

� Low productivity

� Availability of sufficient land for cassava production.

� Improved cassava varieties with many NGOs and NARIs

� Inadequate farm inputs

� Inaccessibility of improved materials

� Cassava diseases such as African cassava mosaic Disease(ACMD) and East African cassava mosaic virus disease (EACMVD)

� Wrong perception on cassava clones.


� Increasing awareness on use of improved varieties

� Favourable soils and available land

� Development agencies supporting the production of cassava

Zone 1

� Inaccessibility to improved varieties

� Insufficient technical know

� Cassava diseases(Cassava brown streak)


� Availability of sufficient land for cassava production.

� Improved cassava varieties with many NGOs and NARIs

� Limited land due to competition with other crops

� Inaccessibility to improved varieties.

� Cassava diseases

� Favourable soils and climate

Zone 2

� Poor and inadequate access to farm implements & inputs e.g. Ploughs, good planting materials

� Inaccessibility to improved varieties and disease resistant varieties


� Availability of many improved cassava varieties (high yielding and resistant to diseases).

� Many development organisations on the ground.

� Availability of more land that can be utilised for cassava production

� Limited land size � High production costs � Cassava diseases � Reliance on inferior

local varieties

� Cassava is a traditionally valued crop by communities.

� Collective action- most of the farmers are in groups

Zone 3

� Inadequate storage facilities

� Competition with other crops

� Diseases � High production

costs � Low productivity

� Fairly technical capacity and know how by farmers.

� Availability of many improved cassava varieties and local superior varieties (high yielding and resistant to diseases).

� Land available if the cassava value chain inefficiencies are addressed to commercialise the crop.

� Cassava diseases(cassava mosaic and brow streak)

� Inadequate planting materials

� Inadequate labour due to urbanisation

� Land limitation � Inadequate inputs for

production

� Less competition from other crops

� Availability of new varieties for release.

Source: Farm Concern International, 2007 Cassava production discussions Efficiency in cassava production is a key factor that contributes to the performance of other chains however in all zones analysed, production and productivity has many bottle necks which are an inhabitant to streamlining cassava industry and was more eminent in Kenya zones than in Uganda where cassava is produced by a higher number of farmers and more research on new varieties carried out. According to the study finding productivity is at the lowest in every zone but more in zones 3 in both countries than other zones on average less than 50%. The challenges in zone 3 are unavailability of reliable sources of improved varieties and sufficient land. In zone 2 in


Uganda, farmer preferred short maturing varieties although they are susceptible to cassava diseases. Thus there is need to develop early maturing disease resistant varieties. Zone 1 and 0 are there is stiff competition of cassava from other crops. Cassava in these zones is grown specifically for subsistence with surplus sold to markets. There are inefficiencies in supply of planting material and also knowledge of the existence of improved varieties. Technical know how of the target household was found to be minimal in these zone and poor farming systems that predisposed the cassava crop to disease and reduced the productivity. Figure 3 Production challenges in Uganda Source: Farm Concern International, 2007 There is need to devise targeted interventions that will ensure that there is link between available cassava production technologies and available superior varieties with the farmers in all the zones. It was noted there are several active and potential opportunities in cassava production in the value chain and thus intervention which will strengthen the production link and enhance the utilization of these opportunities are urgently needed. Land is sufficient and thus productivity can be enhanced by more research on developing more prolific and disease resistant varieties with shorter maturity span. More importantly is that production link is in the chain according to the survey is directly related to market link and thus strong market linked will lead to more stronger link in production as all player will be demand more quality and more volumes. Figure 4 Production (ton per ha) in Kenya & Uganda Source: Farm Concern International, 2007

Production Challenges in Uganda

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.9 2.8 3.5

7.4

11.6

14.8

24.1

28.5

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Low

Sale

s

Dis

tance to m

ark

et

Bitt

er

Tubers

Security

Lack o

f M

ark

et In

form

atio

n

Inadequate

Land

Hig

h taxatio

n

Low

pro

ductio

n

Lack o

f sto

rage

Poor

weath

er

conditi

ons

Lack o

f capita

l

Pests

& D

iseases

Poor

selling p

rice

Lack o

f fa

rm in

puts

Labour

Lack o

f m

ark

et

Lack o

f tr

ansport

Perc

en

tag

e

Production (ton per ha) in Kenya & Uganda

7.2

2.7

6.0

3.4

8.6

2.4

5.9

3.2

0.0 0.00.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

Uganda Kenya

Pro

du

cti

on

in

to

nn

es

Zone 3 Zone 2 Zone 1 Zone 0 Zone X


5.2 Processing Processing technology Gari processing technology has been introduced in Uganda some farmer groups in Masindi and Ambako by IITA in collaboration with other organizations. The technology was adopted well by farmer groups which included both processing and packaging. However in Masindi processing of Gari was stopped due to lack of market and machine breakdown. The group didn’t have capacity to repair it due to financial constraint during the time of survey no processing was going on. Local processors handle products ranging from cassava, sorghum, maize and millet, and there is minimal value addition by producers in all regions.

5.2.1 Processing levels and trends

5.2.1.1 Zone 3 In Bukedea processing of cassava into flour is high and approximately 75% is for commercial purpose. Most farmers use knives for peeling and chipping although a few groups use manual and electrical chippers donated by NGO’s. Milling of the chips into flour is done by private local millers and charges range from 25 Uganda shillings for a kilo of cassava to 50 Uganda shillings for a kilo of sorghum. Peak season for most processors is between October and March and low season for most is May to August. The processors operate below their installed capacities but cassava milling is relatively more profitable. (Refer annex 13) The survey revealed that most of respondents rely on local millers for processing dried chips into flour which is usually for household consumption. It also revealed that some farmers have been trained on value addition: flour, cakes, cattle feed, chicken feed, animal feed, and crisps. Out of the local processors interviewed only a few handle cassavas, processing averagely 4-5 tonnes of cassava per month with a potential capacity of up 20 tonnes per month per processor and charges US $ 0.07 to mill a kilo of chips. They indicated that demand for the commodity is highest during Christmas and Iddi Ul Fitr and main target customers are local farmers who bring their produce for milling or chipping. Other products handled by the millers were maize and wheat with some handling 9,000 and 6,000 tons respectively per month. Some processors in Chonyi work in collaboration with Kari Mtwapa. The main variable costs incurred by the processors are labour, electricity and oil, taking up to 33%, 52%, and 15% respectively. (Refer annex 24)

5.2.1.2 Zone 2 and 1 There is limited processing at farm gate in Apac with most of the fresh tubers getting to markets such as Kigumba and Kampala. This is because consumption is mainly in form of boiled tubers, Ugali and bread in the region though flour is also used in brewing of alcohol (Refer to annex 14). Processors mill two forms of cassava; one for cooking and the other for brewing and charge 30 shillings per kilo of Simsim, 50 per kilo of cassava and 60 shilling per kilo of maize. The current processing capacity averages at 3000kg per month compared to the potential processing capacity of 5000kg. The main expenses undertaken by processors is labour and electricity with some of them costing 500,000 shillings and 1,200,000 shillings per month on labour and electricity respectively. October is the peak season for cassava while January is its low season. Other products handled by processors are maize, sorghum, millet and cassava, maize being the most dominant Most of the local processors in Lira do more of cassava processing than for the other products; with some processors handling approximately 150 cassava (dried chips) bags of an estimated weight of 100kg each per day. The processors indicated to face challenges on quality of chips in regards to cleanliness and fibre content, and this highly determine the price to offer on the chips. At the time of the survey the prices of a kilo of cassava bought from the processors range from 300 to 500 shillings. Milling charges are highest for maize (80 per kg) and lowest for cassava (40 per kg). Labour costs 5,000 shillings per person per day with some single processors employing about 8 people per day. The other products commonly milled include millet, maize and rice. Gari processing technologies have been introduced to producers in Ambako. Peak season for most of the products falls between October and December with the low season falling between January and September In Kenya processing in zones 1 and 2 is by local millers and no localised processing technology was found during the study. Over 70% of the producers are involved in some form of value addition before product marketing which includes fermenting, milling the chips and mixing the flour with other cereal flours like maize, sorghum and millet after milling. In Mbeere and Busia Milling is the main value addition method used since the main form of preparation before utilization in many households is either boiling or frying. Processors in Busia target supermarkets and retail shops. In Kuria Value addition methods include milling of chips and mixing cassava flour with millet and sorghum flour. Purchasing is mainly by order and delivery by bicycles. Lack of cassava demand in this region have led to subsistence farming of cassava and majority of those interviewed suggested promotions to help create awareness on cassava products. There is no major processing in Kuria. Farmers sell their dry chips to traders in either Kuria or Migori districts. Farmers however mill their dried chips (always mixed with millet/sorghum) by local millers in the local markets.

5.2.1.3 Zone 0


Some groups have cassava processing equipments supplied to them by development organisations like IITA. The equipments are yet to be used to capacity producers citing low demand for the processed products. A Processing company initiated by JICA buys chips from farmers for milling and making of Gari.

5.2.1.4 Zone X In Kampala processors interviewed are as follow: Maganju Millers Limited The company processes cassava flour for human consumption and sources dried chips from Bukedea farmers among other suppliers at a prices of Ushs.200 to 600 depending on seasons however, cites quality management and storage as a challenge for small-scale agro-processors. Suppliers deliver and are paid either cash or on credit. The firm sell the flour both in domestic market and export to UK and neighbouring .A kilo of flour from the firm sells for between 1,000 and 1,200 Uganda shillings and is currently exporting approximately 30% of cassava flour produced to the UK and Rwanda. Her capacity for cassava is however low due to low demand for the product. Uga Chic Limited The company records a monthly 1,300 tonnes sale of animal feeds and utilizes approximately 150-200 tonnes of cassava monthly but the current installed capacity is approximately 2,000 tonnes per month. Cassava faces competition from maize due to its preferred energy source and ease of digestion by chicken when used in chicken feeds. Cassava is included in the feeds only if it is cheaper than maize by at least 25%. Cassava price is Ush 250 per kilogram at company gate compared with Ush 265 for maize per kilogram. The farm gate price is currently Ush 200 per kilogram for dried cassava chips. Small scale-based supply chains are weak and inconsistent leading to the company utilizing maize mainly though opportunities for cassava exist. Formula Feeds Limited The company uses maize as energy source for animal feeds but has failed to optimize market opportunity due to maize seasonality-related challenges. Cassava is an emerging value chain particularly to bridge seasonality gaps and compete on price opportunities. The company procurement systems have a window to sub-contract farmers and micro-processors to complement the current maize-based 20 tonnes per day supply chains. However the company is ready to offer approximately Ush 225 farm gate depending on maize prices which ranged from 220 to 300 shillings per kilo. On quality requirements the company prefer dried and small sized chips; Moisture content of 13-14% , chips with storage stability of 2 months, Cassava chips averagely 10 tonnes per collection or 25 tonnes , farmers’ capacity to sustain order well built. Mbale Processors in Mbale purchase approximately 1,440 tonnes per year cassava dried chips per year with some of processors handling 120 tonnes per week during the high season and 30 tonnes during the low season (July, August and September), while most processors operate below their potential capacities by an estimated 40%. Jinja Out of the estimated 60 processors in the town, 30 specialize in cassava. Kumi and Soroti districts are the main supplying regions, before which sourcing was done from Masindi and Nakasongola but abandoned due to cassava mosaic and the vast distances. Soroti supplied good quality white chips at 170 shillings per kilo compared to those from Kamuri and Bunya at 140 and 130 shillings per kilo respectively. During the survey Soroti cassava flour was selling at 25,000 shillings per 100kg bag compared to Bunya and Kamuri cassava flour at 22,000 shillings a 100kg bag. Processors sell the chips and flour both locally and to neighbouring countries, Burundi market take approximately 250 tonnes of cassava flour to Jinja processors thrice a week (Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays) at a price of 18,000 shillings per 100kg bag. The 30 traders make an estimated total turnover of 135,000,000 Uganda shillings in a day. The price for dried chips is highest during the rainy season and lowest during the dry season at 250 and 150 shillings per kilo respectively. Demand is constant across the months and processing is mostly done 24 hours a day. The most demanded variety is the one that has a dark flesh and a white skin. The processors hire 16 tonnes or 7 tonnes trucks at 300,000 and 140,000 shillings for the trucks respectively, pay for fuel, labour and driver’s accommodation and lunch. In Kenya the main cassava processors are animal feed handler. Business market category transacts over 432, tones of cassava flour per year valued at US$ 308,572 annually depending on the processor’s capacity with most of the processors managing on average 50% of their processing capacity. Services highly demanded by the processors include transportation and packaging materials which are fairly available. (Refer Annex 23) Lack of quality raw material is a major challenge while other challenges include product scarcity, perish ability and price changes. Costs incurred during processing are include packaging, public health certification, trade license, transport and labour. Public Health licence for instance costs 1,000Ksh annually while annual trade licence costs 7,200Ksh. Per year per trader Kenya has a vibrant animal feeds industry with at least 120 millers active animal feeds processors, producing an estimated 466,151 metric tonnes of feeds and with an idle capacity of 133,849 metric tonnes caused partially by procurement challenges of some of the key ingredients. The increasingly commercialized livestock sector indicates an enormous opportunity for the animal feeds industry, where dairy cow production creates the highest


market share for the animal feeds industry with a population estimated at 3.3 million and dairy goats’ production on the other hand estimated at 111,600. The cassava chips value chains are weak with supply gaps identified within the potential market demands; however cassava as a potential substitute for cereal energy source and carriers, over 200,000 tons of cassava chips would be required to service the animal feed industry annually.

� The maximum price offered by the lead animal feed industry was USD 0.13 per kilogram of chips � The chips industry thus has a potential value of (USD 26 Million).

Sigma Feeds Limited The company’s current processing capacity is approximately 30 and 50 tonnes of animal feeds although during the low season, the company has an average of 30tonnes/day processing level. However these have not been achieved due to high transportation cost as a result of long distances while sourcing cassava chips. Currently the company is operating at approximately 5 tonnes of cassava daily on animal feeds’ processing. Tapioca Limited, A key processor in Chonyi, Kilifi area imports over 100 tonnes of starch monthly from Singapore mostly during the low season which runs from February to May. According to the processor importing starch is cheaper than buying cassava locally by approximately 30%. They also buy cassava in its dried form from farmers up to about 85 tonnes every month (1,020 tonnes annually), farmer’s bulk at collection centres from where the processor collects. The processor pays 0.1 - 0.11 US $ at collection and 0.13 $ per kilo if delivered to the firm. The main buyers of the starch are the carton manufacturers especially in Nairobi where almost all of the 7 tonnes processed per day finds its way.

5.2.2 Processing constraints and opportunities Table 3 Processing constraints and opportunities

Uganda ; Constraints Opportunities • Cassava seasonal availability • Low quality cassava chips • High costs of operation. • Inadequacy of equipment to meet demand • Poor quality management. Chips’ impurities

like metal pieces, stones, hard peels and fibres.

• Demand for processed products moderate • Availability of research small holder processing

technologies. • High potential for large volumes of cassava for

processing

Kenya; Constraints

Opportunities

• Poor packaging • Lack of financial services • Lack of quality raw materials • Product scarcity • Inaccessibility to processing technologies • Low awareness of cassava products are

major weaknesses faced by processors. • Low demand on processed products

• Vibrant animal feed industries • Potential for processed cassava products high and

unexploited. • Research areas for equipment and huge investment

opportunities in the sub- sector

Source: Farm Concern International, 2007


5.3 Marketing

5.3.1 Marketing systems

5.3.1.1 Zone X

Cassava transactions in Kampala are controlled by a well established network of rural and urban-based traders resulting into market forces that favour higher profit margins along value chains, lower farm gate prices and higher retailing prices. Cassava is mainly traded along informal value chains and informal markets which are characterized by lack of appropriate storage facilities, distorted weighing scales and lack of product standards. Kampala is the main market destination for most farm produce in Uganda and is characterized by both formal and informal farm produce outlets. Key market destinations for cassava products are however the informal markets including but not limited to Kasubi, Nakawa, Kisenyi, and Owino. Each of these markets exhibit unique trading systems. Kampala also plays the role of a transit market for Congo, Sudan, Kenya, Rwanda, and Burundi. Kampala markets are characterized by a wide range of varieties. Nairobi is the key hub for Cassava value chains in Kenya playing the role of a destination market and a transit market to consumer segments, business segments and informal market in other towns. Informal markets accounts for the highest volume of cassava sales. The following markets form fairly strong value chains; Wakulima, Gikomba, City market, Korogocho, Kangemi and Kawangware. Mainstream supermarkets like the Uchumi supermarkets and Nakumatt supermarkets stock fresh roots and flour.

5.3.1.2 Zone 3,2,1,0 (Uganda) Farmers mainly supply produce to the local trading centres where the wholesale or retail fresh cassava or dried chips. Wholesalers purchase and bulk at farm gate level or at the trading centres for both fresh tubers and chips however, farmers’ participation along the distribution channel is mostly active at farm gate level, local trading centres and at market retail systems. They transport to local markets sell to retailers in bulk and bear the cost of transportation. Figure 5 Marketing Channels - Uganda

Source: Farm Concern International, 2007 Figure 6 Marketing Channels – Kenya Zones 3, 2, 1, 0 (Kenya)



5.3.2 Products and products sourcing 5.3.2.1 Zone X

Cassava informal sales channels dominate transactions for fresh tubers with at least 55% of the traders sourcing locally from other traders based on a horizontal integration while 44% of the traders in Kampala source at farm gate, and 33% from brokers. Main farm gate sources include Kibonga, Masindi, Kigumba, Jinja, Busoga, Soroti, Mukono Bukoomero, Busero and Mubende while Kisenyi is a major source for cassava flour though cassava flour in Mbale is sourced from brokers, processors, local markets and farm gate. Over 50% of the traders in the market, mix the cassava flour with sorghum or millet to add value for target customers. Sourcing is mainly affected by high transport costs, scarcity of quality white flour and fresh tubers especially during the dry season. High transportation costs are the main outsourcing challenge. Farm gate sources in Pakwach include Kopiyo, Bweyale, Karuma, Lira , Dima and Acholi, while for Nebbi source locations include Alangi and Zeu. There are no major value addition processes done to the product safe mixing of the flour with either millet or sorghum. The main sourcing challenges faced by the traders include poor quality, high transport costs, and insecurity and high distances from the market. Approximately 56% of the intermediaries source commodities from the local markets’ suppliers or at the farm gate, 33% through brokers and 11% their own produce. Major supply regions are Mombasa, Meru, Murang’a, Gatundu, Migori, Kitui, Embu, Thika and Tanzania.

5.3.2.2 Zone 3 In Bukedea, traders on cassava flour mainly source from brokers in the local market and supplying regions are the neighbouring cassava producing villages including Bukedea, Kocheka, Kamach and Kachumbala. Dried chips are either bought from traders delivering to the market or sourced directly from farmers with some traders selling their own produce. Chips sourcing regions include kocheka, Kachede, Kolir, Kakuro, Okunguro and kamacherage. Farmers on the other hand are not organized into marketing organization and thus sell their cassava products individually. Major sourcing challenges include seasonal scarcity and unreliable transportation. Fresh tubers are sourced from Bukedea, Maleva, Nogera, and Kamon with peak seasons in February and low supply between April and September. At least 80% of the traders interviewed source their stock from Bukedea, Kasoka and Maleva while the remaining 20% source from Kolir, Kakuro, Okunguro or Kachumbani. High products prices are the main challenge faced by traded during outsourcing. The main supplying area for cassava chips is Masindi central while the main sources for fresh tubers in the market are bigando, kihaguzi, Nyakatara, kimina, kitengule, kanyata, Gunza and Biiso. Kiryandongo, bigando, Kimina, and kitegwe are some of the main cassava flour source areas within the district though there is an oversupply for fresh tubers between the months of March and April though lowest between January and February. In Kenya, the traders in Zone 3 mainly source cassava products from the local market with major sourcing areas as Mwembe, Ngomaini and Likoni. Key value addition include frying the tubers and making crisps, 33% roasting the tubers and a few cases of salting with lemon. Scarcity during the drought season is the main sourcing challenge, April, August and December being the worst supply months. Cassava chips are more dominant in comparison with other products. Buying Prices are highest during the rainy season (between April and November) by about 50% but there are no significant seasonal variations in terms of selling prices and total sales made. Most traders make more than 60% gross profits from their sales.

5.3.2.3 Zones 2, 1, 0


Over 80% of cassava flour traders source locally with about 50% of the fresh tuber traders sourcing from farm gates. Some of the main supplying markets for cassava flour/chips in Lira are Amach, Aliot, Apac, Loro , Kaberamaich and Ambako though traders largely mix cassava flour with millet flour. On value addition only 30% of the traders mill and/or dry the cassava however the main sourcing challenges are on transportation and seasonal product scarcity with highest transaction costs on transportation, levies and licenses. Cassava sold in the market is sourced at farm gate level in different locations. Supply of cassava to the market or its availability is fairly constant with small variation of supply March to May when the supply is at its peak. Common cassava varieties traded in various markets Table 4 Cassava Varieties sold in Kampala’s Informal Markets

Zone Market Common varieties traded X Kasubi Bukalasa,Kawanda,Kawogo, Kakwali, Mawale

Mukalasa,Buziina,Teleka Nakasero Nyalaboki, Njule, Bukalasa Nakawa Njule,Kawanda,Manchinga, Kigumba Ndeeba Bukalasa,Kawanda,Kayinja.Mpologoma Owino Bukalasa,Kawanda, Nakinga,Mawanga Pakwach / Nebii Mukalasa, Telongole and Loonge. Zone 3 Bukedea Oxfam, Nigeria , Nanze and Gwarateraka ,

Akena Kwale Kibanda Meno, Kaleso and Gwazo , Gushe,

Mangawani and Mwafrika Kilifi Kabanda meno and Kaleso. Zone 2 Malindi Kabanda meno and Kaleso. Zone 0 Kuria Teleka, Mercury, Magana, Matuju, Sagana and

Nigeria


5.3.3 Market sizes /Flows and Prices 5.3.3.1 Zone x

Kasubi market is dominated by roadside traders mainly selling fresh tubers and cassava flour on both wholesale and retail terms. Cassava flour is mainly bought by wholesalers, retailers or final consumers (individuals and hotels). Some traders make annual sales turnover of approximately USD 33,280 at 0.285USD a kilo. There is an increasing trend in cassava flour sales turnover for most traders. Fresh cassava tuber trading is minimal. In Kisenyi Market, cassava flour is mainly traded on with a kilogram selling at between US$ 0.1 and US$ 0.2 depending on the grade. A 100kg- grade1 sack sells at US$18.9 with some traders selling on average 100 bags in a week US$ 98,057) annual sales turnover) to both wholesalers and retailers. There are 7 processors in Kisenyi. Nakasero market mainly targets the middle and upper class customers. A piece of fresh tuber retails at US$0.29 with a heap of 4 pieces estimated to weigh about 3kg retailing at US$1.14229. Traders transact on average 13 bags of fresh tubers with an estimated average annual turnover of US$14,286). There are about 30 traders in the market. Ndeeba market traders mainly trade on cassava flour and tubers. Cassava flour sells at US$0.33 per kilogram, with some traders selling about 60 kg in a week translating into an estimated annual turnover of US$981) per trader. There are about 22 cassava flour traders. A heap of three pieces of fresh tubers in the market sell at US$0.18 with some traders making an estimated US$214.29 in a week (US$$11,143) per year). The market has about 22 fresh tuber traders. A kilo of cassava tubers in the market is estimated to cost US$0.143. Owino Market has about 5 main cassava flour traders. A kilogram of cassava flour retails and wholesales at US$0.23 and US$0.2 respectively with the traders selling on average 5,000kg in a week translating into an estimated US$59,429) per year. (Refer annex 1) Most of the fresh tubers traders in the various markets know the cassava varieties traded on unlike for their cassava flour counter parts. Generally fresh tuber traders transact approximately 35 sacks in a month at an average price of US$34.286 translating into estimated annual sales of US$14,417) and annual profits of about US$2,400) . On the other hand some cassava flour traders sale an average of 300 bags monthly at an average selling price of US$18.86 translating into estimated annual sales of US$ 67,886) and annual profits of US$10285. (Refer Annex 3) In Mbale town cassava products’ buyer segments include wholesalers, retailers and individual/institutions (hotels) for products ranging from cassava flour to fresh tubers and dried chips. Most traders prefer cassava flour due to reduced risk of post harvest losses. Flour and dried chips sold in weight while fresh tubers are retailed in terms of pieces. Weekly average cassava flour sales estimated at 409kg at a price of US$0.29 a kilo, translating into average total annual sale of US$6,077) (Refer annex 4).


Pakwach annual sales for dried chips are estimated at US$1,486) at a unit price of ---, while Nebbi market annual sales are estimated at US$6,240) at a unit price of... Nebbi has about 47 traders. The main buyers of cassava chips in the markets are; retailers, schools and individual consumers. (Refer Annex 8) Nebbi market is a key hub for cassava flour value chains with estimated sales of 10,192kgs per year valued at US$2,330). Traders interviewed in Pakwach record an average annual sale of US$475) each. (Refer annex 7). There are about 42 and 50 cassava flour traders in Nebbi and Pakwach respectively. There is an increasing competition from maize flour. Market figures summary for Uganda zones Table 5 Market figures summary for Uganda zones

Town Total annual sales in US$

Kampala 1,853,333.71 Mbale 169,259.43 Nebbi 493,637.49 Bukedea 71,611.43 Masindi 734,974.86 Apac 228,261.23 Lira 1,711,542.86 Nakasongola 142,902.86 Totals 5,405,523.86

Source: Farm Concern International, 2007 Cassava market share is characterized by informal value chains though with significant volumes and value. Kenya’s total turnover for leading markets is estimated at USD 74,000 with Mombasa and Nairobi accounting for 41% and 32% of the market share respectively. Table 6 Market figure summary

Town Total annual sales in Ksh Total annual sales in US$

Total monthly sales in Ksh

Total monthly sales in US$

Nairobi 20,128,600 287551.40 1677383.33 23962.61

Kwale 4,004,000 57200 333666.70 4766.70

Mombasa 25,827,360 368962.30 2152280 30746.85

Malindi 156,000 2228.60 13000 185.70

Kilifi 546,520 7807.40 45543.30 650.60

Mbeere 11,408,800 162982.85 950733.30 13581.90

Totals 62,071,280 886732.60 5172606.70 73894.40 Source: Farm Concern International, 2007 Uganda’s market value for leading markets is estimated at USD 450,460 which is six times the value of Kenya’s market value. Kampala and Lira accounts for the highest percentage estimated at 34% and 32% respectively.

Table 7 Uganda’s market value Uganda

Town Total annual sales in Ush

Total annual sales in US$ Total monthly sales in Ush

Total monthly sales in US$

Kampala 3,243,334,000.00 1,853,333.71 270,277,833.33 154,444.48 Mbale 296,204,000.00 169,259.43 24,683,666.67 14,104.95 Nebbi 863,865,600.00 493,637.49 71,988,800.00 41,136.46 Bukedea 125,320,000.00 71,611.43 10,443,333.33 5,967.62 Masindi 1,286,206,000.00 734,974.86 107,183,833.33 61,247.90 Apac 399,457,152.00 228,261.23 33,288,096.00 19,021.77

Lira 2,995,200,000.00 1,711,542.86 249,600,000.00 142,628.57 Nakasongola 250,080,000.00 142,902.86 20,840,000.00 11,908.57

Totals 9,459,666,752.00 5,405,523.86 788,305,562.67 450,460.32



Table 8 Common market cassava varieties zone market varieties Zone 3 Kwale Kibanda Meno, Kaleso and Gwazo ,

Gushe, Mangawani and Mwafrika Kilifi Kabanda meno and Kaleso. Zone 2 Malindi Kabanda meno and Kaleso. Zone 0 Kuria Teleka, Mercury, Magana, Matuju,

Sagana and Nigeria Source: Farm Concern International, 2007


5.3.3.2 Zone 3- Kwale A large percentage of the traders depend on individual final consumers. There are no major changes in market trends anticipated by the larger percentage of the traders. Only 27% of the producers were marketing their cassava with the others doing subsistence production. They sell fresh tubers for prices ranging between US$5.8-US$8.6 per bag of about 100 kg at farm gate. The majority sell about 50% of yields. Traders sell cassava dried chips, roasted cassava and cuttings. Most of the traders interviewed sell cuttings and chips. Roasted cassava and cuttings are sold in pieces while as cassava chips are sold in kg. The traders in the markets were selling on average 55kg of chips per trader in a week at a unit price of US$1.43 translating in to annual sales of US$4085 per year. The unit cost of cassava cutting (about 50g) was 0S$.0.15 Kilifi The main consumers are individuals, retailers and wholesalers with the main varieties in the market being Cassava products sold include fried tubers, crisps and boiled tubers. Crisps are sold in packets of 50grams @ 5/=, fried tubers in finger size chips @ 1/= and fresh tubers @ 15 /= per bunch of three.

5.3.3.3 Zone 2 Malindi The producers sell their products in Malindi and Mamurui markets, some selling at farm gate. The selling prices for chips range from US$0.12 to US$0.15per kg. None of the producers was processing flour for sale. Wholesalers, retailers and final consumers are the main customers for cassava fresh tubers. Cassava flour and dried chips are not readily available. 75kg bag of fresh cassava sells at between US$6043 to US$10 (an average price of US$8.46 each trader moving an average of 3.5 bags per week translating to US$15392 sales annually per trader. There are no cassava flour processors in Malindi. Refer annex 25) The average price of the fresh tubers is estimated at US$12.15 per kilo and the prices ranged from US$0.08 to US$0.22 from time to time.

5.3.3.4 Zone 1 Migori The selling prices are US$0.22 per kg and US$0.36 per kg for dried chips and cassava flour respectively. Dry season is characterized by low availability while as there is high availability during the rainy season. Quantities moved per month do not vary much between the two seasons. Approximately 200 bags of dried chips are sold per trader every month in dry season compared to 150 bags in the wet season. On the other hand some traders sell 40 tons of flour every month in dry season compared to 30 tons during the rainy season, an average of 35 tons per month translating into estimated total annual sales of US$90000 per year per trader- refer annex . The traders in the market mainly sell to processors all experiencing an inclining trend due to increasing consumption and competition. All the producers rely chiefly on local markets, especially Mukuro and Chungeni. Some sell cassava to distant places like Bondo. The selling price ranges from USd0.22-0.26 per tin of about 2kg for the producers. There are no cassava collection centres in the district. Mbeere The cassava tubers are sold at farm gate to traders form Kitui and Machakos at an average price of US$8.58 per bag. The main cassava form traded on is dried chips and flour and both local and improved varieties are sold. Some traders sell about 200kg of fresh tubers, and 500kg of dried chips/flour. Consumers include wholesalers, retailers and individuals, with most traders citing an upward business trend. Most of the traders sell their own cassava products in Siakago and Kiritiri markets. Sourcing difficulties include transportation and high product perishability are key concerns. Costs are mainly incurred on transportation, purchase of the produce and labour for both loading and unloading. The maximum buying price for raw cassava in the market is US$0.72 per kilogram and US$0.15 per piece and 1.72 per kilogram of cassava flour and prices vary by about 50% between seasons.

5.3.3.5 Zone 0 Key markets for Busia producers include Iganga, Ganga, Nyadorera, Bunyala, Siaya, and Usonga with cassava chips being commonly sold at US$0.22-0.29 per 2kg tin. Fresh tubers sell at US$0.29 per 3-4 tubers. There are no collection centers. About 50% of the cassava produced in Teso goes to the market. The main markets are Kocholia, Bungoma and Uganda. The mostly traded cassava form chips sold at US$0.29-0.43 per 2kg tin. Some sell fresh tubers at US$0.15 for every 3-4 pieces. Kuria producers sell their produce at the local market with prices ranging from US$0.15-0.5 per 2 kg for cassava chips. Some of the markets in the region include Migori, Kehancha and Masaba. The average selling price of a 2kg tin of fresh tubers is US$0.28. Traders in Kuria source cassava from Uganda at US$0.29 per heap (2kg) and US$14.3 per bag for tubers and chips respectively. Fresh tubers are sold at US$0.3 and chips at US$0.39 a heap (2kg). Supply is highest during the rainy season and lowest during the dry season. Cassava trading is however not active in the region especially for fresh tubers and cassava flour. (Refer annex 34) Table 9 Margins and profitability summary (Amount in US$)

Uganda Kenya


Fresh tubers

Fresh tubers

Zone Farm gate Markets (retail)

gross margin Zone

Farm gate Markets (retail) gross margin

Uganda Uganda Kenya Kenya

1 0.06 0.11 0.05 1 0.12 0.2 0.08

3 0.06 0.11 0.05 3 0.07 0.21 0.14

Averages 0.06 0.11 0.05 Averages 0.1 0.21 0.11

x 0.15 x 0.4 Dried Chips

Dried Chips

Zone Farm gate Markets (retail)

gross margin Zone



1 0.09 0.12 0.03 1 0.17 0.21 0.04

3 0.09 0.14 0.05 3 0.13 0.17 0.04


Flour Flour

Zone processors' Markets (retail)

gross margin Zone



1 0.2 0.26 0.06 1 0.29 0.4 0.11

3 0.17 0.21 0.04 3 0.25 0.32 0.07


x 0.3 x 0.83 Source: Farm Concern International, 2007

5.3.4 Marketing Constraint Marketing challenges evolved from one zone to another and priorities determined by levels of commercialization or subsistent however, lack of access to markets, low profitability, high operational cost and lack of storage facilities were rated high as challenges inhibiting an cassava farming as an enterprise.

5.3.4.1 Zone X Low quality resulting from poor processing skills is a major constraint to most traders highlighting enormous losses from poor quality. This is followed by low consumer awareness and poor image for cassava leading to low demand, seasonality leading to price fluctuation, scarcity and high buying prices. Lack of deepened financial services for rural farming communities and agricultural value chains drastically reduces access to financial services by farmers and value chains players. Other challenges reducing cassava-based agro-enterprises included lack of consumer awareness, poor storage facilities, low profits, high selling prices and price fluctuations are some of the main hindrances cited by the traders in both Pakwach and Nebbi markets.

5.3.4.2 Zone 3 The main marketing challenges faced by Bukedea farmers are lack of storage facilities, market outlets, transport, poor prices, poor roads, lack of chippers, and processing technologies. Farmers are not organised into commercial groups since most private sector players have not sourced from farmer groups. Most of the Bukedea traders in the market cited poor access to market as the main challenge hindering their efforts to realize business objectives, followed by low consumer awareness, then poor storage facilities, little profits and high transportation costs. Improved access to finances and processing technologies by the traders in addition to improved market linkages for the products should enhance the businesses. Cassava availability was is a concern only during the dry season. In Masindi, lack of customers is the main constraint. Other challenges include high harvesting costs, high market taxes, high tuber and perishability and fluctuating products prices. There is need to identify more markets and establish more market linkages. More awareness also needs to be created among the potential buyers in addition to provision of storage facilities and improvement in cassava chips’ drying technologies. Lack of market awareness is a major business challenge to most traders in Kenya. Harassment by police and high transportation costs are some of the main challenges faced by the traders. 100% of the traders suggested links with supermarkets and other bulk outlets and creation of awareness, 30% suggested businesses licensing, a few promotion of local and foreign tourism as well as education on the nutritional value of cassava will sales. Marketing in Kwale market is challenged by low market prices, seasonality of the produce, poor infrastructure, unstable/undeveloped markets, inadequate yields to meet the market demand and poor capacity on value


addition. In Kilifi the main challenges faced by the traders include lack of storage facilities, poor selling, poor prices, transport problems and seasonal supply of cassava

5.3.4.3 Zone 2 In Uganda main marketing challenges are lacks of markets and lack of processing equipments, then lack of storage facilities and low profits. Storage challenges can be reduced through use of pesticides on cassava. Value addition, customer awareness creation and improved infrastructure will go a long way in increasing sales. 50% of the intermediaries produce cassava for sale while the rest is sourced from brokers and local markets. The main cassava source regions are Adorao, Abutaber and Kyegene traders using bicycles for transportation. Respondent in Malindi traders indicated to face the following challenges; are lack of storage facilities, lack good transport, poor prices, lack of harvesting implements and poor markets. Transportation Most cassava crisps makers lack premises and were selling along the roadsides which they viewed as strategic for customer attraction and convenience. Other challenges are poor prices, poor demand and lack of value addition technologies

5.3.4.4 Zone 1 The main trading challenges in Migori include lack of access to credit services, less produce during the dry season, lack of markets and poor prices. On the other hand the challenges faced by Migori producers in products marketing include unstable/undeveloped markets, poor prices and poor access to far market outlets. There is need to support producers by availing high quality and drought resistant varieties which should help check supply consistency. Marketing of cassava products and hence production in Mbeere is challenged by poor prices, low profits, low awareness of market outlets, high perishability, and lack of processing technologies, lack of transport and lack of good storage facilities. There is need for increased consumer awareness and financial support to traders. There is also need for improved access to processing services and better storage facilities. The survey in Uganda also revealed that; Low profits are the main challenge to most traders and other challenges include lack of reliable markets, high market taxes and high buying prices. Decline in sales is attributed to the shift of major Kampala traders to other regions like Masindi. There is need to create linkages with major buying markets like Kampala in addition to creating more awareness on cassava products to trigger an increased consumption and thus increased demand.

5.3.4.5 Zone 0 Households in the Kuria mainly utilize cassava in porridge and Ugali preparation. Lack of markets and poor prices are the main marketing challenges. Other challenges include poor transportation means, lack of appropriate processing technologies and lack of bulking points. Cassava is the staple food for most households (70%). Other main food crops are sweet potatoes, millet and sorghum. The main marketing challenges faced by Busia producers include low prices, long distance to the markets, lack of market information and lack of markets. Marketing constraints for Teso producers include low demand, unstable and unreliable markets and low prices.


Table 10 Marketing Constraints summary in Kenya Zone 0 � Poor demand

� Low prices � High transport costs � Poor storage facilities

Zone 1 � Poor demand � Lack of credit facilities � Seasonal supply

Zone 2 � Poor demand � Low prices � high transport costs � Poor storage facilities

Zone 3 � Lack of market information � Harassment by city council police � High transport costs � Lack of storage facilities � Seasonal supply

Source: Farm Concern International, 2007 Table 11 Marketing Constraints summary and Opportunities in Uganda


zone challenges Opportunities

Zone 0 � Poor markets � Poor storage facilities � Low profitability

� Can sustain itself with little rains � Recovers with rains � Minimal risks � Easily stored � remain in the field � Chips and flour can stay for some time

Zone 1 � Low profits � Lack of reliable markets � High market taxes

� Kampala market available if capacity of the value chain players is built up.

� Cassava products diversification Zone 2 � Lack customer

� Lack of storage facilities � Low profitability

� Availability of cassava products and potential for more produce from farmers.

�

Zone 3 � High cost of transportation � Lack of markets � Low consumer

awareness/demand � Lack of storage facilities � Low profits � High market taxes � Fluctuating prices

� Availability of cassava products and potential for more produce from farmers


Figure 7 Marketing challenges in Uganda Source: Farm Concern International, 2007 Figure 8 Marketing challenges in Kenya Source: Farm Concern International, 2007

Marketing Challenges in Kenya

0.81.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7

2.53.4

5.1 5.1

6.87.6

13.614.4

23.7

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Marketing Challenges Uganda

1.01.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

2.93.9

8.7

11.7 11.712.6

16.5

23.3

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Harv

estin

g

challe

nges

Hig

h tra

nsport

costs

Hig

h

com

petit

ion

Inadequate

supplie

s

Spoila

ge

Lack o

f

capita

l

Poor

qualit

y

Poor

selling

prices

Lack o

f

mark

et

Lack o

f

sto

rage

Hig

h

opera

tions

costs

Lack o

f

consum

er

aw

are

ness

Low

pro

fits

Perc

en

tag

e


5.4 Partnership

5.4.1 Partnership framework 5.4.1.1 Kenya

A.E.P (Agricultural and Environmental Programmes (Catholic Diocese of Homabay)) has been assisting farmers by availing new varieties are disease resistant, early maturing and have low cyanide levels .They source the following varieties MM 965280, MM 964496, 95/0783 and Mygera from KARI and multiplying them with selected groups in the region. The introduced improved varieties have also high returns, yielding averagely 18 and 50 T/Ha. Bulking within groups is ongoing within the C3P (Crop Crisis Programme) funded by the CRS and implemented by A.E.P, KARI AND RESSO. In Kwale the MOA works jointly with KARI Mtwapa and the University of Nairobi to promote the cultivation of improved varieties for food security and commercialization. Over 22,000 cuttings have been disbursed to farmers in a pilot programme aimed at introducing the farmers to the improved varieties which are resistant to diseases and are better yielding according to a KARI respondent. In Migori the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) and Agricultural and Environmental Program (AEP), a project under the Catholic Diocese of Homa Bay are supporting the producers through technical support. In Busia REFSO in collaboration with AEP and CRS distribute new varieties in Busia, Teso and South Nyanza.

5.4.1.2 Uganda Nakasongola NADIFA -funded by Farm Africa, is supporting farmers through:

• Improved cassava varieties planting materials through multiplication, • Production technology • Post harvest handling Save the children support farmers through Promoting AKENA and 2969 cassava varieties. They distribute planting cuttings to farmers at no cost and give technical support in farming The government - Supporting farmers with planting materials for AKENA and 2969 cassava varieties by multiplying and supplying the two varieties to farmers, providing technical assistance, monitoring the projects, check conformity by other players to government policies and guarding against conflicting information. Apac Some of the development stakeholders working closely with cassava farmers in the area are; ADAN, IITA, Faith based organisations, ASIDI and VEDCO. VEDCO works closely with NARO, NARI and KAWADA on research. These organisation support farmers through: • Technical assistant • access to improved cassava varieties • Farming skills and processing technologies Lira Ngeta research institution has been working closely with ADAN and cassava farmers in Apac through transferring of processing technologies. 5.5 Consumption

5.5.1 Form consumed 5.5.1.1 Zone 3, 2 and 1

In Uganda cassava is consumed either as root or after processing in flour. Cassava is consumed by most members in the households with the majority preferring either cooked tubers the forms of preparation for root tubers include frying and roasting. Ugali (solid porridge) is the other form of utilization or making cassava porridge. Most of the consumers however generally preferred Ugali of cassava flour mixed with millet or sorghum; preference is also on taste basis. The consumers suggested need for diversified, value added cassava food products. In Kenya cassava is consumed in various forms including crisps, fried, boiled and roasted, while in Kilifi it is consumed in different forms as food or as refreshment either boiled tubers or crisps. Crisps are the most preferred form of utilization in this region.

5.5.2 Consumption Trends and Behaviour 5.5.2.1 Zone 3

In Kwale Cassava is consumed in various forms including crisps, fried, boiled and roasted and most consumers buy cassava from the local markets and know it as a food crop, using it for its nutritious value and as refreshment. 20% of those interviewed consume cassava products rarely(less than once monthly), 40% once every week and r 40% more than once every week. Consumers buy products mainly from the open markets, farms, kiosks and hawkers and majority don’t know the farm source of the cassava. Purchasing decisions are mainly on the basis of prices, hygiene, taste and freshness with packaging and origin being while consumption preference is mainly based on taste and easiness of preparation.


Consumers in Kilifi district consume cassava in different forms as food or as refreshment either boiled tubers or crisps being the most consumed forms. The respondents consume cassava because of its good taste. More than half of the respondents buy cassava mainly on the basis of colour, appearance of freshness, taste, hygiene, wholesomeness, price and nutritional content. Other important criteria include packaging, origin and point of sale. Cassava is a staple food crop in Bukedea and the main source of energy in many diets. It is also used as pig feed and in local brewing. Consumers buy from farmers at farm gates or at Bukedea market. The most preferred varieties are Nigeria and Oxfam since they have good taste and are highly available. About 40% of the consumers interviewed, use cassava products atleast 5 times in a week and another 40% uses cassava at least once daily. Most of the consumers make purchase decisions mainly on the basis of the product prices and form of preparation with 100% considering both factors as most important. The colour of cassava product was important to 60% of the people interviewed, freshness important to 80%, taste to 80%, packaging to 20%, nutrition to 80%, origin to 20%, point of sale to 20% , and hygiene to 80% . Most of consumers in Masindi know and consume cassava products as they are relatively cheap, sweet, and nutritious and energy giving. About 33% of the respondents use cassava daily, 55% once per week, 11% rarely and Over 60% of the consumers have no knowledge of the source of cassava products which is bought mainly from the open market. Some of the product sources are; Masindi, kihagunzi and kisalizi. Nyaraboke is the most popular variety. Other varieties include; Bao, Bukalasa, Kidimo, Tongole and Diima according to the consumers interviewed. Buying is mainly influenced by factors such as; the product colour, appearance and taste. Of average importance is product pricing, nutritional content and hygiene. Product packaging, origin and point of origin are of least importance to over 80% of the consumers.

5.5.2.2 Zone 2 Buying decision and utilization Among those interviewed in Malindi, price, hygiene, taste and appearance are important factors influencing cassava buying. Taste being the most influential factor in making the buying decision explains why most consumers prefer the local varieties to the improved ones. Colour is important to 57%, nutrition to 43% while packaging and origin are of least importance (14% each). 57% of the consumers interviewed use cassava products 2-4 times weekly preferably as boiled tubers and crisps, 14% once every week with 29% using it daily. Campaign awareness and training on utilisation methods should help boost cassava consumption. Fresh cassava is mostly sourced from the farm or the open markets and cassava products like crisps are bought from kiosks and open markets. About 86% of the consumers know the product sources which include; Marekebuni, Msabaha, Gede, Galana and Malindi. Most of the consumers interviewed purchase raw cassava from these farms. The cassava flour market segment is undeveloped and most consumers make cassava flour as a last resort and solely for home consumption when there is surplus from the market or cannot be utilized at home within a short period. There is need to improve on branding of the products. In Apac there are various reason as to why consumers utilize cassava and the survey indicate that,40% of them consume cassava products because it is a staple food, 20% consume cassava because it is energy giving food and satisfying while an equal 10% consume it because;it’s rich in starch and cheap. Being a staple food in the region 86% consume it daily, while 14% consume it on weekly basis. Information gathered reveals that 44% of the respondents consume boiled cassava as breakfast since sweet and easy to prepare, 25% as ugali, 19% as roasted and 13%, prefer fried cassava. Common types of cassava known by consumer include; Oyokwa and Bao. Boiled cassava is eaten with beans or vegetable stew which makes it preferred for lunch or dinner by most of the households. Cassava crisps though not commonly consumed are a delicious snack. Hotels in Apac Central and Apac town purchase cassava flour and tubers in the open markets of Chegere, Akokoro and Sawenye. 50% of individual consumers purchase from farms, 33% from open markets and 17% from hotels. Individual consumers who source from the farms either produce cassava or purchase from the neighbours within the regions. There are no major periodic price variations for any of the cassava products according to the consumers, with only 20% of the respondents showing concern over limited variations. Key attributes influencing purchase decisions are appearance of freshness by 86%, taste 86% and nutrition value 71%. Origin, colour, hygiene, point of sale are not considered important attributes. Polythene paper bags are the commonly used for packaging cassava.

5.5.2.3 Zone 1 In Migori Cassava consumption is mainly on the basis of its being a staple food and is found on the table of many at least in one meal and a small percentage, 30% consume it due to its high source of energy. It is consumed in its boiled form, as Ugali, porridge, fried or chips. Cassava is readily available in the region and 20% use because it is available. Cassava ugali and porridge are most preferred because of they are soft and sweet taste. However in


Mbeere most of the consumers interviewed make purchase decisions mainly on the basis of the product taste and nutritional content with about 80% of them considering both factors most important. Of fairly important consideration also is product appearance and pricing. Packaging and product origin are of least importance to most consumers. Cassava is taken in different forms with consumers preferring boiled cassava served with tea. About 33% of the respondents in Lira use cassava products daily, 50% one to three times a month and about 17% once every week since childhood. The most popular variety is Nyaraboke and others are Derodero, Okulukulu, Bao and Ogwok. Cassava is in lira is consumed in different forms; boiled, fried, roasted, Ugali and crisps. It is also utilised as paint and glue in some regions. The most popular form however is cooked tubers preferred by 100% of the respondents for the affordability, ease of preparation and the good taste. Buying decisions are mainly on the basis of taste, price, and appearance of freshness, hygiene, and colour. Other factors like origin of the product, point of sale and packaging is of least importance to most of them. The places of purchase are from the producers at farm gate or market places. The prices of the fresh cassava and cassava products vary from one trader to another depending on place of purchase and volumes bought at a time. Only 50% of the consumers interviewed knew the farm sources of the cassava products which include; Alowi, Amach, Aliot and Abole.

5.5.2.4 Zone 0 The main factors influencing purchasing decisions in Busia are; Product appearance, taste, and hygiene with 60% of the respondents considering them very important, while in Kuria it is price, taste and appearance. Pricing, nutritional content and product colour are important to 40% of the respondents. Of least importance to most consumers is packaging and product origin. In Kuria cassava is purchased from local markets and consumed in various forms and reasons for consumption are mainly because it’s a staple food and a source of energy. Most of those interviewed use cassava products daily since it is highly available and traditionally known to be good food. Colour is important to 57% of those interviewed, nutrition to 43% while packaging and origin are of least importance each important to only 14%. Taste being the most influential factor explains why most consumers prefer the local varieties to the improved ones. In Nakasongola Cassava is known as a nutritious staple food and consumed mostly by adults at least twice every week with 40% reporting daily usage. Consumption is in different forms including boiled, roasted and Ugali but all of those interviewed preferred cooked tubers due to its good taste, while other reasons include its availability and affordability. About 60% of the consumers know the different cassava types available in the market which are Tereka, Nadifa, Nassa, Para and Namata among others. About 80% of the consumers interviewed buy the product from the local town market; some of the sources known by the consumers include Saasira, Nabyetereka and Wambaale farm sources. Most of the consumers make purchase decisions mainly on the basis of the product taste, nutrition and appearance of freshness. 60% of respondent indicated that pricing, hygiene and product colour as key factors while 20% consider Point of sale and origin of product.

5.5.2.5 Zone X- In Nairobi Utilization approaches for the cassava roots and flour varied from boiled form, roasted, fried or stewed form. 85% preferred cooked tubers and crisps with 15% preferring cassava porridge and Ugali. Informal markets role in cassava supply chains is underscored by the 53% of the interviewed consumers purchasing cassava products from open markets (Wakulima, Gikomba and Ngara), 12% from groceries in the estates and 35% at farm gate.


5.6 Business Development Services (BDS) 5.6.1 Zone X

In Kampala transport for traders and farmers are sourced with no major terms or conditions while embedded support service to customers are limited. Transportation businesses are characterised by sole ownership and none of the transporters interviewed had access to credit services due to either lack of information, collateral requirements, high interest rates or procedures involved. Peak transportation season commences from May to October with some traders offering services for an average of 41 tonnes worth of business during high season and 22 tonnes during the low season time, a 50% seasonal variation. Lack of business partnership between transport providers and value chain players reducing business consistency and eventually slows business growth. In Mbale efficiency of transport systems affects cassava transactions due to heavily reliance on conventional means of transport as a result of its bulky nature. Long distance transport services characterizes the market-based transportation services mainly to target markets like juba in Sudan (1,500 km), Nairobi in Kenya, Arua in Northern Uganda and Kampala. Other areas of operation include Karamoja and the eastern regions of the country. Capacity of common facilities used range from 5 tonnes to 10 tonnes of farm produce with July to December being peak seasons for most transporters. Farm Inputs Suppliers: Input supply systems and value chains based on cassava are weak however. However cassava farmers benefit from a wide range of agricultural farm inputs value chains. Common farm implements include pangas, hoes, manual sprays, ox ploughs, slashers, rakes and axes. Most farm inputs suppliers sell on cash terms while farmers are predominantly concerned with prices, quality and transportability of the inputs.

5.6.2 Zone 3 5.6.2.1 BDS at farm level

Bukedea Planting materials Farmers source improved planting materials from NAADS, IITA, and NARO freely and also from neighbours at an average cost of Ush.1, 200 per bag. Local varieties are sourced from both own farm or neighbours free of charge. Transportation: The main type of transportation in this region is own or hired bicycles. The average price paid per bag is 2,500 shillings; farmers also hire brokers to source for market especially when the supply is high. Milling: For household consumption milling of dried chips is done at local trading centre at Ush 40 per kg .The millers are operated by private individual investor and they are locally available. Chipping is done using group chippers by individuals or hired labour is either per hour (500), basin of 18kg,(200) and 100 per kg or 350 shillings per bag. Access to finances services: Over 86% of farmers interviewed indicated that they were in groups to acquire knowledge, access better markets and planting materials. Saving mechanism are weak with approximately 28.6 % of the farmers saving as group and 23.8% as individuals. About 52.4 % of the farmers’ access financial facilities from various lending institutions which are Co-operative, Micro Finance institutions, and Commercial banks. Generally, the credit is not directed to cassava production due to lack of commercialization and stable markets which can lead to challenges in repayment. Masindi Transportation: Transport is readily available with producers using their own bicycles or tractors. Brokers uses hired tractor to ferry cassava from farms to the highway, where traders from Kampala do bulking and use tracks to transport them to Kampala markets Transport Table 12 Cassava Transportation in Masindi

Source: Farm Concern International, 2007 The main means of farm produce transportation used by farmers in this region are bicycles. However this is usually small quantities averagely 90-100 kg per time of fresh cassava and chips. No collective action on transport

Fresh cassava tubers

transported using hired

tractors to the road side

Dried chips transported to

the local millers or local

trading centre using

bicycles.

Bulking point on

the highway side

where traders from

Kampala do

bulking

Traders transport using

tracks


was observed during the time of survey although some farmers were bulking chips at the trading centres or hired stores. Planting Materials: Majority of farmers plant local varieties sourced from own farms or neighbours. Flour processing has not been commercialized with majority farmers obtaining milling services from local millers for household consumption. Chipping is done using knives. This is labour intensive. There is need for better technologies including driers and chippers. Support services such as Milling and packaging are also available locally at a cost of Ush 100 per kg and Ush 800 per bag respectively. Drying and chipping is done at no cost. Sun Drying is done posing challenges during rainy season and compromising on the quality of chips. (Refer to Annex 11) Access to money lending facilities: 52.4% of farmers interviewed indicated access to financial credit from relatives, co-operatives and MFI through groups. There is also a lot of effort on savings undertaken by many farmers in self help groups both as individuals and as groups. Kwale Transportation: Most of the transporters handle farm produce and operate all over the coastal region especially Mombasa, Wundanyi and the Lamu island. Trucks and pickups with capacity of 3 to 1 ton respectively are the main means of transport used and operate within a radius of 100 and 250km. Access to financial support by transporters is challenged by factors such as lack of guarantors, non-membership to associations as well as lack of interest by financiers. Transport business booms in rainy season when farm produce is plenty. In low seasons business drops by about 50% while charges reduce by 20%. Charges are determined on the basis of distances covered, nature of the products, weight of products and loading requirements. The charges vary between Ksh 300-400 per km. The main business costs are; fuel, oil, maintenance, loaders wages and taxes and market information is mainly sourced from customers. Access to financial services: In Kwale a good number of financial institutions have penetrated with 86.2% of the respondents indicating access to money lending institutions most being Micro finance Institutions. Only 6.7% of the respondents were not saving but only 3.3% were operating accounts. Aga Khan Foundation is a key financier for farmers. Those not accessing loans are limited by factors such as inability to meet the high interest rates, lack of knowledge of the sources and application procedures. Groups are well established in this area as 89.7% of the respondents are in commercial groups, some farmers being in three groups. Some of the benefits received by the groups include funding, access to better markets and trainings. Kilifi Farm inputs retailers: Farm input suppliers in Kilifi are not specifically specialised in selling farm implements. Lack of varieties on farm implements is due to limited demand for farm inputs including farm machinery and fertilizers. The suppliers target mainly individual farmers who make the bulk of the farming communities in Kilifi. Customers making purchases are more specific on the manufacturers, then the price of the product and pay cash; there is also no after sale services offered. All the suppliers in Kilifi source their products from wholesalers in Mombasa and stocking is done fortnightly. Payment is made on collection of the goods and use hired transport. There are no equipment fabricators in Kilifi. Demand for equipments is low during the months of December and January and peak between March and June. The main expenses incurred are rent, electricity bills and council levies. Banking services: Banking services are available to the suppliers and cassava traders but expensive according to most respondents. Market information access: traders get market information from fellow traders, customers and others in the market place. BDS for Processors The main business development services required by the processors are transportation and packaging materials. These services are locally available and accessible. Competition in the market for cassava products is not stiff with some of the respondents processing below the market demand. There is need to empower farmers to ensure a sustained supply to the processors. There is also need to identify more markets and create more consumer awareness for the cassava products.

5.6.2.2 BDS at Market level Bukedea

Transportation: Transporters in Bukedea use either pickups or bicycles and most solely own and run the businesses. A pickup can carry at most 2.5 tonnes of either fresh or dried cassava where as a bicycle can carry 100kg of dried chips at a time. The transporters mainly transport farm produce in either dried or raw form at a greed prices which determined on the basis of the distances involved though negotiable. Transportation business in Bukedea is highest between the months of June and September with the pick-up transporters handling about ten tonnes daily. It is lowest between October and May when three and four tonnes are handled daily.


The transporters interviewed in Bukedea source market information from other transporters and clients and have no access to financial services either due to lack of interest and knowledge or due to the high costs of borrowing and the nature of their businesses. Masindi Transportation: Flour in Masindi is normally transported on bicycles from the sellers most of whom are millers and for fresh tubers traders use Lorries, tractors and pick ups alongside bicycles. Transporters in the market operate widely to areas like Kampala and Juba in Sudan and main vessels used include trucks and Lorries commonly used by farm produce trader with capacities of over 8 tonnes. No major supportive services are offered by the transporters to farmers or traders and pricing is based on weight and distances involved.. Peak transport season is between June and December and low season between January and May with some transporters handling about 40 tonnes in a month during the peak season and only 20 tonnes during the low season. The main challenges faced include less business during the low season period, poor roads and fluctuating fuel prices. The transporters have no access to financial services either due to lack of knowledge or information about the service and also institutions’ bureaucracy.


Apac Farmers source their cuttings from their own farms or institutions such as NARO and IITA at no cost. Support service such as chipping and drying are free of charge and available to farmers from IITA. Chipping & milling; due to lack of chippers, farmers use knives a process which is labour intensive, time consuming and contributing to poor quality chips. Milling services are offered by local millers at a cost of Ush 50 a kilo, which is for home consumption at local millers. Transport services: Both farmers and traders handling small quantities transport cassava to local trading centres use bicycles, at a cost of Ush 800 per sack. Lack of commercialization of farm produces and collective marketing have led to lack of well established transporters in the district. Collection centres: There is no collective purchasing or selling hence no collection centres established in this region and farmers sell either at farm gate or at the local trading centres. Access to financial services by smallholder farmers and farming communities is challenged particularly by the existing structures of micro credit, which requires weekly payments and savings; fairly unfavourable terms for seasonal incomes earners, in these district cassava farmers have no access to financial services directed to cassava farming. From the farmers interviewed 87.5 % have no access to finance while 96.6 have not taken credit for the last one year, due to; high interest and lack of security , lack of market for their produces hence not able to repay, and lack of knowledge of sources and credit application procedures. Saving mechanisms are not in place and a few farmers save as individuals rather than as a group.

5.6.3.2 BDS at market level Apac Transportation: Transporters in the region operate solely handling a wide range of products such as cassava, maize, beans and Simsim and pickups of 2-3 tonnes in capacity are the mainly used means of transport. They operate within Apac town, Soroti and Amurata. The main challenge faced by transporters is poor access to financial services, poor infrastructure, and rising fuel prices. Peak season is between August-December and low season between January-July. Major expenses include taxes, fuel, brokerage fee and maintenance. Farm inputs suppliers: Most of farm input suppliers are hardware shop owners mainly stocking farm implements which include hoes, axes, slashers, chippers, rakes, pangas and wheelbarrows. The main factors considered in purchasing are product quality, durability, mobility and price. The inputs suppliers make unit gross profits ranging from 500 (slashers, pangas) to 10, 000 from the sale of a wheelbarrow (Refer annex 15). The traders are sourced from Kampala and paid cash on collection from the wholesalers and stock on demand. Sometimes the wholesalers offer transportation but in most cases the traders use their own or hired means of transportation. Demand for the farm inputs is highest in January and December, the rainy season, and lowest during the dry season. Most of the farm inputs traders incur costs mainly in salaries with some spending about 500,000 Uganda shillings per month. The other main expenses include electricity and rent with traders spending about 250,000 shillings on each. Other costs include taxes and transportation. The traders cited high operating costs and suggested reduction in taxes. Access to BDS Providers by farm inputs suppliers: The main supportive services required by the farm input suppliers are transportation and packaging which are highly priced and not always available. Malindi Transportation: Transporters in Malindi are sole proprietors handling general goods, operating between Malindi and Kaloleni. The common mode of transport is pickups offering services to farmers and traders. Sourcing of financial services is hampered by high interest rates. Peak season for transport business was between March and August. Charges for the services vary with distance and quantities involved. The major business expenses incurred include maintenance, license fee and fuel cost.


Access to Finances and Savings: 90% of farmers not accessing money lending facilities with the remaining 10% accessing finances mainly from microfinance institutions. The nearest savings and credit institutions to the producers are a bank and micro finance institution about 16km away. Only 30% of respondents were saving either as individuals or in a group through post bank. A few of the respondents have accessed loan in the past one year and this was with the Kenya Women Finance Trust. High cost of interest charged by the institutions, lack of security or guarantors and lack of knowledge by the procedures are some reasons hindering access of finances.


Lira Figure 9 BDS Mapping Lira District

Source: Farm Concern International, 2007 Farm-level business development services account 10 % of the value of a bag and market-based business development services account for approximately 22.5 % of the value of a bag transacted through the value chain. Farm-level business development services include harvesting, gathering, sorting, grading, packaging and transportation. There is no collective bulking of cassava in this region since cassava is not commercialized hence no collection centres. Planting materials supply: Planting materials are mainly sourced from own farm, neighbours or NAADS and no challenges indicated in accessing the planting materials Milling and chipping; Milling is mainly done for household consumption farmers since farmers have not commercialized flour at Local millers are available and milling services accessible at Ush. 60- 100 per kilo. Farmers mainly use knives to chip cassava, and sun dry since there are no drying facilities this affects chips’ quality especially due to poor handling. Transportation Flow diagram 1 means of transportation used in Lira Markets

Loading bags on to Tracks

Transportation to Lira market

Offloading

Market cess Lira market retail price: 300/1.5kg Apprx. 16,000/80

BDS along the chain: Farm to market

Harvesting & Gathering of Roots: Own Labour.

Sorting, Grading and Packing done together: Own Labour

Transportation: Farm to Collection Centre: Bicycle or Donkey Carts used.

Level 1: Farmer harvests, Packs & sells at Local trading Centre

Cost of production is estimated at: Ush.3, 500 /bag

Producers cost/bag Packaging materials= Ush.800 Labour= free (own) Transport =own bicycle Total = Ush. 4,300 Selling price at farm

gate= 7,000.selling price at trading centre= 8,000 or 10,000 per bag

Bicycle/Trucks/ Pickups are used from the road/ collection centre to Lira (informal

Retail market)

Hand Pulled carts carry from the wholesale point within to retail points

Own Bicycle/ Household Labour used for transport to the nearest main road or local trading centre

No cost / Bag 1000 per Bag Tshs.500 Bag

Level 2: Price

graduation.

Farmers harvest and

transport to Lira

municipal market



Access to finance facilities: A financial institution in Lira that supports agriculture has not extended the services to farmer’s interviewed and the Credit facility available for agriculture is only with Centenary Bank though not benefiting cassava producers as it is classified as a low value crop. Other reasons why farmers do not access credit facilities are; to lack of knowledge of sources and credit application procedures. Farmer Groups & savings mechanism: Majority of farmers in this district are grouped in social groups, the groups helping them access planting materials and technical assistance from other organisations and players. Farmers do not have group saving mechanisms as most groups are formed for social purposes. 46.9% of cassava farmers have no savings either as a group or as individuals with only 34.4% of the sample size saving as individual although not consistently. Migori Planting materials: Over 90% of the producers source the planting materials from their own farms at no cost and availability is sufficient and satisfactory. The few buying access them from the local market at a cost of Kshs 120 per 80 cuttings (bag) and they are readily available. Transportation; The main mean of transportation in this region is bicycles either owned by farmers or hired at a fee of Kshs 20-50 per bag. Grading and milling: Though grading is not so common with the producers within the district, a few do it on their own. Local millers offer milling services to the producers for prices ranging from Kshs 5 to Kshs 7 per 2kg tin but about 20% of the producers were not milling. Hired packaging labour costs Kshs 30 per bag but most used their own labour for this. Sacks, commonly used, for storing cassava products, are sufficiently available in the local markets for prices ranging from Kshs 30-50. Financial services: None of the cassava producers has good access to financial services, although KADET Kenya offers loans only offer their credit services to commercialised farmers like dairy and poultry. They have a special package called “Mkopo shambani” for crop farmers but not in Migori because farming in this region is not commercialized

5.6.4.2 BDS at market level Transporters in Lira handle different forms of products, some of them operating within the district, others within the municipality and others country wide. Their target customers are farm produce business people and farmers. Most of the transporters have no access to financial service either due to difficulties in servicing them or difficulties in getting them. The peak business season for the transporters is between August and March, and in November when a pickup can handle an average of 30 tonnes per month. Business is lowest during the other months when the same facility can handle only 1.5 tonnes, a 95% decline. Charges for farm produce range from 10,000 within town to about 400,000 shillings to Kampala.

5.6.5 Zone 0 5.6.5.1 BDS mapping at farm level

Nakasongola Planting materials supply: Cassava producers in the region source their cuttings from their own farms or NADIFA at an average cost of Ush 4,000 per bag and the materials are highly available. Other organisations like Save the Children also give planting materials from improved varieties free to marginalized farmers in the district. Transport: Transport is readily available because majority of the farmers own bicycles. They transport from farm to local trading centres, processing plant, or Nakasongola market. The product mainly transported is fresh tubers and a few transport dried chips. The main challenges in this are; poor roads those are inaccessible during rainy season and long distances from farms to markets or main roads. Milling & chipping: Milling is highly available at a cost of Ush 100 per kg at the local trading centre and it is usually done on small quantities of chips for household consumption. Chipping is done by farmers using knives or at collection centres by chippers. The main chipping drawback at farm gate is the long time taken to chip a given quantity per time. Access to financial services: Most farmers are in groups most of which are social but the groups help them access markets, access planting materials from NADIFA and other NGO’s and acquire knowledge through trainings from extension officers. Services like saving and loan borrowing are not well implemented by farmers in this region due to; • The region is relatively dry and crop production is low • Low household income • Lack of investment by finance institutions i.e. the nearest finance institutions are banks located in Luwero

distance of 15-20 km.


The 93% of the sampled population have no access to loan due to high interest rates, lack of credit institutions and lack of knowledge on credit application and procedures. Collection centres: ACAPROMA and Tcharizi are the main collection centres in the district. These collection centres are also processing plants and are run by farmers who form membership. ACAPROMA does both chipping and flour processing of flour while in Tcharizi only chipping is done due to lack of electricity. Both members and non member farmers sell either on cash or credit at this collection point. The farmers deliver fresh root tubers which are peeled at the processing plant by hired people or farmers and are paid on the basis of weight - Ush 20 per kg. Busia Planting Materials: Most of the producers were sourcing planting materials from their own farms and neighbours for free however those buying the cuttings do so for Ksh 200-400 per bag. In both instances, the materials are readily available. Milling: There are local millers who mainly handle maize and farmers access the milling services at a cost of Ksh 5 per 2kg tin and the services are readily available. There is very minimal milling on cassava since cassava is consumed as tubers through boiling. Finances and Savings: Access to financial services in the area is limited and none of the respondents interviewed have accessed credit for the last one year. Access to loans is limited due to; lack of credit institutions, security/ guarantor and knowledge of the source and the application procedures. The nearest financial institutions are commercial banks and a micro financial institution in Funyula. 50% of the respondents interviewed have no savings, 20% of them save as individuals, 20% as groups and 10% both. On the other hand only 10% of the groups operate bank accounts Transportation services In Busia processors are readily available to the processors but have no access to financial services said to be a major constraint limiting expansion of the enterprise. Packaging materials are also available at an affordable cost. Teso Planting Material: Most of the farmers source their planting materials from their own farms and neighbours. Those buying the cuttings did so locally for Ksh 200-300 per bag. Transportation, Grading and Packaging: Transportation is readily available in form of bicycles. Grading work is done by the producers at no cost in which case family labour is used. Sacks used for packaging are sourced from local markets at a cost of Ksh 30-40 per unit and are readily available. Milling is done at the local millers at a cost of Ksh 3-5 per 2kg tin and the services are readily available. Access to finances: During the time of survey none of the respondents had accessed financial services for the last one year and this was attributed to; High interest rates and lack of knowledge in the application procedures and long distances to financial institutions. Aslos the farmers have weak saving mechanisms and none of those interviewed was operating bank accounts.None of the respondents belonged to any form of group. The nearest financial institutions are in Amukura and Malaba about 6km away. Only 30% of the respondents were saving mainly as individuals. Kuria region access to technical assistance is available from the Ministry of Agriculture and bicycles are mainly used for transportation and most producers use their own means of transportation. Cassava brokerage is minimal in the region and farmers sell individually as there was no collection action observed during the survey. Packaging materials are available to producers in the region at a cost of Ksh 30-50 per bag/sack. Milling: Millers are readily available within the region and charge Ksh 5-6 per kg of flour. Chipping services are readily and locally available at a cost of Ksh 6 per kg by use of manual chippers. Access to financial services: There is no good access to financial services by the producers. The nearest savings and credit institutions are cooperative societies, banks and Micro finance institutions. The institutions are about 30 km away. The long distances to financial institutions, lack of knowledge, and the high interest rates charged has affected farmers’ access to financial services with only 30% in individual saving. 50% of the respondents were in groups which have helped them acquire seeds much easily and at affordable rates, and they also received financial aid from various institutions courtesy the groups.

5.6.5.2 BDS at market level The transporters in Lira town operate within Lira, Gulu, Amulata, and Apac areas, mainly using pickups (3 tonnes capacity). Transportation charges depend on the weights involved and distances. Support services offered by the transporters are mainly credit facilities. Transportation expenses are mainly on fuel, taxes, brokerage fees and maintenance and the main transportation challenges faced in the business are high fuel prices, bad roads and poor access to finances alongside competition. Business is at peak between August and December with average business quantities of up to 10 tonnes while as low season is between January and June with average business quantities as low as 4tonnes.


5.7 Cost benefit analysis 5.7.1 Cost benefit analysis (Bukedea and Kwale)

Table 13 Cost benefit analysis (Bukedea and Kwale)

Production cost of cassava Bukedea – Uganda (Ushs)

Cost in USD Kwale – Kenya (Kshs)

Cost in USD

Production � Based on 1 acre; yields averagely 4

tonnes

4,000kg 4,000kg

Land (Owned) 0 0.000 0 0.000

Ploughing (1st & 2nd ) 40,000 22.857 3000 42.857

Planting material 7 bags 15,000 8.571 1625 23.214

Planting 12,000 6.857 2400 34.286

Gap filling and thinning 5,000 2.857 0 0.000

Weeding (4 times) 80,000 45.714 4000 57.143

Harvesting 100,000 57.143 4800 68.571

Total production cost per acre (12,000 kg) of fresh cassava

252,000 144.000 8800 125.714

Cost of production of a Kg of fresh cassava tubers

63 0.036 2.2 0.031

Average selling price per Kg of fresh tubers (estimate)

200 0.114 6 0.086

Gross margin 137 0.078 3.8 0.054

Mark up 217% 172%

Ratio of tuber to chips 3:01 3:01

Cost of producing fresh tubers required to make 1kg of chips (63 x 3)

189 0.108 6.6 0.094

Chipping expenses per kg (labour) 10 0.006 0.6 0.009

Total Cost of production of 1 kg chips (189+10)

199 0.114 7.2 0.103

Current selling price per kilo of chips 250 0.143 8 0.114

Gross margin 51 0.029 0.8 0.011

Mark up 26% 11%

Milling costs per kg 40 0.023 5 0.071

Total production of a kilo of flour(199+ 40)

239 0.137 12.2 0.174

Current selling price per kilo of flour 450 0.257 20 0.286

Gross margin 211 0.121 7.8 0.111

Mark up 88% 64% 0.009

Other cost -BDS averages;

Packaging material per kg of fresh tubers = 800/120kg bag

6.7 0.004 0.000

Packaging material per kg of dried chips = 800/100 bag

8 0.005 0.000

Transport to collection centres per Kg of flour/chips = 2000/100 kg bag

20 0.011 2 0.029

Source: Farm Concern, Focus Group Discussions (Bukedea & Kwale Districts), 2007 Notes;

� According to the analysis it is more profitable for cassava producers in both districts, to trade on cassava fresh tubers than cassava chips and flour.

� Selling cassava chips at the prevailing prices in both districts is still not profitable. This is probably why most farmers are not actively participating in the chips’ enterprise.

� Cassava flour can be more profitable should the milling technologies be made more accessible and utilised to capacity by the producers, thus cutting down on milling costs. This however calls for identification of more viable market opportunities.


5.7.2 Trading costs - Bukedea

(a) Cassava Flour traders; Table 14 Cassava Flour traders - Bukedea

Cost item Frequency Total cost Total cost in USD

Transportation weekly 15,000 9

labour weekly 8,000 5

Unloading/loading Per week 3,000 2

Packaging materials weekly 36,000 21

milling weekly 3000 2

Cess/ Tax weekly 3,750 2

Source: Farm Concern International, 2007 (b) Fresh tubers traders; Table 15 Cassava Fresh tubers Trading Cost Items - Bukedea

Cost item Fresh Tubers Total cost Ushs. Total cost in USD

Weekly stock

Transportation weekly 20,000 11

Communication Weekly 6,000 3

Daily sustenance weekly 12,000 7

Packaging materials weekly 16,000 9

Cess/ Tax weekly 6,000 3



5.8 Comparisons and Recommendations

5.8.1 Zone x general characteristics Table 16 Zone X general characteristics Kenya Uganda � High price fluctuations � Weak value chains � Poor products’ awareness � High market potential in the animal feeds industry � Poor and costly supply chains � Costly business development services � Active informal and semi formal markets for

cassava products � No products’ standards

� Low farm gate prices but high retailing prices � Active informal outlets in cassava trading � Active raw farm produce trading � High potential in the animal feeds sector � High price fluctuations � No products’ standards � Gate to regional markets in central and east Africa � High export market potential

Source: Farm Concern International, 2007 The players and cassava trading activities pose great opportunities to other mainstream players. Gaps in this level can be addressed through the establishment and enhancement of partnerships and linkages with producers and BDS providers, emphasis on product diversification, products’ utilisation campaigns, enhanced/ optimal exploitation of domestic and export opportunities, elimination or empowerment of exploitative value chains and by involving key public and private players crucial in the introduction and enforcement of cassava products’ standards and policy issues.

5.8.2 Zone 3 Table 17 Comparisons and recommendations Zone 3 Kenya zone Uganda zone

• Fairly commercialised production • less adoption of improved technologies • low processing • fairly good organisational capacities • poor access to improved technologies • fair partnerships with other key players • weak intermediation • fairly developed marketing systems • semi commercial BDS system • seasonal cash economy

• Average commercialised enterprises • Fair adoption of improved technologies • Fairly organised groups • Average processing • Strong intermediation • Fair access to improved technologies • Fair partnerships with other key players • Fair access to local and regional markets • Fairly developed marketing systems • Semi commercial BDD system • Seasonal cash economy

Source: Farm Concern International, 2007 The gaps identified in these zones can generally be addressed through Identification and enhancement of linkages with key private sector players locally and nationally, enhanced access to value addition technologies, enhance groups’ commercialization in both regions through capacity building in marketing , enhance groups’ organisational and marketing systems through the commercial village Farm concern international approach which basically works to strengthen channels of market information to both farmers and market intermediaries and entire BDS system.

5.8.3 Zone 2 Table 18 Summary – Comparisons and Recommendations Zone 2 Uganda zone Kenya zone

� Semi-commercialised cassava production.

� Inconsistent value chains � Competition from other enterprises/

crops � Fair access to local markets � Fair partnerships with key

stakeholders � Less access to improved technologies � Underdeveloped marketing

infrastructures. o No collective marketing o Weak transportation systems o No active private sector

� Semi-commercialised cassava production. � Inconsistent value chains � Fair access to local markets � weak partnerships with key stakeholders � Fair access to improved technologies � Underdeveloped marketing systems;

o No collective marketing o No consistent markets

� No value addition and cassava is traded

while fresh


involvement.

Source: Farm Concern International, 2007 To address the gaps in this chain this report specifically recommends concerted efforts to put in place a commercial based framework through the commercial village approach, structuring of marketing systems through;

o A collective marketing approach o Building the producer groups’ marketing and organisational capacities o Strengthen channels of market information to both farmers and market intermediaries.

Additionally there is need to identify and establish key partnerships with key private sector players for mutual economic benefits in addition to strengthening partnerships with the public sector and development partners.

There is also the need to commercialise value chains and BDS systems for efficiency and effectiveness.

5.8.4 Zone 1 Table 19 Summary -Comparisons and recommendations Zone 1 Uganda Kenya

� Value addition moderately developing � Production technology and support

services fairly accessible � BDS services expensive and accessibility

affected by policies, infrastructural undevelopment and poverty

� Fairly commercialised but below averange production

� Consumption fairly average � Very low prices for the products

� Value addition poorly developing � Production technologies rarely accessible and

support services fairly accessible � BDS not accessible to majority of value chain

players � Poor commercial production � Poor consumption

� Fair prices for cassava products

5.8.5 Zone 0

Table 20 Summary –Comparisons and recommendations Uganda Kenya

� Moderately low productivity � Inaccessible and costly BDS � Un credit-worthiness of value chain

players � Poor post harvest handling by all players � Collective production but not in

marketing � Value addition fairly practised � Moderately accessible production

technologies from NGOs and other organisations

� Productivity low � Inaccessible and expensive BDS � Un credit-worthiness of value chain players � Poor post harvest handling by all players � Collective production but not in marketing and

value addition � Value addition practised by very few players � Production technologies not always accessible

To address the gaps in zones one and two the report recommends the need to the traditional varieties especially in Kenya and dissemination of technologies, best bet production practises and improved varieties. There is need to enhance groups’ commercial and organisational capacities through the FCI’s commercialisation approach. There is need to forge strong partnerships with various key players for instance the public sector for policy advocacy on improvement on rural infrastructure. There is also the need to enhance quality processing and create awareness of the opportunities in cassava enterprises. Generally cassava producers need to be capacity build on commercial farming aimed at exploiting identified market opportunities. Key issues include identification of markets, establishment of the enterprises, improving organisational, production and processing capacities. There is need to forge strategic partnerships with all value chain players for attractive and mutual benefit. Production and value addition technologies that are market led should be promoted. There is need for better access to value addition technologies, equipments and storage facilities by the farmers. There is also need to train the producers on best post harvest handling practices. There is need to consider technologies that are a blend of indigenous knowledge, making it acceptable and saleable. There is need for more research work to this effect. Key market opportunities that need to be explored include the animal feeds industry, the baking industry export market, maltose, and bio-fuels. There is need for identification of more ways in which cassava can be sold.


APPENDIX Annex 1Cassava trading in Kampala’s Informal Market Market

Product Estimated price per unit

Average annual sales(USh)

No. of traders

Total annual sales

Total annual sales (USD)

Average annual sales in USD

Kasubi fresh 250/kg 12,500,000 4 50,000,000.00

28,571.43 7,142.86

flour 500/kg 58,240,000 15 873,600,000.00

499,200.00 33,280.00

Kisenyi flour 300/kg 98,500,000 7 689,500,000.00

394,000.00 56,285.71

Nakasero fresh 200/kg 25,000,000 14 350,000,000.00

200,000.00 14,285.71

Nakawa flour 500/kg 5,200,000 23 119,600,000.00

68,342.86 2,971.43

Ndeeba flour 550/kg 645,000 22 14,190,000.00

8,108.57 368.57

fresh 250/kg 19,500,000 25 487,500,000.00

278,571.43 11,142.86

Owino flour 400/kg 104,000,000 6 624,000,000.00

356,571.43 59,428.57

fresh 250/kg 4,992,000 7 34,944,000.00

19,968.00 2,852.57

Total 3,243,334,000.00

1,853,333.71 -

Monthly sales for Kampala Markets(USD)

154,444.48

Average Monthly Sales per Market (USD) 25,740.75 Source: Farm Concern International, 2007

Annex 2 Bukedea Market Cassava Trade

Bukedea Market Product Estimat

ed price per unit

Average annual sales(ksh)

No. of traders

Total annual sales



Bukedea Flour 450/kg 910,000 28 25,480,000.00

14,560.00 520.00

Bukedea chips 250/kg 1,560,000 14 21,840,000.00

12,480.00 891.43

Bukedea fresh 200/kg 3,900,000 20 78,000,000.00

44,571.43 2,228.57

Totals 125,320,000.00

71,611.43 -

Average Monthly Sales per Market

5,967.62



Annex 3 Seasonality Analysis Bukedea

Dry season

April, May, June, July, August

Rainy season: January, February, March, September, December

Trader

product

variety

source BP (Ush)

SP (Ush)

Sale(qty/month)

Availability

Source BP(Ush)

SP (Ush)

sale(qty/month)

Availability

B1 Dried Chips

Kolir,Kakuro,Kocheka

18000 per

sack(90-120 kgs)

500 per kg

5 sacks per month (500 kg)

Okunguro

20000 per sack

600 per kg

5 sacks per month (500 kg)

B7 Dried Chips

Nigeria & Improved

Bukedea,Maleva

150-200 per kg

300 per kg

Average

Bukedea,Maleva

150-200 per kg

300 per kg

High

B2 Flour Bukedea 300 per kg

500 per kg

50 kg Kachede

200 per kg

400 per kg

50 kg

B6 Flour Local Market-Bukeda

250 per kg

500 per kg

20-30 kg per month

Local Market-Bukeda

250 per kg

500 per kg

20-30 kg per month

B9 Flour Kachumbani

1 sack-20000(80-90kgs)

400 per kg

25 kg

Average

Kachumbani

1 sack-20000

400 per kg

25 kg

High

B3 Fresh Tubers

Oxfoam,554,Bwana

Bukedea,Kasoka

15000 per sack

50 per tuber

1 bag Bukedea,Kasoka

15000 per sack

50 per tuber

3-4 bags

B5 Fresh Tubers

Nigeria, Oxfam

Local Market

10000 per sack

12000 6 bags Own Farm

- 11000 8 bags

B8 Fresh tubers

Oxfam,Nigeria,Nanze

Own Farm-Kamon Village

- 30,000 per bag(120kg)

8 bags per month

Own Farm-Kamon Village

- 30000 per bag(120kg)

27-28 bags

B4 Fresh Tubers, Flour

Nigeria

Own Farm

- 150 per kg-Tubers, 500 per kg-Flour

2 sacks of tubers& 2 sacks of flour per market day

Average

Own Farm

- 150 per kg-Tubers, 500 per kg-Flour

2 sacks of tubers&2 sacks of flour per market day

High



Annex 4 Capacities for Sampled Processors; Masindi Market

Respondent Product Quantities handled per Month

Peak Season

Low Season

Selling price per Unit

Current processing Capacity

Potential processing Capacity

PR 1 Cassava 400kg July April 400/kg 13kg/day sorghum 250kg August May 300/kg 80kg/ day maize 200kg July June 500/kg 70kg/ day

10,000 kg per month

PR 2 Cassava 900 kg October to March

May to August

25 30kg/day

sorghum 450 kg October to March

May to August

50 15kg/day

maize 900 kg October to March

May to August

30 30kg/day

millet 300 kg October to March

May to August

30 10kg/day

10,000 kg per day

PR 3 Cassava Sorghum Maize

2,000kg August May 150/kg(cassava )

2,000kg/Month

3,000kg/ month


Annex 5 Turn over and pricing for sample farm inputs; Apac Town Input suppliers

Products Av. Monthly Stock

Amount moved in a month

Buying price(USh) Selling price (USh)

Hoes 20 boxes 10 boxes 2500-3000 3500-5000 Pangas 15 boxes 60 pangas 2000 2500-3000 Axes 10 boxes 60 Axes 3000-4000 5000-6000 Slashers 15 boxes 50 slashers 2000 2500 Bow-saw 1 box/dozen 5 pieces 12000 15000 Spade 2 boxes 20 pieces 4500 6000 Wheelbarrow 10 pieces 1 piece 60000 70000


Annex 6 Post Harvest Handling Practices; Lira Producers

Product Storage method Storage period Storage challenges

Value addition

HH Utilization method

Tubers In a cold place i.e. moist soil but for less than 12 hours.

Minimum 12 hours

Cassava being highly perishable can only be stored for less than 12 hours.

Chipping and drying

• Boiling and used as Staple food with beans stew.

Chips • In sacks • Open in granary • Treated with brine before drying and store in sacks

2 weeks to 3 months

• Moulds • Rats

milling • Milled into flour for bread /‘Ugali’ making

• Milled into flour for cement supplement in construction

• Milled for brewing local alcohol.

Flour • In polythene bags • In plastic bucket

1 month Highly perishable Weevils

None • Making bread ‘ugali’

• Alcohol brewing Source: Farm Concern International, 2007


Annex 7 Cassava Trading in Lira Market lira

Market Product Estimated price per unit


No. of traders

Total annual sales



Lira Flour 450/kg 70,200,000 37 2,597,400,000.00 1,484,228.57 40,114.29

Lira fresh 200/kg 8,840,000 45 397,800,000.00 227,314.29 5,051.43

- 0.00 -

totals 2,995,200,000.00 1,711,542.86 -

Average Monthly Sales per Market (USD) 142,628.57


Annex 8 Seasonality Analysis; Lira Traders

Dry season; May, June, July, August, September Rainy season: February, March, April, December

Trader

Product

Source Bp (Ush) Sp (Ush)

Sale(qty/month)

Availability

Source Bp (Ush) Sp (Ush)

Sale(qty/month)

Availability

L1

Chips

Aliot 2,000 per 15 kg

- 400 kg per month

High Aliot 5,000 per basin(15 kg)

- 400-700 kg per month

Average

L2 Flour

Alito,Amach

2,000 per 15 kg

400 per kg

Alito, Amach

5,000 per basin(15 kg)

800 per kg

10-15 kg per day

L3 Flour

Alito,Loro,Amac

36,000 per sack

45,000 per sack

1/2 sack-1 sack

Alito, Loro, Amac

40,000 per sack

50,000 per sack

2 sacks

L4 Flour

Apac,Amac

15,000 per bag

25,000 per bag

5 sacks

Apac, Amac

15,000 per bag

25,000 per bag

5 sacks

L7 Flour

Amac,Alito

5,000-7,000 per basin

400-500 per kg

Varies Amac, Alito

5,000-7,000 per basin

700-800 per kg

Varies

L5 Flour

Apac,Amac

15,000 per bag

30,000 per bag

10 kg per month

High

Apac, Amac

15,000 per bag

30,000 per bag

10 kg

Average

L6

Fresh tubers

Kaberamaido,Apac,Agwata,Loro

7,000- 10,000 per bag

300-500 peer kg

30-40 bags

Kaberamaido,Apac, Agwata,Loro

15,000-18,000 per bag

500-1,000 per bag

30-40 bags

L8

Fresh tubers

Amac,Agwara,Amunamun

8,000 per bag

300 per 1.5 kg

7 bags per week

High

Amac, Agwara,Amunamun

8,000 per bag

300 per 1.5 kg

7 bags per week

Average



Annex 9 Cassava Trading; Nakasongola Traders

Nakasongola

Market Product Estimated price per unit


No. of traders

Total annual sales



Nakasongola Flour 500/kg 2,400,000 16 38400000 21,942.86 1,371.43

Nakasongola fresh 180/kg 5,040,000 34 171360000 97,920.00 2,880.00

Nakasongola chips 200/kg 1,440,000 28 40320000 23,040.00 822.86

totals 250080000 142,902.86 -

Average Monthly Sales per Market (USD) 11,908.57 Source: Farm Concern International, 2007

Annex 10 Buying practices and prices; Nasongola Respondent Place of Purchase Raw/ Whole Roasted Flour

Current price Max.

Price Current price

Max. Price

Current price

Max. Price

R1 Local Town Market

300 for 3-4 pieces

500 100 a piece 200 500 600

R2 Local Town market 500 500 500 per kg 600 per kg

R3 Local Town Market 500 500 100 a piece 200 500 600

R4 Local Town Market 300 500 100 a piece 200 500 600

R5 Farm 500 500 500 600 Source: Farm Concern International, 2007

Annex 11 Cassava trading in Kenya Nairobi

Market Products Total sales/ year (Kgs)

Price/ unit Value/year (ksh)

No of traders

Total annual sales(ksh)


City park roasted tuber 520 60 31200 4 124,800.00 1,782.86

Gikomba Fresh tuber 26000 20 520000 6 3,120,000.00 44,571.43

Kairuthi groceries

flour 7200 60 432000 1 432,000.00 6,171.43

Uchumi supermarket

Fresh tuber 1040 45 46800 12 561,600.00 8,022.86

Corner shop Fresh tuber 520 40 20800 2 41,600.00 594.29

Nakumatt flour 104 75 7800 7 54,600.00 780.00

Fresh &juice ltd

Fresh tuber 6240 49 305760 1 305,760.00 4,368.00

Wakulima Mkt Fresh tubers 108000 20 2160000 6 12,960,000.00 185,142.86

Embakasi Fresh tuber 1092 30 32760 2 65,520.00 936.00

Korogosho Fresh tuber 3120 17 53040 3 159,120.00 2,273.14

Kangemi Fresh tuber 6240 30 187200 3 561,600.00 8,022.86

Ngara Fresh tuber 12480 25 312000 4 1,248,000.00 17,828.57

Kikuyu junction

Fresh tuber 13000 8 104000 3 312,000.00 4,457.14

Kawangware Fresh tuber 1040 35 36400 5 182,000.00 2,600.00


Totals 20,128,600.00 287,551.43

Total Monthly sales for Nairobi Markets (USD)

1,677,383.33

Average Monthly Sales per Market(USD) 119,813.10

Kwale

Market Products Total sales/year(kgs)

Price/unit Value/year(ksh)

No of traders



Kwale chips 286000 14 4,004,000.00 57,200.00

Totals 4,004,000.00 57,200.00


Mombasa Market Products Total

sales/year(Kgs)

Price/unit Value/year (ksh)

No of traders



Marikiti Fresh tuber 107120 45 4820400 3 14,461,200.00 206,588.57

flour 1040 40 41600 1 41,600.00 594.29

roasted tubers

23400 56 1310400 2 2,620,800.00 37,440.00

Mama Ngina roasted tubers

2600 56 26000 3 78,000.00 1,114.29

crisps 1040 100 104000 5 520,000.00 7,428.57

Mwebe Tayari roasted tubers

4680 56 262080 2 524,160.00 7,488.00

Majengo Fresh tuber 9360 20 187200 3 561,600.00 8,022.86

Kongowea Fresh tuber 234000 10 2340000 3 7,020,000.00

100,285.71

Totals 25,827,360.00

368,962.29

Total Monthly sales (USD) for Mombasa markets 2,152,280.00


Malindi

Market Products Total sales/year(Kgs)


No of traders



Old market fresh tuber 7800 20 156000 1 156,000.00 2,228.57


Kilifi

Market Products Total sales/year(Kgs)


No of traders



Chumani fresh tubers 2444 15 36660 4 146,640.00 2,094.86

dried chips 2444 10 24440 2 48,880.00 698.29

Choro wamae fresh tubers 5200 20 104000 3 312,000.00 4,457.14

Bakorani dried chips 3900 5 19500 2 39,000.00 557.14


Totals 546,520.00 7,807.43

Total Monthly sales (USD) 45,543.33 650.62 Average Monthly Sales per Market (USD) 15,181.11 216.87 Mbeere

Market Products Total sales/year(kgs)


No of traders



Siakago fresh tuber 5980 30 179400 4 717,600.00 10,251.43

dried chips 26000 100 2600000 1 2,600,000.00 37,142.86

flour 26000 150 3900000 2 7,800,000.00 111,428.57

Kiritiri fresh tuber 7280 10 72800 4 291,200.00 4,160.00

Totals 11,408,800.00 162,982.86

Total Monthly sales (USD) 950,733.33 13,581.90

Average Monthly Sales per Market (USD) 475,366.67 6,790.95 Source: Farm Concern International, 2007

Annex 12 Processing capacity for sampled processors; Kwale District Respondent

Market Product Quantities handled per Month

Potential processing Capacity

PR 1 Maganyakulo Maize 5,000kg per month 20,000kg per month Maganyakulo Cassava 5,000kg per month 20,000kg per month PR 2 Mombasa maize millers Maize 9,000tons 13,000tons per month Wheat 6,000tons 10,000tons per month PR 3 Ngombeni Shopping Centre Cassava 4,000kg 15,000kg per month Maize 7,000kg 15,000kg per month


Annex 13 Cassava Trading; Malindi district

RESPONDENT VARIETIES SOLD SELLING PRICE IN KSHS.

UNIT OF SALE

QUANTITIES SOLD PER WEEK

SALES in Kshs (weekly)

R1 kabanda meno, kaleso 500/= 75kg bag 3 bags 1,500 R2 kabanda meno, kaleso 450/= 75kg bag 1bag 450 R3 kabanda meno, kaleso 700/= 75kg bag 6 bags 4,200 R4 kabanda meno, kaleso 600/= 75kg bag 3 bags 1,800 R5 kabanda meno,

kaleso,mzegezi 700/= 75kg bag 3 bags 2,100 R6 kabanda meno, kaleso 600/= 75kg bag 5 bags 3,000


Annex 14 Consumer preferences in Uganda






Consumer Preference cont …

Colour Preference In Uganda

9

16

9

5

19

0

5

10

15

20

Extremely

Important

Important Very Important A little Not Important

Fre

qu

en

cy

Taste Preference In Uganda

18

7

21

1

11

0

5

10

15

20

25

Extremely

Important


Fre

qu

en

cy

F r e s h n e s s P r e f e r e n c e I n U g a n d a

22

18

8

1

9

0

5

10

15

20

25

Ext remely

Import ant

Import ant Very

Import ant

A lit t le Not

Import ant





Consumer Preference cont…

Packaging Preference In Uganda

02

5

9

42

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Extremely

Important


Fre

qu

en

cy

Product Origin Preference In Uganda

04 3

6

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Extremely

Important


Fre

qu

en

cy

Nutrition Preference In Uganda

16

12

15

2

13

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Extremely

Important


Fre

qu

en

cy


Source: Farm Concern International, 2007 Source: Farm Concern International, 2007 Source: Farm Concern International, 2007

Annex 15 Consumer preferences in Kenya.

Point of Sale Preference In Uganda

1

9

5 6

37

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Extremely

Important


Fre

qu

en

cy

Hygine Preference In Uganda

12

75

14

20

0

5

10

15

20

25

Extremely

Important


Fre

qu

en

cy

Price Preference In Uganda

5

16

9

6

22

0

5

10

15

20

25

Extremely

Important


Fre

qu

en

cy





Colour Preference In Kenya

7.0

10.0

2.03.0

20.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Extremely

Important

Important Very

Important

A little Not Important

Fre

quency

Taste Preference In Kenya

20.0

2.0

12.0

1.0

7.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Extremely

Important


Fre

qu

en

cy

Packaging Preference In Kenya

2.0

7.0 7.0 6.0

20.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Extremely

Important


Fre

qu

en

cy

Freshness Preference In Kenya

14.0

6.0

14.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

Extremely

Important


Fre

qu

en

cy





Nurtional Preference In Kenya

13.0

4.0

7.06.0

12.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Extremely

Important


Fre

quency

Point of Sale Preference In Kenya

1.0

8.0

4.06.0

23.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Extremely

Important


Fre

qu

en

cy

Product Origin Preference In Kenya

1.0

7.0

4.0

10.0

20.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Extremely

Important


Fre

quency



Hygine & Wholesomeness Preference In Kenya

23.0

2.0

8.0

0.0

9.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Extremely

Important


Fre

qu

en

cy

Price Preference In Kenya

10.0 9.0

5.0

2.0

16.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

Extremely

Important


Fre

qu

en

cy

Value Chain Analysis for Cassava Flour and Related...

Documents

Transcript of Value Chain Analysis for Cassava Flour and Related...