asareca -at uganda research report11
TRANSCRIPT
Project Title
BUILDING GROUP COHESION TO PROMOTE COLLECTIVE MARKETING AMONG THE SMALLHOLDER
OILSEEDS FARMERS IN WESTNILE (UGANDA)
A Participatory Research Project Sponsored by the ASARECA funded project entitled “Facilitating
Collective Marketing Best Practices in Kenya and Uganda.”
FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT
October 2010.
By
Ariko John OkelaiNilePro Trust Ltd.
E-Mail: [email protected]
and
Avutia Ronald KizitoNilePro Trust Ltd.
E-Mail: [email protected]
Project Supported by ASARECA
April 2010-January 2011.
The PAR Research and Implementation Institution:NilePro Trust LtdP.O.Box 1026 AruaTel: +256-372-274-766Mob: +256-757-888-806 , +256-772-332-229, +256-772-515-271 E-Mail: [email protected]
1
Participatory Action Research Project completion Summary
Project Title: Building group cohesion to promote collective marketing among the smallholder oilseeds farmers in WestNile (Uganda)
Lead Organization: NilePro Trust LtdP.O.Box 1026 Arua (U) Tel: +256-372-274-766.E-Mail: [email protected]
Project Leader: Ariko John Okelai
Partner Organizations
& names of key staff
from each if relevant
Organization NameSNV Uganda,West Nile Portfolio. David KyeyuneEnvironment Alert,Moyo Field Office. Andama GodfreyRadio Pacis FM-Arua Anecho Sam Abelu
Research Question The PAR set out to answer the question: “What are the best practices to build and ensure effective group cohesion in farmer groups and in the intergroup marketing structures for collective marketing?”
Location Country & Districts Sub-Counties/Division
Arua, Moyo and Nebbi
Districts of Uganda
1. Aliba in Moyo
District
2. Rhino camp in
Arua District
3. Wadelai in Nebbi
District.
Start Date April 2010
End Date January 2011
ASARECA financial contribution
Ushs. 13, 812,000
Other donor financial contribution from SNV Uganda in partnership with Environment Alert.
Ushs. 18,000,000
Nile pro local Ush.10,132,000
2
resources
Total Project cost Ushs.41,945,000
Table of Contents
Contents PageList of Figures, Tables........................................................................4Acknowledgements............................................................................61.0. Executive Summary..................................................................72.0. Findings....................................................................................182.1 Problem Analysis.....................................................................183 Research Methodology...........................................................20
4.1. Study Areas....................................................................................................204.2. Methods............................................................................................................214.3. Data collection...............................................................................................234.4. Data analysis..................................................................................................23
5.0 Research Findings and Impact.................................................245.1. Presentation of Results and Discussions.............................................245.2. Farmers’ perception of possible solutions..........................................28
6.0 Discussion.................................................................................376.1 Hypothesis 1...................................................................................................376.2 Hypothesis 2...................................................................................................38
7.0 Conclusion and recommendation.........................................397.1 Formative stage............................................................................................407.2 Maintenance stage.......................................................................................417.3 Group performance.....................................................................................42
8.0 Annexes....................................................................................448.1 Financial Report..........................................................................44
3
List of Figures, Tables Fig. 1 Detailed Action Research Model . Adapted from Susman (1983) ...................... 19 Figure 2: Sex of Respondents.........................................................................24Fig.3 Educational level of respondents ......................................... 31
Fig 4 Volume of Sesame (MT) marketed by the Groups by the 31st January 2011 .............................................................................. 45
Fig 5 Volume of Sesame (MT) marketed by the Groups by the 31st January 2011 .............................................................................. 45 Table 1: Age classes of respondents ............................................ 30 Table 2.0 Land size under sesame production (acres) ............... 31 Table 3: Proportion of farmers that sold some of their produce
32 Table 4: Challenges facing marketing of oil seeds in Aliba &
Rhino Camp Sub Counties. .............................................................. 32 Table 5: Farmers perception of possible solutions ..................... 35 Table 6: The level of success of previous collective marketing
engagements among farmer groups in West Nile. .................... 37 Table 7.0 Comparative analysis of the past and Present levels
of Group cohesion among farmers in the West Nile region. ..... 40 Table 8.0 Proportion of farmer groups that have engaged in collective marketing actions in the year 2009. ........................... 42 Table 9.0 Proportion of farmer groups that have engaged in
collective marketing actions after the Action research intervention-2010. ............................................................................ 42
Table 10.0 The level of inter-group activities among the farmer groups .................................................................................... 43 Table 11.0 Marketing data for sesame by the study groups in
West Nile ............................................................................................ 44
4
5
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation/ Acronym Meaning
AR Action ResearchASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central AfricaATU Appropriate Technology UgandaIITA International Institute for Tropical AgricultureMOU Memorandum of UnderstandingNIDA Nkoola Institute for development AgencyPAR Participatory Action ResearchSACREDSNV Netherlands Development Organization ACE Area Cooperative EnterprisesUCA Uganda Cooperative Alliance FGA Farmer Groups AssociationsGoU Government of UgandaRDS Rural Development StrategyMFPED Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic DevelopmentUN United NationsINGO International Non-Governmental OrganizationsNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationCBO Community Based OrganizationACAV Italian International Group for Technical Cooperation with Developing Countries.GTZ-GOPA German Development Cooperation OrganizationNUSAF I Northern Uganda Social Action Fund 1Simsim Local name for SesameUN MDGs United Nations Millennium Development Goals
6
Acknowledgements
This research and its technical report would not have been
accomplished without the organizational and technical support of AT
Uganda spearheaded by Dr. Rita Laker-Ojok. NilePro Trust deeply
appreciates the resources and funding support of ASARECA and the
technical assistance of IITA and NIDA through Kelly Wanda and Godfrey
Kayobyo respectively. All these enabled NilePro Trust and its research
team to finally achieve the writing of this technical report. NilePro Trust
cannot forget the contributions of SNV Uganda in partnership with
Environment Alert as the two organizations facilitated most of the
activity engagements for strengthening the local farmer groups’
capacities in the primary study area of Aliba Sub County in Moyo
District. The Local Government partners in the area also offered policy
support. Further still, the staff of NilePro Trust; particularly Enzama
Moses Jet, Amile Beatrice and Adakuru Harriet, tirelessly assisted the
researchers until the end. Other selfless support was obtained from
Aceku Philemon who is the Chairperson of NilePro Trust and the
Director for Agriculture and Agronomic Interventions Angua Yasin Eric.
In fact, it is finally Angua Yasin who had to forego every other
assignment at hand to join Avutia Ronald Kizito at AT Uganda in
Kampala for some days to jointly accomplish the completion and
technical report writing of this PAR report and then subsequently hand
it over to AT Uganda for onward submissions to ASARECA and other
development partners. The farmers’ leaders, Aruna Sebbi of Aliba Sub
county and Aliku Alfred of Rhino camp Sub county both deserve special
mention, recognition and thanks from NilePro Trust. They assisted the
researchers without pay but tirelessly. Last but not least, the Principle
Researcher Mr. Ariko John Okelai and the Assistant Researcher Avutia
Ronald Kizito appreciate and thank their Parents and family members
7
for their support. At the time of leading this PAR, there was little time
to attend to our families and to share with them but all of them offered
unlimited support and love that enabled all our efforts to be focused to
the achievement of the planned outputs and results of this study.
While we appreciate all your contributions to this PAR technical report,
we also want to beg you for further patience, support and contributions
as the results of this PAR project have seemed to call us for further
duty.
8
1.0.Executive Summary
The information in this PAR report is a summary of the action research activities conducted by NilePro Trust’s on the effect of group cohesion on the success of collective marketing initiatives in the West Nile region of Uganda. The study was conducted between April 2010 and December 2010 and funded under the Project entitled “Facilitating Collective Marketing Best Practices in Kenya and Uganda”. The project was implemented over an 18-month period with AT Uganda as the lead implementing partner and NIDA, IITA and SACRED Africa (Kenya) and funding from ASARECA using resources provided by the EU. The project represented a uniquely collaborative and participatory research effort aimed understanding the unique economic, social, political and environmental context within which these efforts are undertaken with the objective of identifying and disseminating the “best practices” for facilitating collective marketing in Uganda and Kenya.
The action research was conducted under the platform of the collective marketing learning alliance which provided a platform for exchange of knowledge and asharing experiences. The researchers as members of the learning alliance, most of whom are engaged in collective marketing underwent training in the use of the basic tools in the design of social experiments, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, data collection and management as well as documentation and sharing of lessons learned. The learning alliances was an important forum that was used to identify key constraints to the success of collective marketing and validated in a stakeholder workshop conducted between February 16/17th 2010 and February 18/19th 2010 in Uganda and Kenya respectively and a joint validation workshop in Bungoma Kenya. These were then prioritized as “Critical Constraints” to collective marketing in Uganda and Kenya. The research on the effects of group cohesion on collective marketing was designed to provide an insight into the relationship between group cohesion and the success of collective marketing and a concept paper was developed in response to the call for concepts to to undertake Participatory Action Research to address the critical constraints. NilePro Trust a social enterprise and member of the collective alliance responded with the topic “Building Group Cohesion To Promote Collective Marketing Among The Smallholder Oilseeds Farmers In the Westnile region in Uganda). In carrying out the research Nile Pro Trust engaged with the smallholder farmer communities through a process of joint problem analysis, interventions was designed to address the identified problems related to group cohesion and these intervention tested with
9
a group of 12 experimental farmer groups 6 control groups. The study groups were selected to ensure no communication between the experimental, observation and control groups. One set of the experimental groups were subjected to a several interventions aimed at building group cohesion and to participate in collective marketing, while the other set of the experimental groups were mobilized to participate in collective marketing but no specific interventions were made to build group cohesion. The control groups were neither organized to do collective marketing nor were intervention made monitoring and observing how they engaged with the buyers in marketing their produce. The study was conducted in the sub-counties of Aliba in Moyo district, Rhino Camp in Arua and Wadelai in Nebbi all with a minimum distance of 90km between the nearest of them.
This report contains the results of the problem analysis, interventions carried and and the results of these interventions. The study showed that group and intergroup cohesion is an important factor in the success of collective marketing. The effect of group cohesion was significant (p= ) at the 99% confidence level. It also showed that inter group cohesion was strong among the groups where key interventions were carried out..
The findings of this study show that group and inter group cohesion are major factors for the success of collective marketing and collective marketing programs should incorporate group cohesion building as an important step in the implementation of the collective marketing programs. It also provides a basis for policy interventions to streamline the legal frameworks to respond to the needs of collective marketing which is a new innovation in address marketing constraints faced by smallholder farmers.
10
IntroductionNilePro Trust is a registered private company by guarantee operating in the West Nile region of Uganda with its Head Offices in Arua Town. NilePro Trust engages in promoting agricultural value chains and social development. Currently it is spearheading the promotion of the oilseeds and apiculture sub sectors, particularly using sesame (simsim), sunflower, groundnuts and natural honey enterprises. The West Nile region is in Northern Uganda at the boarder with DRC and Southern Sudan.Uganda isbordered in the north by South Sudan, in the South by Tanzania and in the West by Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and in the East by Kenya.
Map 1: Showing the location of West Nile on the Map of Uganda South Sudan
DRC KenyaKey: 1. + 2. Show the original West Nile district until 1950s, now known as the West Nile region. The Sub-Region is located on the global coordinate’s 03°00 ′ N 31°12 ′ E 3°N 31.2°E 1. Shows the West Nile district 1960s - 1970s2. Shows the former East and West Madi districts (later Adjumani and Moyo districts) since 1970s.)
The West Nile Sub-Region was previously known as the West Nile Province and today simply as the West Nile, it is a region located in the North-Western part of Uganda that consists of the districts of Adjumani, Arua, Koboko, Maracha, Zombo, Moyo , Nebbi and Yumbe. The sub-region received its name from being located on the western side of the White Nile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Nile_sub-region).
Following the collapse of the big farmers’ organizations and especially the cooperatives in Uganda in the 1980s, assisting individual farmers to develop commercial farming has come to be seen as difficult and expensive if an impact is to be achieved. The small farmers groups
11
have come to be identified as the best way to empower the poor to work together towards poverty reduction and livelihoods improvement. The premise is that hat these small groups can produce sufficiently to meet market demands through collective marketing. This report will describe the background to the study and then highlight the research problem, the methodology used for the study, we will present the research findings and discuss the study findings as well as make some recommendations for best practices in collective marketing.
Background and Context of the StudyIn 2009, NilePro Trust and several other Ugandan and Kenyan Organizations working to facilitate collective marketing commenced a forum convened by AT Uganda called “The Collective Marketing Learning Alliance”. In the alliance low group cohesion was identified as one of the factors hindering small farmer’s groups’ from effectively engaging in collective marketing in both Uganda and Kenya. The learning allianceNilePro Trust carried out the engaged in “Building group cohesion to promote collective marketing among the smallholder oilseeds farmers in West Nile.” Through a collaborative study with AT Uganda identified and clustered the key constraints into three broad themes that included (a) Farmer organization (b) Access to Capital and Stimulating Increased farmer investment in enterprise; and, (c) Increasing farmer access to remunerative markets under the sub-themes of (i) Quality control and certification, (ii) Production Planning, and (iii) Market Linkages and Market Information. Building group cohesion is at the centre of farmer group organization and was the focus of this study. Collective marketing is general consider a new approach to increasing the marketing clout of smallholder farmers by drawing on the advantages that accrue from the use of social capital. This can best be harnessed where there are strong and well coherent farmer organizations. However organizations implementing collective marketing programs have been faced with a significant challenge of weak farmer producer and apex organizations that are unable to forge collective action and work as a unit a situation that undermines the sustainability of any such programs beyond donor interventions. The collective marketing models recognize smallholder farmers as high costs producer and are designed to help farmers reduce both production and marketing transaction costs so as to increase farm profitability by lowering unit costs.
Statement of the Critical constraintThe use of Social capital to through collective marketing is one way smallholder farmers can access fair and effective markets. Lowering transaction costs among smallholder farmers is key to increased profitability and marketability of their products. However collective
12
marketing requires that there must be strong apex marketing structures to support the processes of collective marketing. Building these apex marketing structures requires that groups within and among themselves have a certain level of cohesiveness. Internal and intergroup cohesion among farmer groups is important for them to engage in collective successful actions. While group cohesiveness is an important factor to engage in collective action, the current level of group cohesion among farmers in West Nile is very low, without the desired level of group cohesiveness, farmers will find it difficult to develop shared goals and engage in collective actions. This low level of cohesion partly results into the inability to set collective goals to direct collective action and to build institutional capacity (record keeping, apex structures & governance) to organize and build group structures that can support collective action. The level of cohesion within the individual farmer groups and inter farmer group cohesion is a determinant of the ability of groups to act in collective actions like setting collective marketing goals, developing a shared purpose and influencing market decision. This lack of cohesion has undermined several efforts by development workers and government authorities to promote collective marketing among the farmers who as a result have continued to suffer from low farm gate prices resulting from fragment marketing actions.
Purpose of the studyThe purpose of the study was to assess the relationship of group and intergroup cohesion and its influence on the success of collective marketing. The aimed to identify best practices and approaches to building group cohesion as a key factor in collective marketing.
General ObjectiveThe study aims to identify the best practices that can be utilized to address low cohesion of members as a critical constraint to collective marketing and test the identified practices as standard approaches and actions that can be adopted and used to promote effective collective marketing of produce through the smallholder farmer groups and marketing structures. The Specific Research objectives
1 To determine the factors which hinder group cohesion among the farmers
2 To make interventions needed to overcome the factors that hinder group cohesion among farmer and within farmer groups;
3. To asses the effect of intergroup cohesion on the effectiveness of farmer group apex marketing structures in supporting marketing actions.
Research Questions
13
1. What are the factors hindering group cohesion 2. What intervention can overcome the problem of lack of group cohesion?3. What is the effect of intergroup cohesion on the effectiveness of farmer
group apex structures in supporting collective marketing processes?
Hypotheses:Hypothesis 1Farmer group cohesion is a pre-requisite condition for collective action leading to successful collective marketing activities by the farmers.
Null HypothesisFarmer group cohesion is not a pre-requisite condition for collective action leading to successful collective marketing activities by the farmers.
Hypothesis 2Intergroup coherence is an important factor for building effective apex structures needed for collective marketing.
Null HypothesisIntergroup coherence is not an important factor for building effective apex structures needed for collective marketing.
The conceptual framework guiding the studyCollective marketing is a group activity that draws on the social capital within the community to enable the smallholder farmer communities to achieve commercially viable farm production and exploit the markets for farm enterprises by creating local economies of scale which increase opportunities to access highly remunerative, markets and attract credible buyers. Working together in groups will enable the farmers aggregate their produce through bulking to create market economies of scale and engage in collective marketing actions that will enable them generate commercially viable volumes for the market, which then lowers the transaction costs through the economies of scale created. The fall in transaction costs to both the farmers and buyers will result in increased profit margins and greater motivation to produce. This is however dependent on the farmers being able to build a level of trust and confidence in the group structures that will result in strong cohesive and well organized farmer groups and apex
14
organizations. The growth in trust and confidence in the group structures will result in more groups’s actively participating collective marketing process and the groups’ ability to develop shared goals among group members, increased demonstration of back up behavior and the extent to which the groups are able to meet their contractual obligations. The growth and apex organization which bring together various farmer groups will be dependent on how much groups are able to work together between themselves. As hypothesized in this study the level of intergroup coherence is as important as the coherence within the group if the levels of farmer organizations are to strengthen.
Literature describes Participatory Action Research (PAR) as Action Research (AR). It is described by O’Brien (2001) and McNiff (2002) as involving problem formulation, planning, taking action, observing and evaluating the actions including self-evaluation and then reviewing successes and challenges prior to planning the next cycle. According to Dick (2002); Checkland & Howell (1998); and, Hult & Lenning (1980), PAR involves direct participation in a dynamic research process, while monitoring and evaluating the effects of the actions with the aim of improving practice. Quigley (2000) argues that “the PAR actions have a set goal of addressing an identified problem in the workplace,” the NilePro Trust and AT Uganda PAR project indeed set out to address the identified problem of “low cohesion among members” which was identified to be a critical problem in organizing farmers for Collective Marketing. The goal was to establish the best practices for addressing the critical constraint of low cohesion among members so as to enable collective marketing to take place more effectively in the West Nile region of Uganda. The research and actions targeted the oilseeds farmers with whom NilePro Trust was already engaged in facilitating collecting collective marketing, especially the sesame farmers.
Group cohesion on the other hand is generally defined as "the resultant of all forces acting on all the members to remain in the group" (Cartwright, 1968, p. 91). Carron et al., (1987) defined cohesion as “a dynamic process reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of instrumental objectives and/or the satisfaction of member affective needs”. Group cohesiveness is one of the essential concepts for understanding group dynamics (Zander, 1979) and has a high conceptual similarity with teamwork. Lata and Kamalanaban (2005) defined “Cohesiveness as “the degree to which members of a group are attached to one another and have the desire to remain a part of the group”. Early theorists identified group cohesiveness with other concepts such as group spirit,
15
interpersonal attraction, sense of belongingness, and sense of we-ness (Mudrack, 1989). Later, ‘the desire to stay in a group’ was added to the meaning (Evans & Dion, 1992). This study takes the view that, cohesiveness implies an individual’s desire to remain a member in the group motivated by the economic attraction to the group (Evans and Dion, 1991). The generally accepted belief is that cohesiveness contributes to satisfaction of the affiliation need of the group members (Zaccaro, 1986) and moderates the detrimental effects of environmental constraints on organizational behavior (Evans, 1991) thereby leading to considerably better performance outcomes (Langfred et al., 1998). This view supports the hypotheses under this research which postulate to the fact that cohesiveness can play a significant role in helping groups engaged in collective marketing to achieve the desired economies of scale by overcoming environmental constraints that have impacted on the ability of the farmers to access good markets and negotiate competitive prices. Several reviews have described group cohesiveness as the resultant forces, which are acting, on the members to stay in a group and much of research in cohesiveness literature accepted this description although it has been criticized as vague. Group cohesiveness has been considered as an important construct in wide variety of groups (Lata & Kamalanabhan, 2005). Studies have shown a strong correlation between cohesiveness and empathy, self disclosure, acceptance and trust among members of the group. Gully et al. (1995) observe that most of the studies so far have methodological questions, cohesion studies have used the individual in the group as the unit of analysis rather the group and the findings generalized to the entire group. This study however attempts to do a multilevel analysis of cohesion first at the level of the individual in the group and secondly at the level of the group in a bigger or apex group. The study therefore seeks to measure group cohesion and inter-group cohesion to determine the effect of cohesiveness on the performance of the groups in collective marketing programs. Several studies have highlighted the kind of moderator variables that affect the cohesion-performance relationship which range from environmental factors, organizational factors and individual factors. Group size, group goals, norms are some of the factors that have received much attention in previous studies. Besides these Gully et al., (1995) the task at hand is another major factor likely to affect the level of cohesion in the group, he and other researchers have pointed out that the cohesion-performance relationship is determined by the nature of the task.
Literature on cohesion-performance relations has shown that in highly cohesive groups, productivity tends to be higher, and they tend to participate readily, defend the group norms, express hostility, feel a sense of security, influence others and be influenced to stay with the
16
group (Evans & Dion, 1991). Low group cohesion has been known to be a major constraint in agricultural development by many writers, development workers and academicians. Rachel S, Jonathan C, Trevor L, Colin M and Ambereene H (1997) argued that farmer cooperation projects and initiatives do not always lead to the emergence of viable farmer groups. According to them, groups often formed hastily and with little reference to the underlying patterns of social and economic organization or commitment to cooperative action do not survive long and in the worst situation, members negative experiences contribute to undermining future self-help initiatives. They therefore argued that it is important to understand and establish the factors that contribute to successful farmer cooperation. Recent studies have recent studies drawn a distinction between task cohesion and social cohesion both of which have been considered to be important determinants of performance, however there is debate as to which of these is s better predictor of group performance. Mullen and Copper (1994) supports task cohesion as the better and stronger determinant of group performance, but others have argued that reliance on task orientation alone may have detrimental effects because emphasis on task cohesion may lead to poor member relations and could in turn affect the performance of group tasks, there should be a good balance between task cohesion and social cohesion for the group to realize high performance.
The participants in the collective marketing learning Alliance agreed with this position and recognize that low cohesion is a problem and has certain causal factors and addressing these causal factors is key to building group cohesion by establishing best practices in both group formation and group development.
According to Peter Van Erum, an Agro-Enterprise Development Coordinator with Trias Uganda (2009) “no matter how well the capacity of individual members is developed, as long as the group is not coherent, collective marketing cannot be organized properly”.
In this study farmer groups are understood in practice and literature as grassroots farmer institutions upon which the Country’s farming community can build strong local and national organizations and form networks that can help in fostering agricultural development (DENIVA, 2005). In the contexts of this PAR, a farmer group is considered to encompass all forms of farmer organizations, formal and informal, production and marketing farmer cooperatives and, farmer savings and credit cooperative societies, the newly founded Area Cooperative Enterprises (ACEs) associated with the Uganda Cooperative Alliance (UCA) and the Farmer Groups Associations (FGAs) under the GoU Rural
17
Development Strategy (RDS) of the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MFPED).
The collective alliance (2010) noted that low cohesion in farmer production and marketing groups is a critical constraint to collective marketing in Uganda and Kenya, and impacts on the internal, social and governance structures The Collective Marketing Alliance members also argued that farmer institutions must show democratic governance in their leadership and transparency in their financial management and must maintain proper physical and financial records in a manner that is understandable by all members as a basis for building trust and confidence. The implication is that development agencies like the governments, UN Agencies, donors, INGOs, NGOs, Companies, CBOs engaged in supporting farmer institutions must focus on building trust and confidence in group structures through capacity building initiatives aimed at enhanced the organization capacity of the groups towards increased transparency, democratic governance, better financial management and reporting and practical planning and goal setting as major perquisite for group cohesion and collective marketing. This study draws significant from the previous work of Nile Pro trust in commercializing sesame production in the West Nile region and promoting collective marketing as a basis for creating market and production economies of scale. Previous experience in Rhino camp, Agoko, Upper Madi and Ofaka sub-counties in Arua district and Wadelai in Nebbi district, where Nile Pro was promoting collective marketing, Nile pro had become aware that even when farmers have been trained to engage in collective marketing, they still faced group cohesion challenges that limited achievement from collective marketing efforts. The study there looked at these groups that have already engaged in collective marketing and a new set of groups in Aliba sub-county in Moyo that never previous been involved in collective marketing to identify the underlying factors, design targeted intervention and evaluate the impact of these intervention in building group cohesion.
MethodologyThe action research methodology as described by Susman Gerald (1983) was used and the six principles of action research as described by Winter (1989) were applied.
18
Fig. 2 Detailed Action Research Model . Adapted from Susman (1983)
The research design was based on an experiment research model, with study sites selected in three (3) benchmark areas (sites) which were used to carrying our planned interventions and data collection based on a cyclic action research process as detailed in fig. 2.. The selected sites were Aliba Sub-county in Moyo District; Rhino Camp Sub-county in Arua District; and, Wadelai Sub-county in Nebbi District. Distance between the study population which consisted of smallholder farmers working in groups to grow sesame for the market was considered important to minimize communication between the study groups and distance between the nearest of them was at least 90km. The groups were also not aware of the other groups involved in the study, this was important to minimize errors arising from information sharing regarding the interventions being experimented upon. Only the intervention groups (experimental groups) were made aware of the general objectives of the intervention but no indication was made to the effect that the data collected would be compared with other groups. The groups selected for the study were those that have been in existence for at least three years and living in the selected sub-county. The groups have also been producing and selling sesame for at least 5 years. The study groups were subjected to three different treats, the first groups based in Aliba Sub-county in Moyo district had never
19
participated in collective marketing and were used as the intervention groups and were taken through the full cycle of action research as described by Susman (1983). The second group based Rhino camp had been involved in collective marketing for the last three years and were familiar with the concept, these groups were only mobilized to engage in collective marketing as before but no intervention were carried to build group cohesiveness, they were left to operate in their current state and the data on group and intergroup cohesiveness was collected from both groups as well as data on production and marketed volumes, unit marketing and production costs and number of members actively participating in the bulking process for collective marketing.
Questionnaires and focus group discussions were the major research used. Focus group discussions were used in the problem analysis process and action planning which was conducted Aliba Sub County. Based on the problem analysis and actions plans developed specific intervention were carried out which included team building exercises through field demonstration, scenario analysis exercises, business planning and training on collective marketing and enterprise selection, group governance and management of inter-group structures. After each intervention an evaluation process was carried out to understand the consequences of the interventions or actions taken. The purpose of this action was to identify key learning’s and general effects of such actions to group cohesion and collective marketing. Questionnaires were administered to the members of the groups to collect this information and the findings then were used to decide the next course of action which included another cycle of problem analysis once deviations are noted from the expected outcomes of the intervention. At this stage of reporting the researchers have gone through three cycles of problem analysis and expected to replicate this over three more cycles. The second study groups based in Rhino Camp Arua district were only involved in the process of problem analysis which was conducted in Community problem formulation meetings were conducted in Gbulukuatuni Parish, to validate and triangulate the findings from the Aliba groups. They were then mobilized to engage in collective marketing as before without any specific interventions to address the identified problems. Data collection was carried in the same way as was done with the Aliba groups.
The third group was used as the control group based in Wadelai, no interventions were carried out for the control groups in Wadelai, they were also not mobilized to engage in collective marketing and Nile Pro worked through research coordinators to collect data regarding the sales and production volumes registered by these groups. Buyers were however encouraged by to guy and purchase sesame from these
20
groups by availing them with information on the estimated quantities available. The interventions carried out were financed partly by AT Uganda-ASERECA project, SNV Uganda, Nile pro Trust and Environment Alert (EA). The data collected was subjected to statistical analysis using the statistical package for social scientists.
Bulking for collective marketing was carried out using community stores or storage facilities volunteered by individual members of the farmer groups. The community stores used were previously constructed by ACAV, GTZ-GOPA, and NUSAF Iamong the donors who worked topromote collective marketing.
21
2.0.Findings.
2.1 Problem AnalysisFarmers groups in Aliba Sub County, Dilokata Parish in Moyo District and Rhino camp Sub County, Gbulukuatuni Parish in Arua District were engaged in the process of problem analysis. Six (6) farmers groups were selected in each of these two sub-counties to participate in the PAR. The farmers meetings were large as each group is about 15-30. However support was obtained from other partners such as SNV, Environment Alert in Moyo and Radio Pacis in Arua to facilitate the process of mobilization and participatory problem formulation in the project areas.
Photo 1: Farmers Preliminary large group meeting for Self-Evaluation where they consulted each other on their exact constraints during the problem formulation process. Intensive focus group meetings followed these group discussions.
Photo 2: Part of the initial large gathering PAR farmer groups meeting facilitated by NilePro Trust in Aliba Sub County, Oyo. This meeting was also attended by AT Uganda’s Rita Laker-Ojok and Tino Grace and was co-sponsored / supported by SNV Uganda and Environment Alert.
In collaboration with AT-Uganda, it was suggested a small focus group could be selected purely to assist the research process and data collection. Consequently 8 people per Sub County have been selected as focus group members for the study. The problem analysis presented
22
here was carried out in collaboration with these smaller focus groups after the larger community meetings.
As part of the problem analysis the focus group members in Aliba and Rhino Camp were asked to rate the problem of group cohesion in their respective organizations. When asked to “strongly agree” or “agree” or “not agree” that group cohesion was a critical constraint to collective marketing in smallholder farmers production and marketing groups, 67% strongly agreed, 29% agreed and only 4% did not agree. As the big part of the focus group strongly agreed, the second question as to whether they agreed that group cohesion had an influence on collective marketing was asked. 74% strongly agreed, 25% agreed and only 1% did not agree.
The focus groups identified the following underlying factors that contributed to the low levels of group cohesion:
1. Development of cliques that make private decisions not agreed in group meetings
2. Poor leadership and self interest of some leaders and members3. Unfair competition in groups, biases and stigma developed
towards certain members within the groups4. Poor focus of the group on what to do e.g. Enterprise selection,
production and marketing and so on. Lack of planning and focus.5. Lack of tolerance and compromise on strategic decisions of the
group.6. Too much elitism, interest in money and politics practiced by
some members.7. Lack of cohesive role model organizations engaged in collective
marketing. 8. Hasty formation of groups to benefit from a Government, donor,
INGO or NGO project.9. Group members are widely scattered in the area10. Lack of facilitative infrastructure development to reduce
the cost of group activities
The focus group then set out to outline the critical group cohesion building steps so as to develop the local capacity development training materials. The following were agreed upon:
1. First and foremost it was agreed to conduct a baseline study of Personal/Farmer Questions (PFQs) during farmer groups’ development. Since hastily formed farmer groups cannot survive the challenges of collective marketing (Rachel et al (1997)) it was agreed that group formations and enterprise selection should commence with a basic fact finding process. Issues to be explored included:
23
Market opportunities Household needs assessment Member time, energy limits Skills, and experience set Family backgrounds and community support Resource limitations
Financial status before joining a group or engaging in a particular enterprise.
Ignoring such basic questions at the start had previously led to lack of cohesion in many groups.
2. Secondly, it was vital to carry out formalization of the farmer groups developed. The groups for collective marketing needed to ensure they were formed based on clear goals, objectives, rules and regulations which must all be written down, signed and registered. In this way members have clear guidelines for their activities and avoid internal and intergroup clashes. Where any breach occurs, such written laws provide for standard disciplinary channels and actions. It was agreed that the informal nature of most of the farmer producer and marketing groups provides a fertile ground for low cohesion to prevail.
3. Weak leadership and communication skills were identified as critical constraints to cohesion. It was agreed to train the farmers on leadership, entrepreneurship and communication skills as these are seen as vital elements in promoting cohesiveness for collective marketing.
4. Further, record keeping training was considered vital. It was agreed that lack of records in handling community marketing activities can cause major conflicts and disagreements and on the other side good record keeping ensures transparency and accountability that builds togetherness in members.
5. Additionally, life coaching to equip the farmers with the basic skills of working in groups in a society where farming is a business was considered to be another essential element of the farmer groups’ development.
6. Last but not least, psychosocial training to enable farmer groups and members to maintain social cohesiveness in the groups, support each other and ensure success in collective marketing was also identified as an essential factor in farmer groups development in West Nile.
24
Based on problem analysis and needs assessment, NilePro Trust then set out to develop training materials to engage in local capacity development of the farmer groups.
3 Research Methodology
This chapter mainly describes how the research was carried out on the topic of study. It covers the area of study, research design, sampling design, sample size and its determination, data collection and management.
4.1. Study Areas
Rhino camp, Aliba and Wadelai sub-counties are threee sub counties in Arua, Moyo and Nebbi districts in Uganda from which the PAR was conducted. The areas lies between latitudes 20 300 N and 30 500 N and longitudes 300 300 E and 310 300 E in the northwestern Uganda. All three (3) selected project sites: Aliba, Rhino Camp and Wadelai are sesame growing areas. They are located in three different districts along the River Nile and their local inhabitants are mainly smallholder farmers who also engage in fishing as another major economic activity. The sites were purposively selected because Nile Pro had previous experience with collective marketing groups in all three areas.
Relief, geology and soilsThe study area is more or less a flat area with some few deep valleys and gentle hills rising up to 300m above sea level (ADSOER, 2000). The soils in the region and the districts in general have underlying basement rock of Precambrian age. The rocks are either wholly gratinised or are in high medium grade of metamorphic formations in banded gneisses of the tectonic age. The soils are yellow – red sandy clay loams, light gray to mottled loamy sand and brown to yellow sandy clay loams with literate horizons (Uganda Atlas, 1967).
Rainfall and temperatureThe districts experience a bi-modal rainfall pattern with light rains from April to October. The wettest months are August and September. The average rainfall is 1250 mm and monthly evaporation lying between 130 mm and 180 mm. The dry season commences in December ending in March during which period high temperatures are experienced (ADSOER 2000). The mean annual minimum and maximum temperatures are 17.5˚C and 30˚C respectively (Uganda
25
Atlas, 1998). The prevailing wind is from the east to the west with frequent windstorms during the dry season (Uganda Atlas, 1998)
VegetationThe vegetation of sub-counties is mainly composed of mixed woody savanna with few big indigenous trees like Lania bateri, Vitellaria paradoxum and Tamarinda indica. The dominant grass species are Panicum maxima and Impereta cylindricum besides Hyperhenia rufa and Peridium species, which grow mostly in valleys (ADSOER, 2000).
Economic activitiesThe major economic activity in the sub counties is agriculture. The agricultural production in the areas is based on small-scale holdings of around two acres that are cultivated with family labor. Lack of mechanization, appropriate knowledge, transport and marketing are the main shortcomings facing agriculture in the region. The main food crops grown include sorghum, beans, millet, sweet potatoes, tomatoes and cassava. The major staple food crops in the region are cassava and beans. The communities also rear animals like goats, cows, chicken and pigs. The main cash crop grown is Tobacco. Other cash crops such as sesame, cotton and groundnuts are grown on small scale. Some community members also carry out fishing due to the proximity of the Nile River.
4.2. Methods
Research designQuantitative and qualitative approaches were used in the research. These are considered complementarily in line with Dey (1993) who states that enumeration depends on adequate conceptualization, which cannot ignore numbers. However this was mainly a qualitative study. According to Marshall and Ross man (1989) qualitative approaches are appropriate for in-depth research. This design was chosen, as accuracy is central to it; it minimizes biases and maximizes reliability of the results. The study was gender focused where both men and women were interviewed. Respondents were selected irrespective of religion, ethnic grouping, economic status and educational status and such selection allowed data triangulation.
Research PhasesThe research followed three distinct phases.
1. First was the baseline data collection to document the “before project intervention” status of the three areas. This started with large group meetings, followed by smaller focus group discussions, then followed with individual household surveys.
26
2. The second phase involved the implementation of the selected interventions designed to build group cohesion. There were three levels of intervention. In Aliba Sub County problem identification, was followed by intensive interaction and capacity building to specifically address the group cohesion building. In contrast, the Farmers groups in Rhino camp were simply taken through the problem analysis and then asked to pursue the issues established on their own. The Wadelai group was taken as a control group where only the baseline data collection was undertaken. There was no problem analysis and no cohesion building interventions.
3. The status of all three groups was then measured through a follow-up impact study at the end of the research period.
The three groups were chosen for different levels of interventions and the basis of selection were the following:
Population and samplingAll farmers in the farmers groups in Rhino Camp Sub-County (Gbulukuatuni Parish) in Arua and Aliba Sub County (Dilokata Parish) in Moyo, as well as Wadelai (Ragem Upper Parish) in Nebbi made up the population of study. A total of 72 members were randomly sampled as respondents. This was comprised of six farmers selected from each of the six groups at each study site (6x6x2). Each of the study farmer groups had an equal opportunity to be included in the sample size. Six farmer groups per Sub-county were used to facilitate a focus group discussion, which was used as a qualitative measure to get more in-depth information. One member each was therefore obtained from each group. Two other members were obtained from the Parish level apex group. In Nebbi, no focus group was selected. But among the 72 primary data sources for the individual farmer survey, 24 respondents were selected from Ragem Upper Parish in Wadelai Sub county, Nebbi. The individual farmer surveys were conducted after the focus group engagements to quantitatively measure and prove or disprove the qualitative data collected and analyzed by the focus groups and the research questions and the hypotheses.
Sampling procedure and subject selectionStratified random sampling technique was used to sample the respondents of this study. First one parish was selected from each Subcounty. The names of parishes were written on different pieces of paper and placed in a bag. To sample a group, a piece of paper was picked at random without replacement after the container is thoroughly shaken to ensure uniformity. This was repeated until one parish had been selected from
27
each Subcounty. As a result, Dilokata in Aliba, Gbulukuatuni in Rhino Camp and Ragem Upper in Wadelai (Control) were picked. In each parish, a list of all the group members was made and that constituted the sampling unit within each parish; from which 24 respondents were then systematically selected from each parish using a random start and regular interval. This made a total of 72 respondents in all the three sampled parishes of Rhino Camp, Aliba and Wadelai Sub counties. The use of systematic sampling in the study enabled regular distribution of the respondents in each parish and also ensured a fair representation of the parish.
4.3. Data collectionA number of methods were used for collecting the baseline data as described in the subsequent sections.
Questionnaires and interview scheduleMost of the data was collected by use of focus group discussions (FAO, 2003) approach and interviews guided by questionnaires. The major variables covered in the questionnaires included the socio-demographic factors and the linkage between marketing constraints, group cohesiveness in the past and present. Interviews were conducted because majority of the respondents were illiterate. The questions were translated into the local language (Madi, Lugbara and Alur) in order to help the respondents understand and give their views. Great care was taken to ensure that the respondents did not misunderstand the subject matter.
Observation
Observation also facilitated obtaining information on the families, housing structures and their farming systems.
Records
Records available within the study area provided most of the secondary data.
4.4. Data analysis
Before any detailed analysis was carried out, the raw data were first checked for errors, inconsistencies and incompleteness and where necessary a revisit to the field was made. The various responses were coded and put in a numerical form and then fed into the Statistical Package for Social Scientists version 7 (SPSS) program on a computer. Descriptive and inference statistics concerned with summarizing and drawing conclusions about data were then used in processing the
28
information obtained. The results were then presented in the form of tables, bar graphs and pie charts.
29
5.0 Research Findings and Impact
5.1. Presentation of Results and Discussions
This chapter gives the presentation of the findings and the deductions derived from the results. All the three objectives of the study are covered in this chapter.
The socio demographic characteristics of the respondentsFigure 3: Sex of Respondents
Majority (58%) of the respondents interviewed were males as shown in the chart above. The high percentage of the male respondents was due to the fact that men always have more free time than women. Most of the women were involved in doing other household chores like preparing food. As a result they did not have time to attend to the interviewers. This could explain why they were few in this study.
According to the focus group data, women form the most significant numbers in the farmer groups and this can be proved in the large farmer group meetings that show majority of the participants were women(see Photo 1 and 2).There were however exclusive women groups utilized which included like Omveru Women Group in Aliba and Oyoa Women Group. This was to compare the similarities and differences between men and women in the marketing groups.
Table 1: Age classes of respondentsAge class Frequency Percent20-29 05 0730-39 33 4640-49 26 3650-59 07 1060 above 01 01Total 72 100
30
Most of the respondents (46%) fell in the age bracket of 30-39; thirty six percent of the respondents fell in the age bracket of 40-49. Only 1% of the respondents fell in the age bracket of 60 and above. Since majority of the respondents fell in the age bracket of 20-49, it means the information obtained from them is very much reliable and first hand since this is the productive age bracket.
Fig.3 Educational level of respondents
A good percentage of the respondents had attained some form of formal education. About 42% had attained primary education. 30% secondary education and 4% attained institutional level. Twenty four percent had no formal education.
Production and Marketing of oil seedsWhen asked whether they grew sesame last year, it was found that all the respondents had grown the crop, however, the acreage varied from individual to individual as shown in the table below. Sesame production has potential to reduce poverty among the locals since it is highly valued coupled with its multiple uses, current high demand and positive trends in the world market.
Table 2.0 Land size under sesame production (acres)
Land size (acres) Frequency Percent1-2 20 282-3 28 393-4 21 29Above 4 3 04Total 72 100
31
Primary Tertiary
Generally it was noticed that most people in the study area could only master 1-3 acres of oilseeds with sesame and groundnuts dominating. This is primarily due to the marketability of the crops.
Table 3: Proportion of farmers that sold some of their produce
Response Frequency PercentYes 70 97No 2 03Total 72 100
97% of the respondents sell at least part of their sesame. The high percentage of people who sell sesame in the sub county signifies that sesame is a treasured cash crop in the Sub-county.
Much as sesame is a treasured cash crop in the study area, the farmers face a number of problems in its marketing. Out of the 97% of the respondents who reported that they sell produce, over 92% of them complained that they face a number of problems related to its marketing and theses are discussed below.
Table 4: Challenges facing marketing of oil seeds in Aliba and Rhino Camp Sub Counties.
Challenge Responses frequency
Percent
1. Cheating from middle men 34 47%2. Low prices 33 46%3. Prices determined by buyers 28 39%4. Price fluctuations 27 38%5. Poor marketing strategy 25 35%6. Poor storage facilities 19 26%7. Poor transport system 15 21%
The farmers were asked to list the challenges they faced in marketing their products, the responses were factor analyzed and clustered into seven clusters as described in table 4 above.
Poor marketing strategy: Over 35% of the respondents sighted that one of the challenges facing sesame, as an enterprise is poor marketing strategy adopted by the farmers. The respondents observed that most farmers in the sub counties sell their sesame individually after the CARE-AMI project. The individual approach to marketing among smallholder farmers makes them unattractive to major buyers because they cannot master the required volumes demanded by these
32
markets, at the same time the cost to the buyers of procuring farm produce from smallholder farmers is high and prohibitive due to the extensive infrastructure required to procure the required volumes from such farmers. This observation concurs with Muiruri.et al 1999 who found that individual marketing deters the ability of the farmers to bulk their produce to meet the market demands.
The CARE AMI Project had created farmer groups based on the economic concept of economies of scale but had not looked into the social dimensions of group cohesion. This was later reviewed to be undertaken in the second phase of the project so as to consolidate strengthen the bulking approach and expand the activities but unfortunately the project closed. Then NilePro took the years 2006 to early 2008 to rebuild itself into an organization. Little was done with the farmer groups strengthening. In this process collective marketing nearly collapsed as farmers reverted to individual marketing. This also revealed that the whole collective marketing process has got to be carefully coordinated by lead partners and apex marketing structures and hence the relevance of the collective marketing alliance actors like AT Uganda, IITA, NIDA, SACRED Africa, NilePro Trust and all the others. The roles they play seem very vital for the local communities in the short term, however sustainability will depend on the strength of the apex organizations a fact we regard depends on the level of inter-group cohesion.
Cheating from middlemen: The respondents complained of being cheated by middlemen who tend to use manipulated weighing scales besides offering very low farm gate prices.
This argument validates the report of Nile Pro Trust (2008), which also noted that farmers are most often unable to meet the costs of transporting their produce to the market, they are left to rely on the exploitative and speculative middlemen who offset such costs by offering incredibly low farm gate prices to cover for the procurement
33
A case in point is the weighing scales, these middlemen manipulate their weighing scales for example, a bag which when we use other scales weighs 50kg will, weigh 40kg at a middleman’s store. This demoralizes most of us and discourages us from investing into expanding production; besides this they also pay a very low price and ends up cheating us twice. Yet we cannot avoid selling to them because whenever you have an emergency they are the nearest buyers because we cannot afford to go to the towns where the good buyers are located. Haruna Sebbi Obongi, Aliba Sub-county
A case in point is the weighing scales, these middlemen manipulate their weighing scales for example, a bag which when we use other scales weighs 50kg will, weigh 40kg at a middleman’s store. This demoralizes most of us and discourages us from investing into expanding production; besides this they also pay a very low price and ends up cheating us twice. Yet we cannot avoid selling to them because whenever you have an emergency they are the nearest buyers because we cannot afford to go to the towns where the good buyers are located. Haruna Sebbi Obongi, Aliba Sub-county
channel costs as often sighted by the middlemen to be the reason for the low prices they offer and a justification for their actions. 47% of the respondents sighted this as the number one concern they have regarding marketing of their farm produce.
Low prices of sesame; Related to the issue of middlemen is the concern about the low farm gate prices, 46% of the respondents expressed their discontent with the prices offer at the farm gate.. A review of secondary date based on the activities of CARE-AMI project on sesame indicates that farm gate prices rose from between UGX 350-400 in 2006 to UGX 750-900 as a result of collective marketing. The price has since continued to rise to UGX 2000 at the 1st quarter of 2010. Analysis of marketing data for the season November 2009 to April 2010 for sesame showed that organized marketing by farmers in Rhino Camp resulted 30% higher six months average price of UGX 2,300 compared to farmers in Obongi who have never considered the use of collective marketing and received a six month average farm gate price of UGX 1,750. The low prices come as a result of the low bargaining power of the individual farmers and high cost of marketing for small quantities.
Sesame prices determined by buyers: 39% of the respondents also conceded that they had no say in determining the prices and that the buyers largely determined the price on a take it or leave it basis. This is mainly because farmers hold out with the hope of prices rising but when they get in situations that require urgent cash such as sickness, they are forced to run to the middlemen who give them a take it or leave it price. They exploit the farmers’ lack of voice which puts them at a disadvantaged position against the traders, leaving them as price takers. It was also noted that farmers have diverse interests, and with a strong organizational setting it was always difficult to align these diverse interest by forging common goals that would lead to a cohesive negotiating unit.
Price fluctuation: This is a factor that affects all agricultural farm produce and can particular have severe impact on smallholder farmers who do not have an organized, marketing scheme.
The changes in prices could be as a result of a number of factors such as demand, supply and even change in consumer characteristics as reported by (Boehlje, 2000).
Poor/lack of storage facilities: Storage becomes a major factor when implementing the bulking schemes for collective marketing. While storage was among the least of the farmers challenges with only 26% of the respondents sighting it as a problem, this could be
34
attributed to the low level of collective marketing activities and the low b levels of production. As production increases and marketable volumes grow, collective marketing will become more significant and storage will certainly become a critical factors. Robbins (2000), observed that poor storage facilities is one of the problems facing marketing of agricultural products in Africa.
Poor transport system: Poor transport system affects marketing of sesame in that farmers cannot transport their produce to the market places easily. It was observed that all the roads in the study area were feeder roads, which become impassable during rainy season. Consequently, the total marketed surpluses of sesame in the area were transported as head loads or by bicycle and motorbikes. In spite of these observations the respondents sighted this as the least of their problem, once again this can be attributed to that fact that most sesame is sold in the local markets or to freelance buyers who move from home to home to pick usp sesame. However the poor road infrastructure will have a major impact on the buyers who will have to send trucks to pick up produce from the bulking centers which are located in the parishes.
5.2. Farmers’ perception of possible solutionsIt was found that most farmers in the study areas sell their produce individually. Most of them said that selling their sesame individually helps them to get money immediately without any delay and it also saves them from being cheated by other group members. A member even said that it is better for him to be cheated by middlemen rather than his fellow farmers. These perceptions developed more after the lapses following the end of the CARE AMI Project. Unfortunately, individual selling actually exposes the farmers to cheating more than group selling. A scenario the farmers themselves seemed not to understand. The perceptions of the respondents on the marketing constraints are presented in the table below. They believed that if the following steps were taken, the marketing constraints would be solved.Table 5: Farmers perception of possible solutions
Perceived solution Frequency
Percent
Set marketing committee to oversee marketing
3346%
Joint marketing by farmers 45 63%Stores be constructed 35 49%Middle men be removed 32 44%N= 72
35
Prevailing market practices and market charges make a deep cut in the producers’ share of the retail price paid by the consumer. They argued that some of the market charges for sesame are justified whereas others are more than what the service rendered warranted. It was felt that a remunerative price to the producer could only be ensured if the market practices and market charges are regulated and rationalized by formulating a marketing committee. The respondents suggested that the marketing committee should consist of representatives of growers, traders, merchants, local bodies and government agricultural projects nominees who should administer the working of each sesame market. The role of this body will be to negotiate prices with buyers to obtain fair prices for the farmers and advocate for bulking and value addition in the local areas to obtain higher prices.
The functions of this committee are to frame bye-laws, define local market prices, fix market prices payable to various functionaries, license the functionaries, settle disputes, supervise weigh scales and promote the development of orderly marketing in general. The committee should generally be empowered to raise funds for its working by levying a small fee on the produce bought and sold in the market in addition to the license fees received from the functionaries. Therefore, setting up this committee to oversee marketing process of sesame would improve marketing of the crop in the sub county. This response was given by 22.76% of the respondents.
Joint marketing: the farmers in Rhino Camp Sub County believed that joint marketing is very vital for the success of sesame marketing. They argued that joint marketing would enable them to have control over their produce. It would also empower them to negotiate fair prices for their sesame. But bulk marketing had not taken place in Aliba Sub County until when it was introduced during the study though with other enterprises other than sesame which is still in the fields. It proved joint marketing can only be achieved if the farmers form groups. Search for common fundamental interests should be the basis for forming the farmers’ groups. This will make the group to be strong enough to secure better prices and improve their livelihood. The farmers also argued that joint marketing would ensure bulking of produce in adequate quantity to match with demands of the domestic market. This argument is consistent with Simon Appleton (2001) who observed that one of the ways of empowering local farmers against exploitation from middlemen is to organize them into groups.
Construction of stores: about 49% of the respondents believed that construction of stores would help to improve marketing of sesame in the sub-county. The respondents reiterated that sesame stores should
36
be constructed in the sub-county; this will help them retain their produce when market prices are not favorable. Construction of stores would also help the farmers bulk their produce in one place easily. This would help to eliminate the exploitative middlemen, thereby increasing profits for the producers since they would deal directly with exporters.
Elimination of middlemen: 44.4% of the respondents believed that the removal of middle men from sesame marketing chain would help to improve marketing of the crop. They argue that middlemen cheat them a lot since they always work hard to create difference and yet they are not involved in the actual production of sesame. This makes them to offer very low prices for sesame, which farmers cannot reject because they sell their produce individually. Ideally the removal of the middlemen from sesame marketing chain would shorten the chain, reduce the procurement costs to buyers and transform middlemen into progressive farmers since the farm gate prices will become more attractive due to lowered cost structure thus making it more profitable to farm. A system approach involving the development collective marketing structures to support bulking and bulk marketing of farmer produce at farm gate level would provide an a disincentive to speculative middlemen and an incentive for them to transform into progressive farmers.
Group Cohesion, its effects to group survival and implications to collective marketing
The farmers agreed by a big percentage during the problem formulation and analysis at the start of the project that building group cohesion can strengthen their collective marketing engagements. The Collective Marketing Learning Alliance formed under this ASARECA funded project for “Facilitating Collective Marketing Best Practices in Kenya and Uganda” also identified low cohesion as a critical constraint to collective marketing. These views led the researchers to set out to evaluate with the farmers whether the research hypotheses could be proved or disproved and whether the PAR answered the research question and operational questions. The findings are as below:
Table 6: The level of success of previous collective marketing engagements among farmer groups in West Nile.
Arua Moyo
Nebbi
Total
N= 24 24 24 721. Poor 32% 69% 42% 502. Fair 32% 29% 24% 29
37
3. Good 36% 2% 34% 214. Excellent 0 0 0 0
The farmer groups in Arua and Nebbi reported a positive experience with collective marketing with 68% in Arua and 58% in Nebbi acknowledging that collective marketing was fairly successful in there groups. On the contrary the farmer groups in Moyo had a poor experience with 69% reporting poor performance in collective marketing. These differences in the levels of success can be attributed to the earlier work by Nile Pro and Care-AMI in promoting sesame production and marketing activities in Arua and Nebbi between 2005-2007. Care-AMI project invested some time in farmer group development which helped develop some institutional capacity to support collective marketing. In the case of Moyo no such interventions were undertaken before this action research process, the farmers in Moyo were not working in commercially oriented groups and were not organized to engage in activities like collective marketing.2: Perceived Levels of Group cohesion Among Farmer groups in West Nile
Fig. 4 Perception of group cohesion in Farmer groups by group members.
08
26
66
44 43
94 2
8
26
64
1418 21
47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Arua Moyo Nebbi Total
Not true Alittle true Alot true Exactly true
Farmers were also asked whether they felt there was cohesion among the group members in their groups, about 65% of the respondents from Arua and Nebbi felt this was the case, however 44% in Moyo felt that was not the case while 43% felt there was a small level of cohesion in the groups. These results are consistent with the reported level of success of the collective marketing activities by the farmers in the previous engagements. In the follow up process the same question was put to farmers after specific interventions had been carried out in Moyo district among the selected experimental groups.
38
In table 7.0 below a comparative analysis of the levels of group cohesion before and after the interventions carried out during the time of the action research is summarized. The experimental groups in Moyo were subjected to a number of interventions (annex…..), the rest of the groups were not taken through the same treatments and at the end of these interventions the farmers were asked to compare their present level of group cohesiveness to the past. Farmers were asked to score their perceived level of group cohesiveness on a likert scale of 1-4 with 1 being very poor and 4 being very good. The Mean scores for each question were determined and the total mean score calculated. The percentage change in the level of perceived group cohesion was used to compare the changes in group cohesion among the three study groups. The groups in Moyo reported the highest percentage change in group cohesion, while the groups in Arua and Nebbi indicated a smaller percentage change in group cohesion, however overall all the groups experienced an improvement in the level of group cohesion in the course of the action research. This can be attributed to general expectation for a future benefit created by the expectation that the involvement of Nile Pro and partners in the process will result in some direct value to members that stay together in the group.
39
Table 7.0 Comparative analysis of the past and Present levels of Group cohesion among farmers in the West Nile region.
Area of measurement
ARUA % change
MOYO % chang
e
NEBBI % change
TOTAL % change
Before
After
Before
After Before
After
Before
After
1. What was your group condition in the past
1.52 3 97% 1.15 2.95 157% 1.52 2.57 69% 1.42.83 102%
2. How do you rate the frequency of your past group meetings
2 2.95 48% 1.35 2.95 119% 1.76 2.71 54% 1.72.87 69%
3. How do you rate the quality of your past group meetings
2.23 3 35% 1.45 2.9 100% 1.85 3.04 64% 1.852.98 61%
4. How do you rate members participation in your group activities in the past years
2.52 3.57 42% 1.8 2.6 44% 2.47 3 21% 2.273.06 35%
5. How do you rate membership contribution in your group activities to your group
2.38 3.26 37% 1.95 2.37 22% 2.38 3.05 28% 2.24 3 34%
6. What was the past collective marketing prospects skills and knowledge
1.85 3.06 65% 1 2.12 112% 2.04 2.36 16% 1.64 2.57
57%
7. What was your level of collective/group marketing skills and knowledge
1.71 2.14 25% 1 2.37 137% 1.85 2.05 11% 1.532.14 40%
8. What was your past 1.47 2.2 50% 1.15 1.75 52% 1.76 2.31 31% 1.46 2.1 48%
40
farm income level 69. What was your past household livelihood status
1.33 2.26 70% 1.1 1.62 47% 1.57 2.42 54% 1.332.21 66%
Total Mean Scores 17.01 25.44
50% 11.95 21.63
81% 17.2 23.51
37% 15.42
23.82
54%
Average Total Mean Scores
1.89 2.82 49% 1.33 2.4 80% 1.91 2.61 37% 1.71 2.64
54%
41
Table 8.0Proportion of farmer groups that have engaged in collective marketing actions in the year 2009.
Arua Moyo Nebbi
Total Respondents
N= 24 24 24 721. We have a group farm for at least one
enterprise12.5
%0.0% 4.1%
2. We procured seed for planting collectively
12.5%
0.0% 4.1%
3. We hold our group meetings regularly as planned
37.5%
8.3% 33.3%
4. We plan to bulk and sell our produce collectively
50.0%
0.0% 4.0%
The researchers assessed the past involvement of farmers in collective marketing action by asking how many of the groups engaged in the action. As noted above some groups in Arua (Rhino camp) and in Nebbi ( Wadelai) reported some level of collective marketing actions, while the groups in Moyo reported nil involvement. The collective action in Arua and Nebbi groups can be attributed to past attempts to build group cohesion by projects like CARE-AMI project which operated in Arua and Nebbi districts. Holding of group meetings was particularly considered an important indicator of group cohesion, and again the groups in Arua and Nebbi were able to hold regularly the scheduled meetings compared to Moyo groups.
Table 9.0Proportion of farmer groups that have engaged in collective marketing actions after the Action research intervention-2010.
Arua Moyo Nebbi
Total Respondents
N= 24 24 24 721. We have a group farm for at least one
enterprise16.7
%100.0
%4.1%
2. We procured seed for planting collectively
12.5%
100.0%
4.1%
3. We hold our group meetings regularly as planned
41.7%
87.5%
34.3%
4. We plan to bulk and sell our produce collectively
75.0%
100.0%
16.7%
42
The same questions were put to the farmer groups in October 2010, the interventions had a significant impact on the willingness and actual engagement in collective action in the intervention groups in Moyo (Aliba sub-county). In Arua (Rhino camp) the numbers of groups interested in bulking for collective marketing and holding regular meetings increased, however this increase can be attributed to anticipation for better returns based on the encouragement from the researchers for them to engage in collective marketing. The groups in Nebbi (Wadelai) which were the control groups showed limited improvements in their disposition towards collective action.
Table 10.0 The level of inter-group activities among the farmer groups
Arua Moyo Nebbi
Total Respondents
N= 24 24 24 721. The groups in each of the parish have
formed a parish marketing committee0.0% 100.0
%0.0%
2. We feel the parish the parish marketing committee is accountable to all the groups in the parish
3. We have confidence in the decisions of the parish marketing committee and regularly attend meetings called by the committee
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4. The parish marketing committees are fully in control of the bulking centers and we approve their actions
5. The group executives are responsible for coordinating our marketing activities
0.0%
75.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
The farmer groups were asked about what marketing structures they had put in place to coordinate and facilitate their planned marketing activities. The groups in Moyo had formed parish marketing committees which consisted of elected membership drawn from among the groups in the parish to form an apex committee to handle collective marketing activities for all the groups in each parish. The mandate of these committees included negotiating for prices; terms with buyers and to receive produce into the bulking centers, ensuring
43
the security and quality of the product. They also received payments on the behalf of the farmers and paid out to the individual farmers according to the volumes delivered to the bulking centers. Unlike in Moyo the groups in Rhino Camp did not form the parish committees, but 75.0% of the groups said they depended on their group executive members to negotiate and coordinate marketing activities i.e to make appointments with buyers to come and buy from a selected location where farmers are asked to converge. These findings indicate a level of inter-group cohesion demonstrated by the confidence and willingness of farmer groups to cede their marketing duties to the parish marketing committees.
Table 11.0 Marketing data for sesame by the study groups in West Nile
Arua Moyo NebbiVolume sold (MT) 13.0 45.0 6.0Average farm gate prices
2,000 2,350 1,800
Expenses Incurred1 390,000 74,500 120,000Cost as % of revenue
1.5% 0.07% 1.11%
Cost per kg sold (UGX)
30 1.7 20
Data collected on the sales performance of the various study groups indicated increased benefits achieved through collective action. The more cohesive groups of Moyo sold nearly 3.5 times more sesame than their colleagues in Rhino camp. It is important to note that the groups in Moyo were more involved in collective marketing actions which made them pull together 45.0MT within one month and negotiated a better price with Olam Uganda for all the 45MT. This could be directly attributed to the effect of the interventions to build group and inter-group cohesion among the farmer groups. While groups in Rhino Camp reported involvement in collective action and managed to market 13.0MT in the same period, most of this was not coordinated and resulted in higher marketing costs per kg compared to the groups in
1 Selling expenses include the cost of transportation to the nearest selling point, cost of bags and local taxes.
44
Moyo. The bulk of the marketing costs incurred by the groups was a result of transportation costs to the meeting point where they agreed to meet the buyer. The major difference between Moyo and Arua could largely be attributed to the effect of inter-group cohesion which was stronger in Moyo. While the groups in Moyo had parish marketing committees which coordinated the marketing activities among all the groups in a parish, the Rhino camp groups operated along the lines of their individual groups. It is important to note that the groups in Rhino camp reported a high group cohesion mean of 2.82 (table 7.0), compared to Moyo 2.4, the effect of inter-group cohesion was however stronger in among the Moyo groups and can be attributed to the lower marketing costs because the marketing committees consisting of members drawn from different groups were responsible for organizing and managing centralized bulking points, negotiating terms with buyers and providing quality assurance guarantees to the buyers. Some of achievements of these inter-group committees included obtaining a higher than market price, transferring the cost of bags and local taxes to the buyer and eliminating transportation costs involved in moving produce to buying centers. Instead three bulking centers were created each located within walking distance for each of the members and the buyers used a pick up truck to collect the sesame from these centers. The bulk of the cost incurred by these farmers groups was facilitation costs for committees in form of stationary, lunch and rental for the bulking premises.
Fig 5 Volume of Sesame (MT) marketed by the Groups by the 31st January 2011
45
A comparative analysis of the volumes of sesame sold by groups to the buyers since mid December 2010 was done to assess the effect of group cohesion and intergroup cohesion on collective marketing. The groups in Moyo reported the highest change in the level of group cohesion (table 7.0) and correspondingly they showed the greatest tendency towards collective action as demonstrated in table 9.0. The results in fig. 3 above correlate with this trend and show that the Moyo groups were able to access a high level of group cohesion compared to the Rhino camp groups and the control groups in Wadelai
6.0 Discussion
In this section the findings of the study are discussed, the discussion looks at the factors that influence the levels of group cohesion and how the interventions made during the study have influenced these factors towards altering the level of group cohesion among the study groups. Intergroup cohesion alongside group cohesion will also be discussed and the two hypotheses that guided the study will be considered in the context of the findings. Some recommendations and conclusions from the finding of this study have been drawn. It is however important to note that the study was conducted in three phases as detailed in 4.2. This discussion will cover the two phases of the study which included; the problem analysis and then the interventions carried out among the experimental groups. Partial findings obtained from the third phase have also been discussed although the study in this phase is still on-going and therefore not yet conclusive.
46
6.1 Hypothesis 1The researchers hypothesized that farmer group cohesion is a requisite condition for collective action leading to successful collective marketing activities by the farmers. A problem analysis was carried out to asses the factors that have hindered group cohesion among farmers practicing collective marketing. The findings of this analysis are listed under 2.1 and indicate that organizational and leadership factors are prominent in undermining group cohesion among the farmer groups and by extension inter-group cohesion. Rachel S, Jonathan C, Trevor L, Colin M and Ambereene H (1997) argued that farmer groups formed hastily and with little reference to the underlying patterns of social and economic organization or commitment to cooperative action do not survive for long, because their activities and future are undermined by negative experiences with the groups. This concurs with the findings from the problem analysis phase of the study. Low cohesion among groups is a consequence of those factors which undermine individual member confidence in the group. The effects of low group cohesion towards achievement of the farmer group economic objectives included inability to agree on a common enterprise, inability to master sufficient acreages on any specific enterprises, failure to influence market trends in terms of production cost and prices all of which resulted in poor marketing strategies and inability to create the required marketing infrastructure needed to influence critical market factors like price, standards and production.
However following the interventions in Aliba, it was noted that the groups in Aliba had increased the levels of group cohesion owing to the intervention made by the researchers. Tables 8-9 shows the changes in the disposition towards collective action among the groups before and after the interventions. Aliba groups registered the biggest changes in their disposition towards collective action which can be attributed to the improved levels of group cohesion which have enabled collective action. This observation is consistent with Peter Van Erum, an Agro-Enterprise Development Coordinator with Trias Uganda (2009) who observed that collective marketing cannot be organized properly as long as the group is not coherent regardless of how well the capacity of individual members of the group is developed. Theory identifies group cohesiveness with concepts such as group spirit, interpersonal attraction, sense of belongingness, and sense of we-ness and the desire to stay in the group (Mudrack, 1989, Evans & Dion, 1992), these factors seemed to have developed and featured strongly in the groups in Moyo driven by the feeling that each member could best realize their objectives by belonging and being accepted in the group. Any actions by members that will undermine their acceptance by the rest
47
of the group members could jeopardize ones membership hence the need to stay close, participate actively in the group programs leading to greater cohesion. The researchers therefore dismiss the null hypotheses and adopt the objective hypothesis which states that; “Farmer group cohesion is a pre-requisite condition for collective action leading to successful collective marketing activities by the farmers”.
6.2 Hypothesis 2Inter-group cohesion in the context of this study has been defined as the collective actions that are taken by a collection of farmer groups with the objective of achieving shared goals that are common to all the groups. It refers to the ability of the groups to develop and support apex structures aimed at fostering greater coordination of activities and pursuit of objectives common to all the participating farmer groups and to promote cooperative and joint activities among the various member groups. The researchers hypothesized that Inter-group coherence is an important factor for building effective apex structures needed for collective marketing.
The study confirmed that groups experienced a low level of cohesion between themselves and under such circumstance there is less likely hood for groups to engage in inter-group activities. The level of group cohesion has already been attributed to the problems indicated in table 7.0, the table offers a comparative analysis of the levels of group cohesion before and after the interventions made during the study to build group cohesion. The experimental groups in Aliba (Moyo) reported a strong level and large increase in the level of group cohesion after the intervention compared to the other two study categories in Rhino camp (Arua) and Wadelai (Nebbi), confirming the effects of the organizational and leadership factors on group cohesion. Similarly these groups showed a strong level of inter-group cohesion by conducting joint marketing activities coordinated by an apex structure referred to as the “parish marketing committee”. Institutional development and business trainings provided the participant’s with relevant skills needed to engage in collective action craft a common goal and build a strong group focus that allowed them to act collectively and develop inter-groups structures to further their goals. The effects of inter-group cohesion are demonstrated in table 11.0 and fig.3 above, Moyo registered greater marketing success compared to Arua and Nebbi owing to the influence of the parish marketing committees which coordinated the bulking, market sourcing and management of the transactions with the buyers on behalf of the farmers. They also incurred the lowest unit marketing costs for each kg of sesame sold owing to the marketing economies of scale created
48
during the marketing process. The researchers therefore dismiss the null hypotheses and adopt the objective hypothesis which states that; “Intergroup coherence is an important factor for building effective apex structures needed for collective marketing”. Evidence from this study also indicates that inter-group cohesion is dependent upon cohesion within the individual groups that form the apex structure. This evidence lends to the fact that strong farmer apex structures are very much dependent on the strength of the constituent organizations/groups.
7.0 Conclusion and recommendationThis study has demonstrated that farmer group cohesion is an indispensable factor in the success of collective marketing action among farmer groups. This should be seen in the context that farmers form groups through which they hope to pull resources together by exploiting their social capital2 for economic gain. In farmer groupings this has been done to enable them access production resources and markets at relatively cheaper cost than if each farmer attempted to do so individually. The reduction in cost appears to be a result of the aggregation effect, which results in the creation of economies of scale i.e labor economies3 of scale, production economies of scale and market economies of scale. The study has also demonstrated that collective action is largely dependent upon members being able to focus their efforts in a common direction by agreeing on common enterprises to which each member of the group subscribes as a basis to attain the shared goals, alongside this there should be effective governance, accountable and transparent leadership which altogether foster trust among members and between members and the group leadership. The extent to which these factors are positively reflected in the group is an indication of the level of coherence in the group. We have also noted that group coherence is a pre-requisite for inter-group coherence which by definition is the level of bonding between different groups working towards a common goal through an apex organization that represents the broad interest of all the member groups. Both group coherence and inter-group coherence must be important attributes that development agencies working to promote and making interventions through the community groups of any nature must deliberately work to develop. This will require well planned interventions that will positively promote the aspirations of the groups by strengthening the three key aspects of; Good governance, good
2 Social capital refers to the collective resources of a social grouping that can be utilized to achieve certain social and individual objectives through leveraged use of the individual resources of the members for a collective good.3 Refers to the ability of farmers to offer communal labor in member farms hence reducing the calendar days needed to work a given farm size.
49
leadership and a common vision/goal subscribed to by all members of the group or apex body. However we hasten to say at this stage that, though the effects of group and intergroup cohesion have been demonstrated to have a strong influence on the success of collective marketing activities among farmers in this study, the findings are by no means conclusive. It will require further longitudinal studies with the same groups over a period of three to four marketing circles to be able to draw final conclusions, it has however given a strong insight into the best practices to which agencies promoting and groups engaging in collective marketing should pay attention. We will briefly discuss these under our recommendations below.
Recommendations These recommendations are by no means exhaustive but basing of the study findings we recommend that; for farmer groups to be cohesive enough and for apex structures created to support farmer group activities to be strong the following best practices are important at the formative stages, maintenance stage and the performance stage;
7.1 Formative stage1. Farmers groups can form best where they have a strong
common interest in forming the group, this interest is often vaguely defined among individual members, but once the group is formed the leadership of the groups should be able to shape this interest into a common vision and goal which goal is often financial, productivity enhancement or access to vital production and market resources. These goals also define the task structure of the group as basis for task cohesion.
2. Framer groups consisting of members within the same geographical vicinity and an arms length distance to each other are more like to build greater trust in one another, articulate their vision and goal more clearly and be more cohesive due to improved communications and increased participation in group activities. This geographical proximity is very vital to building social cohesion among the groups as a basis for trust. Formation of farmer groups must therefore take into account the geographical distances between members to ensure cheaper coordination among members and effective communication to foster social cohesion and participation.
3. The size of the groups is important for the management of the group and nature of group governance. The large groups tend to
50
require more complex and structured governance systems and increase the costs of communication and coordination which in itself affects the levels of participation of the members in group activities. These have the effect of undermining the trust among members, result in creation of sub-groups often referred to as “cliques” which dilute the influence of leadership, the shared vision and goal, ultimately the level of cohesion in the group is affected. Those engaged in working with farmer groups and the formation of farmers groups must therefore pay attention to group size during group formation to ensure robust, cohesive and effective groups are formed.
4. Farmers often recognize their needs and have urgency about them, but do lack the requisite resources to manage and satisfy these needs even when they form into groups. These groups once formed become primary institutions through which farmers hope to resolve their individual and collective needs. Development workers and donors often have come forward to provide resources for the attainment of these needs but neglect the need to address institutional problems relating to the ability of the farmer groups to utilize these resources effectively, subsequently the farmer groups are overwhelmed by these resources resulting in a failed bid to satisfy the pressing needs. Often such failure is blamed on the leadership in the group and may diminish the trust and confidence among the members resulting into poor cohesion. This mistrust may result from poor or nonexistent accounting systems as well as the low levels of literacy and numeric skills among members, which in the finality may result in the disintegration of the groups or low levels of participation. Interventions should aim at strengthening the capacity of the farmer groups to utilize resources availed to them through provision of skills in business, communication, marketing, governance and accountability that will enable members to understand the activities of the groups and the decisions taken in the group.
5. Certain group activities and interests cannot be achieved by only one group working in isolation but by a collection of groups working together to achieve a shared objective. Activities such collective marketing, credit access, input procurement cannot result in the desired economic benefits when each group acts alone and therefore require a collection of groups coming together through an apex structure to pursue the common goal. Group based intervention should help to isolate such activities and support the farmer groups to develop viable inter-group structures (apex) to coordinate and pursue the common interest
51
of the member groups. Such structure must be formed on the basis of no more than two clearly shared objectives and must have the full mandate of all the member groups through elected membership. It should also be derived from members groups that have sufficient internal cohesion to ensure that the inter-group bond is strong. The more complex groups’ activities as listed above can best be handle by apex groups which reduces the organizational and financial burden on the individual farmer groups.
7.2 Maintenance stage1. The most effective farmer groups are those having a single core
goal at any one time to which all members subscribe making the group efforts focused. Business planning and entrepreneurial skills are vital in helping farmer groups to develop a common goal which becomes the driver of action and basis for member motivation. Development workers intervening in such groups should indentify the existing motivation among members and work to re-enforce such a goal by helping the farmers to develop a clearer picture and then focus their efforts in that direction. The temptation to introduce multiple and often competing objectives into the group has the tendency of diluting the group focus resulting in overstretching the group’s capabilities to pursue multiple objectives. Example: groups formed with the objective of commercial farming should focus on one or two selected enterprises rather multiple enterprises or even being turned into food security groups. This does not mean that groups cannot have other objectives, but any such other objectives should be incidental to the attainment of the common objective.
2. Task management in the groups is a vital factor in group cohesion and maintainance, where members are actively involved in performing or participating in group tasks and activities they develop a sense of ownership because they feel they have a stake in it and this becomes the key to increased group cohesion. Members would not want to miss out on the time and effort they have invested in the groups and are more likely to submit to the group interests, values and norms over and above individual interest.
3. Group maintenance is resource heavy process and often when the desired resources needed to maintain the groups are not realized they tend to disintegrate as observed in the groups in Nebbi (Wadelai) where CARE –AMI worked, in the initial stages;
52
interventions made should be accompanied by the requisite resources needed by the groups to institutionalize those intervention. Such resources are often beyond the means of the farmer groups initially and yet when not provided the groups are forced to abandon the initiatives once resource constrained. Such interventions as collective marketing fall in this category because bulking activities require storage facilities, records and accountability systems and a coordinating committee. For all these to function well there are rental costs or construction costs for stores, printing costs for records and accountability systems, training and administrative costs for apex structures like parish marketing committees. These costs must initially be supported by providing seed capital needed to institutionalize these activities until such a time when farmer groups are able to generate sufficient internal revenues to finance these costs.
4. While much has been said about gender dynamics it is important to note governance and leadership in groups is a key factor in the gender dynamics of the groups. Literature is emerging showing that household based groups tend to be more cohesive than men only or women only groups and is more productive and active in pursuing their objectives4. Household based groups mean that all members of the household subscribe to the same groups and therefore at least a member of the household will always be present in any one group activity at any one time. This increases participation, eases communication and reduces suspicion over group decisions which sometimes arise because of absence of some members from group meetings at the time the decisions are made.
7.3 Group performance1. The initial goals and activities of the group should be kept
simple, in collective marketing such tasks should include; determining the input requirements of each member, estimating the volume produced by each farmer, aggregating this volumes to form bulk quantities, negotiating the price with prospective buyers and ensuring the quality & integrity of the products as required by the buyer. The initial success in carrying out these activities will provide the platform and experience for the next level of activities such as managing inventory, delivering produce to the buyer’s stores and grading the produce to benefit from premium markets, which in the end can lead to more
4 Care-Ami gender review report 2005
53
complex activities like value addition and forward contracts and direct exports.
2. Groups should be encouraged to gradually expand their membership as part of the growth strategy and form into marketing or production cooperatives to benefit further from economies of scale and more lucrative market opportunities. This growth should be systematically managed and backed by verifiable, tangible business achievements and anticipated future opportunities.
3. Effective record keeping which includes records of minutes of group meetings, records of farmer production and bulking records and vital for better planning, increased transparency and accountability and effective market sourcing and negotiations with buyers. Buyers are easily moved by attractive product volumes and will show great interest in a group that is able to state clearly how much they are will to avail to the buyer.
These recommendations are by no means exhaustive but do highlight how the key findings from this study translate into actionable interventions to promote effective collective marketing or similar actions involving community groups.
54
8.0 Annexes
8.1 Financial ReportASERECA /AT UGANDA RESEARCH EXPENDITURE STATEMENT
Detail DescriptionActual Research
Expenditure
1 Casual labour 4,090,000.
00
2 Conference/ Workshop/ Meeting Expenses 2,482,000.
00
3 Materials 833,000.
00
4 Office Supplies 847,000.
00
5 Communications 754,700.
00
6 Transport 2,565,500.
00
7 Travel Expenses 1,016,000.
00
8 Dissemination/Printing/Media Costs 506,800.
00
9 Other 718,000.
00
TOTAL RESEARCH ACTIVITY COSTS 13,813,000.0
0
SNV/ENVIROMENTAL ALERT RESEARCH EXPENDITURE STATEMENT
Detail DescriptionActual Research
ExpenditureUGX
1 Casual labour - 2 Conference/workshop/seminars 4,250,000.003 Materials 1,500,000.004 Office Supplies -5 Communications 1,788,000.006 Transport 2,320,000.007 Travel Expenses -8 Refreshments 8,142,000.00
TOTAL RESEARCH ACTIVITY COSTS 18,000,000.00
55
NILE PRO TRUST RESEARCH EXPENDITURE STATEMENT
Detail DescriptionActual Research Expenditure
UGX1 Personnel Costs 6,400,000.00 2 Office Consumables 1,250,000.00 3 Fuel Costs 1,988,000.00 4 Office Supplies - 5 Communications 494,000.00 6 Transport - 7 Travel Expenses - 8 Refreshments - 9 Other - TOTAL RESEARCH ACTIVITY COSTS 10,132,000.00 TOTAL ACTION RESEARCH EXPENDITURE 41,945,000.00
56
8.2 COPY OF THE DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS.
ACTION RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE FOR COLLECTIVE MARKETING RESEARCHThis questionnaire is part of a study by Nile Pro trust and AT Uganda with support from ASERECA intended to assess the levels of group cohesion in your groups and the extent to which this factor has affected the participation of your group in collective marketing activities. We kindly request that you help us complete this questionnaire as truthfully as you can because the findings from the study will be applied in designing mechanisms to strengthen farmer groups and help them engage effectively in collective marketing initiatives. The questionnaire is divided into three sections; section I is about background information relating to you and your groups, section two looks at the level of engagement in collective actions by your group members and finally section three looks at the participation of your group in apex structures for collective marketing.
SECTION IBackground information
1. What is your group name;__________________________ Location_____________________
2. What is your sex?a. Maleb. Female
3. What is your age group?a. 20-29, b. 30-39c. 40-49d. 50-59e. 60 and above
4. What level of education have you attained?a. No educationb. Primary/adult literacyc. Secondaryd. Tertiary
5. What is the average acreage per head in your groups?a. 1-2b. 2.5-3c. 3.5-4d. More than 4
6. Do farmers in your group sell some of their produce after harvest?a. Yesb. No
57
7. By ranking in their order of significance with 1 being more significant and 7 lest significant, which of the challenges do you consider a major constraint to the marketing of your products?
Constraint Ranka. Cheating by middlemenb. Low farm gate pricesc. Prices determined by buyersd. Price fluctuatione. Poor marketing Strategyf. Poor storage facilitiesg. Poor transport system
8. What solutions would you propose to address the major problems you have sighted above?
a. _________________________________________________________________b. _________________________________________________________________c. _________________________________________________________________d. _________________________________________________________________e. _________________________________________________________________f. _________________________________________________________________g. _________________________________________________________________
SECTION IIA9. How would you describe the level of engagement in collective marketing activities in
you group over the past two years?a. Poorb. Fairc. Goodd. Excellent
10. During collective marketing activities over this period, you group demonstrated a high level of group cohesion. Which of the phrases below in your opinion best describes you feeling about the above statement?
a. Not trueb. A little truec. A lot trued. Exactly true
11. On a scale of 1 – 4, 1 being Poor, 2 being Good, 3 being very Good and 4 being Excellent indicate the extent to which the following statements best describe your group over the last two years?
1. What was your group condition in the past2. How do you rate the frequency of your past group meetings3. How do you rate the quality of your past group meetings4. How do you rate members participation in your group activities in
58
the past years5. How do you rate membership contribution in your group activities to your group6. What was the past collective marketing prospects skills and knowledge7. What was your level of collective/group marketing skills and knowledge8. What was your past farm income level9. What was your past household livelihood status
59
SECTION II B12. On a scale of 1 – 4, where 1- Poor, 2 - Good, 3 -Very Good and 4 - Excellent indicate
the extent to which the following statements best describe your group today September 2010? (note: this question was put to the farmers six month after question 10)
1. What is your group condition in the present2. How do you rate the frequency of your group meetings now 3. How do you rate the quality of your present group meetings4. How do you rate members participation in your group activities in this year5. How do you rate membership contribution and attitude towards your group activities these days?6. What is current level of understanding of collective marketing prospects, skills and knowledge7. How would you describe your level of skills and knowledge in collective/group marketing skills now?8. What was your past farm income level9. What is your current household livelihood status
13. During the marketing season of 2009, did your group engage in any of the following collective marketing actions involving the group members’?
Activity Yes No5. We had a group farm for at least one enterprise6. We procured seed for planting collectively7. We held our group meetings regularly as
planned8. We bulked and sold our produce collectively
14. During the second season of 2010, has your group engaged in any of the following collective marketing activities?
Activity Yes No1. We have a group farm for at least one enterprise2. We procured our seed for planting collectively3. We held our group meetings regularly as
planned4. We plan to bulk and sell our produce collectively
15. Which of these statements is true about your group in 2010
Activity Yes No1 The groups in each of the parish have formed a
parish marketing committee2 We feel the parish the parish marketing
60
committee is accountable to all the groups in the parish
3 We have confidence in the decisions of the parish marketing committee and regularly attend meetings called by the committee
4 The parish marketing committees are fully in control of the bulking centers and we approve their actions
5 The group executives are responsible for coordinating our marketing activities
To be completed by the marketing committees or group executives16. Kindly complete the table below as it relates to the members marketing their produce
through your system;
December January1 Total volume of sesame sold in MT since the beginning of
December to end of January2 Average farm gate prices received for the sesame sold3 Aggregate expenses incurred by the members to bring
their produce to the selling point 4 Aggregate expenses incurred by members to purchase
bags for the sesame sold through your system5 Aggregate expenses incurred by the executive/committee
to facilitate the selling activities 6 Total value of local taxes paid by members for the produce
sold
61
Bibliography
1. Peter Van Erum, (2009), Agri-ProFocus in Uganda; Promoting farmer entrepreneurship. Trias Uganda, http://apf-ganda.ning.com/profile/PeterVanErum?xg_source=activity
2. Deniva, (2005) Assessment of Effectiveness of Farmer Groups as Viable Institutions for Farmer Empowerment and Poverty Reduction in the Implementation of the Plan for the Modernisation of Agriculture (PMA).
3. Lata Dyaram and T. J. Kamalanaban (2005), The Other Side of Group
Cohesiveness, Journal of Social Sceinces Vol. 10(3):Pg. 185-190
4. FAO. 2003. Market research for agro-processors (Marketing Extension Guide). ftp://ftp.fao.org/ docrep/fao/007/y4532e/y4532e00.pdf
5. Carron, A.V. and S.R. Bray. 2002. “Team cohesion and team success in sport.” Journal of Sport Sciences, 20: 119–226.
6. McNiff J. (2002), Action Research for professional development; Concise advise for new action researchers, 3 rd Ed.
7. Appleton S., (2001). 'The rich are just like us, only richer': poverty functions or consumption functions?. Journal of African Economies, 10(4), 433-469.
8. O'Brien, R. (2001). An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research, In Roberto Richardson (Ed.), Theory and Practice of Action Research
9. Quigley, B., (2000), "The practitioner-research: a research revolution in
literacy," Adult Learning, 11 (3), 6-8.
10.Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (1998). Information, Systems, and Information Systems:Making Sense of the Field. Chichester, Sussex; New York: Wiley.
11.Lang Fred, Claus W. 1998. “Is cohesiveness a double edged sword?” Small Group Research, 29: 124-139.
12.Stringfellow, Rachel, Jonathan Coulter, Trevor Lucey, and Ambereene Hussain. (1997) "Improving the Access of Smallholders to Agricultural Services in Sub-Saharan Africa: Farmer Cooperation and the Role of the Donor Community." Natural Resource Perspectives 20 (1997): 1-10. Oversees Development Institute. 3 Mar. 2010.
13.Gully S.M., D.J Devine and D.J Whitney. 1995. “A meta analysis of cohesiveness and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence.” Small Group Research, 26(4): 497-520.
14.Mullen, B. and C. Copper. 1994. “The relationship between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration.” Psychological Bulletin, 115(2): 210-227.
15.Evans, C.R. and K.L. Dion. 1992. “On cohesiveness. Reply to keyton and other critics of the construct.” Small Group Research, 23(2): 242-250.
16.Evans C.R. and K.L. Dion. 1991. “Group Cohesion and performance: A Meta Analysis.” Small Group Research, 22(7): 175-186.
17.Mudrack, P. E. (1989). Group cohesiveness and productivity: A closer look. Human Relations, 42(9): 771-785.
18.Winter (1989), Learning From Experience: Principles and Practice in Action-Research. Philadelphia: The Falmer Press, 1989.
62
19.Zaccaro, S.J. and C.A Lowe. 1986. “Cohesiveness and performance on an additive task: Evidence for multidimensionality.” Journal of Social Psychology, 128(4): 547-558
20.Susman, Gerald I. (1983), "Action Research: A Socio-technical Systems Perspective." Ed. G. Morgan. London: Sage Publications, 1983. 95-113.
21.Hult, M., & Lennug, S. 1980, 'Towards a definition of action research' Journal ofmanagement studies, 17, 2, pp. 241-250.
22.Zander, A. (1979). The psychology of group processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 30: 417-451.
23.Cartwright D. 1968. The nature of group cohesiveness. In Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, ed. D Cartwright, A Zander, pp. 91–109. London: Tavistock
24.Soo-Young S & Won-Woo P, Moderating Effects of Group Cohesiveness in Competency-Performance Relationships: A Multi-Level Study, Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business. http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/09155.pdf
63