APF
Organised Farmers for
Business
Report on PAF Farmer Group Sharing workshop held on 24th
and 25th October
Theme:
Making value chains work through value chain
coordination and firm farm relations
Executive Summary
This is a report of the APF Farmer Group sharing workshop held on 24th and 25thh October 2012 at the Silver
Springs Hotel. The event themed: Making value chains work through value chain coordination and firm farm
relations. The key focus of the workshop was the sharing of best practice of value chain coordination approaches
particularly as regards strengthening inter firm relationships in the value chain with a particular focus on the farmfirm relationship.
I.
II.
III.
The objectives of the workshop included;
To learn and share about value chain coordination approaches that have worked in different commodities
and organizational settings.
To share the firm farm relations learning trajectory experience, lessons and recommendations for up
scaling and improving the model.
To define and prioritize activities for 2013.
Summary of the Event Activities:
DAY 1:
• Learnings from the Village Agent Retail Network- by USAID LEAD CoP, Mr. Erik Derks
•
The Multi Stakeholder Approach to value chain coordination, featuring two presentations:
1. Commodity Platforms, the experience of the Coffee Value Chain MSP by Managing Director of
Making it Happen, Emma Joynson-Hicks
2. The Oil Seed Multi Stakeholder Process, the experiences from the Gulu OSSUP Hub, by MSP
facilitator, Mr Godfrey Omony
• Innovations in Value Chain facilitation, a Sustainable market linkages approach by Agrinet Ltd, presented
by the firms CEO, Paul Nyende
• Theoretical perspectives on Value Chain Approaches by Stanley Musiime of SMJR Consult
DAY 2:
• An Overview of the2 to tango process, as an approach to strengthen firm-farm relationships in Uganda,
presented by APF’s Inger Janssen
• A presentation of key learnings from the execution of the 2 to tango in Uganda , by Stanley Musiime
• A debate on the effectiveness of the 2 to tango tool in strengthening firm farm relationships, facilitated by
Dr. Steven Birungi of Farm Support Ltd
• Identifying Key initiatives for 2013.
•
Summary of Key Outcomes:
(i)
Day 1 broadly involved discussions both of the theoretical and practical applications of value chain
coordination models. The focus on coordination approaches was as a result of a 2011 Farmer group
sharing workshop where weaknesses in value chain coordination mechanisms were identified as a key
constraint to value chain performance in Uganda.
Three key value chain coordination approaches emerged from the discussions and were well presented
and elaborated through various presentations. These include:
a. The Multi Stakeholder Platforms (MSP’s)
b. Value chain facilitation model and
c. The LEAD firm Model.
It was concluded that these models, should be explored further with a view to scaling them out further as
key activities for the farmer group in 2013.
(ii)
The 2 to tango tool was discussed extensively on day 2, through a debate exploring its effectiveness as a
tool in strengthening firm farm relationships. This resulted in good feedback from participants in
attendance.
Overall, the conclusion reached on the tool, was that while relevant and a good innovation, more
improvements are needed to make it more applicable.
(iii)
The final activity of the 2 day workshop involved defining the key activities for the Farmers Group for
2013. These were later clarified at a committee meeting held on 30th October and are summarised as
follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Work towards increasing the relevance and impact of the farmer group, particularly through
increasing membership
Continue to work on improving the 2 to tango tool
Exploring further value chain coordination models particularly the Value chain facilitation model and
the Lead firm Model
Work to organise more sharing and networking opportunities (B2B’s)
Summary of Event Evaluation
Respondents were required to provide an evaluation of the event, and below is an extract of key evaluation
criteria.
Facilitators
The event lived upto my expectation.
0%
01
9
Completely
agree
Agree
18
Excellent
48%
52%
GOOD
POOR
Disagree
Participants were generally happy with the event, with 96% either strongly agreeing or agreeing that the event
lived up to their expectations.
The participants were also broadly happy with the event facilitators. Some of the comments raised are
summarised below:
o Liked the Idea of the debate and World Cafe, Liked the Idea of LEAD and Emma as practitioners for
capacity Building
o Enjoyed presentation by Emma-please bring more of her; Debates bring out the practicability please keep
it up
o More workshops with practical demonstration
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
More time is needed to exhaust the topics; detailed overview of topics is required; Increase success
stories and case studies; provide comprehensive feedback to the participants
Avoid use of debates to generate issues (ideas), instead use complete critiques from individuals or groups
which can in the end be used to establish issues...
Workshops should be taken to places where different models have been put in practice; continue to
target facilitators who are knowledgeable; give the workshop enough time at least three days
Facilitation approaches and methods are good but could be refined
There was not enough discussion of lessons learnt.
Include more farmers and farmer organisations at various levels
Please provide stipend to participants to facilitate their transportation
Day 1
Opening Remarks- Marieke Van Schie (APF Uganda Coordinator)
The workshop was officially opened by Ms. Marieke van Schie, the Uganda Agrihub coordinator for APF. In her
remarks, she introduced and described the APF network and its activities both at APF level and at Agrihub Uganda
level.
The key highlights of her speech are captured below:
I.
She highlighted that AFP is a network that includes both international and local NGO’s Private Sector
actors, Financial Services providers, Research and Learning institutions, Public sector actors among others.
II.
She emphasized that new membership is welcome. She reiterated that APF was introduced and started
operations in Uganda in 2009 through the support of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
III.
Marieke mentioned that APF works through joint action and learning in 5 thematic groups which include
Farmer Organizations, Access to Financial services , Market information, Policy engagement, Farming
services, Food security ,Gender in value chains, Seed supply chain.
IV.
The Organized farmers for business cluster currently includes members like NUCAFE, AAA, AT UGANDA,
SEND A COW, SMJR CONSULT, AGRITERRA, and IIRR. More members are welcome to increase joint
cooperation and mutual
V.
In her conclusion, she reiterated that new members are welcome into APF
Welcome Remarks by Peter Van Erum, Chairman of Organised Farmers for Business Group
In his remarks, the Chairman, Peter Van Erum (TRIAS) mentioned to the members that the Mission of AGRI HUB
UGANDA is to bring together all the different actors in the Ugandan agricultural sector to promote a joint agenda
on farmer entrepreneurship and food security thus boosting the agricultural sector.
• He provided a historical perspective of APF’s beginnings as a network of Ugandan networks of Dutch aid
agencies to its transformation today as platform that enjoys membership and recognition from multiple
stakeholders, who include but are not limited to farmers’ organizations, financial service providers,
government, knowledge institutes, the business sector and international donors such as USAID.
•
Peter assured the members that APF boasts of an online membership of over 1000+ members for
purposes of knowledge exchange and deal brokering.
He refreshed members on the 2012 APF strategy aimed at

Creating active linkages to private sector promotion instruments from the Netherlands in coordination
with the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Establishing linkages with existing commodity platforms (such as oilseed, coffee, pineapple).

Organizing business scoping and matching events nationally and internationally.

Brokering for joint resource mobilization such as aBi Trust and other donors.
Peter concluded his remarks by detailing the activities planned over the 2 day workshop
Presentation 1:
The Village Agent Retail Model- Erik Derks (CoP USAID LEAD)
•
Erik Derks introduced the village agent retail model to the members with practical lessons from the Maize,
coffee and beans projects supported by the USAID LEAD model. The LEAD project operates in the districts of
Sironko, Mbale, Kapchorwa, Iganga, Gulu, Lira, Masindi and Mubende.
•
In this model, USAID LEAD does not work directly with farmers, but rather works directly with Input Service
providers to build their capacity and appreciation of providing improved customer service to farmers, so doing
creating a sustainable business linkage between Service providers and increasing access by small scale farmers
of vital services and products.
•
The other key unique aspect of this model is that it does not involve USAID LEAD as a catalyst, providing
direct financing to the retailers who are part of the growing network. Their support is limited to training and
capacity building of the input dealers. In spite of this, there is growing demand from small scale farmers for
services and inputs provided by dealers in the network.
•
In his presentation, Erik explored and described the project activities and tactics, explaining the expected
changes at the enterprise level, small holder level, and the systemic level. Among the key areas of impact, the
village agent retail model has (i) improved incomes for small holder farmers, especially in the coffee value
chain, improved food security and also improved productivity.
•
Among the key overaching lessons and challenges cited, were (i) appropriate staffing- where LEAD learnt over
time, the need for more practical, business trained facilitators, rather than development practitioners as field
staff (ii) the challenge of of village retail agents adipting the drive to become the agents of change (iii) the
challenge of ownership of costs of the service, among others
•
In conclusion, there was a keen appreciation of this model as an enabler and facilitator of the firm farm
relationship, between farmers and input dealers. As a relatively new concept, it will be useful for APF
members to continue to learn the lessons from this innovative approach as LEADS develops it further.
•
The full presentation can be accessed at the following link: report here
Bernard Conilh de Beyssac of SNV moderated the discussion that followed in which the following key issues
were explored:
•
It was agreed that the Village Agent Retail Model provides a good and unique example of the LEAD Firm
model, where Input suppliers are using value added services to increase their relevance in the value chain
while at the same time, providing much needed quality seed and other inputs to the farmers.
•
The importance of such a model in fighting illicit seed was recognised, and it was suggested that LEAD
continue to share the learnings of the model for replication.
•
In addition the model was recognised for its ability to be self sustaining, and different from the usual
relationships between development organisations and value chain actors where there is a normally some
financial incentive for participation. However the difficulty of engaging in development activity without some
form of financial support or incentive was also recognised by Erik, who pointed out that eventually the model
had to assume some level of cost sharing between LEAD and the retail agents to increase interest and impact.

Presentation 2
Commodity Platforms- Emma Joynson Hicks (Making it Happen)
Emma introduced the concept of MSP Commodity Platforms also known as Multi-Stakeholder Platforms. The
presentation drew strongly on the presenter’s significant experience in the coffee platforms in Uganda

She preferred the definition of commodity platforms by Wageningen University that is “processes that aim to
involve stakeholders in improving situations that effect them, forms of social interaction that enable
different individuals and groups, who are effected by an issue, to enter into dialogue, negotiation, learning,
decision making and collective action, helping government staff, policy makers, community representatives,
scientists, business people and NGO representatives to think and work together.

Emma added that there was no clear definition of commodity platforms however; all commodity platforms
had similar features such as flexibility, were collaborative and multi-stakeholder in nature and that they could
work at any level (international, national, local) with the members determined its success or failure.

Some of the key reasons she cites for the success of the National Coffee platform included: a greater
integration of the value chain, Increased knowledge by members of what was going on across the wider value
chain.

Among the reasons for the failure of commodity platforms, Emma mentioned: the absence of a clear mandate
to launch the commodity platform, the existence of a large and intangible problem with limited resources for
the implementation of the project as being key.

In her conclusive remarks, Emma reaffirmed her strong conviction that a most effective way of facilitating the
value chain system is through the multi-stakeholder approach.

This full report can be accessed here
In the Discussion that followed, the plenary discussed the following key issues:

It was reemphasised that a commodity platform needs to have a clear mandate in order to get things done. In
the absence of this clarity, a platform loses its ability to maximise its impact in improving value chain
coordination.

It was also observed that value chain actors tend to leave “big problems” and issues to be solved by the public
sector. However members agreed that largely the efficiency of the public sector in spearheading activities
such as a commodity platform is lacking. While government has a role to play, in the successful coordination
especially of national platforms, the private sector, however needs to maintain leadership and initiative.

It was also proposed that platforms must be short term, established to solve one problem at a time.
Presentation 3
Multi Stakeholder Platforms- the experience of Gulu OSSUP HUB- Godfrey Omony (Virtuous Springs Ltd)

This was a presentation by the MSP facilitator from the Gulu OSSUP MSP. Godfrey’s presentation described
the MSP but from the perspective of the Oil seed value chain.

The presentation highlighted the fact that there existed significant levels of horizontal integration through
DFA’s, farmer groups but that there was limited evidence of vertical coordination. He mentioned the key value
chain coordination challenges as adversarial actor relationships, lack of awareness and information sharing;
services and systemic inefficiency in the chain.

He explored the root cause of this non coordination citing the major issue as lack of a strategic focus in the
sector. However some of their initiatives to solve this challenge included refocusing the subsector by nurturing
dialogues and strategic frameworks.

An approach on facilitating MSP was also described through a two dimensional role that is Strategic
implemented by envisioning the platform in the long term) and Tactical that is by handling the platform in the
short and medium terms).

The presenter also shared a practical experience in preparing and facilitating MSP committee meetings which
involved organizing quarterly meetings, facilitating direct discussions and documenting the proceedings, time
management, business-business interactions and communicating documented information by hard and soft
copies.

In his conclusion, Godfrey defined some of the other key activities by value chain facilitators from the
experience of the GULU Ossup, which he cited as (a) intelligence gathering, (b) social mobilization and (c)
brokering of linkages.

The full presentation can be accessed here

In the discussion that followed the following key issues were explored

A question was raised, as to what needs to be done to make MSP’s work. In the discussion, it was agreed that
MSP’s should focus on promoting business to business linkages, thereby making them more relevant to value
chain members. It was further suggested that members should know their roles and responsibilities, as well as
the benefits involved in MSP involvement.

On the issue of whether the national platform was more important than the district platform in addressing the
current value chain problems, it was discussed that both platforms can address the value chain problems, as
each unique problem or situation can best be addressed by a specific value chain structure. It is therefore
important to indentify the problem clearly so as to establish at what level it can best be addressed.

The inefficiencies existing in value chains were recognised, and the following strategies were proposed to
improve MSP efficiency:
o Ensuring access to information and efficiency
o Reducing duplication by ensuring specialisation among actors
o Professionalizing and standardizing the policies involved in the MSP
o Capacity building support services to MSP members

On the issue of sustainability- how the MSP’s can pay for themselves, the following strategies were proposed:
o
o

Members be required to make a contribution for MSP facilitation
Provision of fee based services that are valuable to members.
Presentation 4
The Agrinet Market Intelligence and Value Chain facilitation Model
Paul Nyende, CEO Agrinet introduced the AgriNet BDS model which facilitates the value chain by
coordinating the relationship between well organised farmers on one hand and large corporate entities
looking for high quality and quantities of raw materials. They do this for a commission. Among the many
happy corporate clients being supported through this coordination are the following: East African Breweries
(EABL), Kemwa Foods (Kenya), Mithungu Millers (Kenya) and Nsava Animal & Poultry Feeds.

He largely drew from his experience in the Sorghum value chain and added that Agrinet was unique from
other BDS because of their intelligence, the network and earning commission by facilitating the value chain
through information provision, primary processing, contract management and improving efficiency by
increasing quality & volumes.

He added that the key principles of the model included troubleshooting market access issues on an-going basis
among value chain actors, a real time MIS around value chain actors to combine the intelligence for
transparency & efficiency in the value chain and transaction Security Service.

In this presentation, Paul identified mechanisms to scaling up and identifying opportunities to reach scale and
the strategies used included; diversification into various commodities, building and sustenance of markets and
clientele bases, development partners to expand the service.

He shared the impact of Agri Net BDS model on the value chain facilitation which included price increase,
stimulated production, and alternative market opportunities/diversification and added that Agrinet earned a
premium price (an overall sum covering packaging, tagging, transport cost, loading, Rent, insurance, taxes, and
other costs)

In his concluding remarks, Paul also pointed out the challenges of the BDS model in facilitating the value
chains system and this included small scale operations, mistrust among clients (farmers & volume buyers)
coupled with wrong perceptions, market distortions, side selling and the high bank interest rates. However,
he reiterated that Agrinet provided solutions to these challenges such as introduction of agricultural
technology to farmers (high yielding varieties) and processing technology, (maize shellers & Tarpaulin.)

The full presentation is available here
The discussion that followed explored the following as the key issues:

It was observed that for such a model to work, it should ideally start small, maintain discipline, and continue
to work with farmer groups, building the capability for the two actors to work together when development
partners are phased out.

Challenges to scaling out of the model include building a trusted and disciplined network that provides market
intelligence. In the case of Agrinet, it was pointed out that 40% of existing clients are all new farmers, with
many farmers having been dropped off due to inconsistency.

It is also important to integrate BDS services and ICT in the VC operations through for instance Agricultural
technology( such a high yielding varieties) and processing technology(value addition), this strengthens
relationships and interdependency. In the case of Agrinet, the company has provided maize shellers to her
dedicated supplier farmer groups

Africa it was noted, has 20% of the world arable land and yet produces only 1% of the total food supply. The
strategies that can be developed to transform this situation were discussed as being:
o The need for a total transformation of the sector
o Introduction of high yielding breeds and technologies into African value chains
o Improving capacity and knowledge of actors in the value chain.
Presentation 5
Value Chain Coordination Mechanisms in Agribusiness. A theoretical perspective from research on global value
chain studies
 Stanley Musiime in his presentation explored the various value chain coordination approaches based on
existing literature and studies.

There are 3 primary forms of value chain coordination which included (i) vertical coordination among actors
at different points in a value chain, (ii) horizontal coordination among actors at a the same level in a value
chain and (iii) complementary coordination among actors providing complementary services to producers at a
given stage of a marketing chain.

The presentation emphasised the importance of efficient value chain coordination mechanisms providing as
key reasons: (i) the need to meet the increased complexity of end market requirements and (ii) to mitigate
business risk due to performance shortfalls.

Value chain interdependencies (the underlying characteristics defining the relationship between value chain
actors) were explored. Three key dependencies: (i) pooled (ii) sequential and (iii) reciprocal were discussed
and their practical relevance explored.

A global perspective on global value chain governance was discussed, in which the various forms of global
value chain governance models, their various attributes, and underlying coordination mechanisms were
discussed. These included (a) Market,(b) modular, (c) Relational, (d) Captive and the (e) Hierarchy coordination
mechanisms.

Also discussed, were the key variables which underpin when the other coordination mechanisms become
applicable. These include (i) the complexity of transactions- where more complex transactions require more
complex coordination mechanisms, (ii) ease of quantifying and communicating product/service requirements
and the (iii) competence of suppliers.

In his conclusion, the presenter cited the existence of key coordination models in Uganda, these being (i) the
Multi Stakeholder Model (ii) the LEAD Firm Model and (iii) Value Chain facilitation model (e.g Agrinetl)

The full presentation is available here.
In the discussion that followed the following key issues were explored:

It was observed that value chain coordination mechanisms can work complementarily with one another. It
was clearly identified that a sequential coordination approach which looks at relationships with actors at
different hierarchies in a value chain, can only be successful where horizontal coordination (getting actors at
the same hierarchy in a value chain to work together) has already been achieved. Citing the previous
discussion by Agrinet, it was clear that Agrinet, ability to create sequential coordination (linking farmers to
Breweries) was achieved after getting farmers to work together (horizontal coordination).

It was recognised that the MSP approach is receiving a high level of recognition as a coordination mechanisms,
however it was also suggested that the facilitation model such as Agrinet model and the lead firm models
need to be studied further with a view to scaling them out.
Day 2
The 2 to tango tool as an effective tool in strengthening firm-farm relationships by Inger Janssen (APF) and
Stanley Musiime (Coach of the 2 to tango study)
 The first half of Day 2 explored in great detail the 2 to tango tool as a process of stimulating and strengthening
firm farm relationships

This was achieved through two primary presentations by Inger (Agri-ProFocus Netherlands) and Stanley (coach
FF learning trajectory).

Ingers Presentation explored the background and rationale for the need and introduction of the 2 to tango
tool providing key insights into the development process of the tool by the University of Wageningen and
AgriProfocus, and describing the various aspects of the 2 to tango process

Stanley’s presentation focused on the learnings from the study of the 2 to tango tool that was executed in
Uganda.

The attending members then engaged in a debate arguing the merits and demerits of the tool, and whether it
was relevant as tool that needed to be supported and promoted further.

Ingers Presentation is available here

Stanleys presentation guide is available here
Against
Why it does not work!!
The tool was perceived as a good research tool,
but not well suited for the practical needs of
farmers and firms. The tool was felt to be too
academic.
Because the tool focuses on perceptions, this
was identified as a weakness because
perceptions (how farmers and firms feel) are
dynamic and change often.
The complexity was felt to be rather high for
small scale farmers and firms to handle. As a
result of this there is a high risk of information
being lost interpretation and analysis stage
It was also suggested that firms and farmers are
well aware of their issues, and did not need
graphs to understand their issues. What is really
needed is opportunity for dialogue between
firms and farmers.
Lack of clear ownership. As the tool is not
demand driven, it is not clear that firms or
farmers should own the tool and lead the
process.
Related to the above, there are cost implications
to using the process, which firms might not be
willing to incur, and farmers not able to afford.
As a tool based significantly on perceptions
(rather than actual facts), there is a risk that
wrong or inappropriate activities and actions
For
Why it is a good tool
The tools has a powerful ability to generate open
and candid dialogue and therefore to promote
good decision making.
The tool was recognized for its ability to even out
power relations between actors. It creates a
dialogue between equals
The focus on perceptions was argued to work and
this was supported by the fact that even leading
businesses such as Mukwano base many of their
activities and initiatives on perceptions and
convictions.
As it is a tool that stimulates dialogue it helps the
actors (firms and farmers) to understand their
businesses better.
It is a good thinking tool
Presentation format, through graphs is easy for
even illiterate or lowly educated people to
understand. It was suggested for instance that
Tony (CEO of Mukwano), can easily interface in
highly constructive dialogue with his farmers
through analysis and discussion of the simple
graphs used by this tool.
It was argued that the tool was good, only
needing improvement to increase its applicability.
It was argued that as there is never a free lunch,
and that anything worth having was worth
investing in, the issue of cost of the tool is moot,
might be chosen as a result of analysis of
ineffectual perceptions.
As a process that deals with 2 sets of actors, it
eliminates other key support actors. It was
argued that perceptions from firms and farmers
lack the input from policy actors, and other key
or knowledgeable actors. This presents a
significant lost opportunity to enrich the
dialogue, and perhaps strengthen perceptions
with actual facts.
It was argued that the tool was irrelevant since
the existence of a relationship presupposed the
existence of an already ongoing dialogue.
as the value of the tool would be recognized and
firms/farmers would assume ownership.
Information is power. This tool promotes
information.
Tool promotes trust and democracy hence
strengthening firm farm relationships and the
wider value chain performance.
.
In conclusion, it was largely agreed by members present that the tool was a good approach at
strengthening farm firm relationships, and that it was worth the additional effort to incorporate the
learnings from the study to improve the tool and make it more practical, and applicable