Assessment of the forage seed sector in Kenya and Uganda 94 Assessment of the forage seed sector in Kenya and Uganda Kevin Maina, Isabelle Baltenweck, Ben Lukuyu, Nils Teufel International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) Solomon Mwendia and Michael Peters Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT Thomas van Mourik KIT Royal Tropical Institute January 2022 © 2022 International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) ILRI thanks all donors and organizations which globally supports its work through their contributions to the CGIAR Trust Fund Attribution: This publication is copyrighted by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). It is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. To view this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 Unless otherwise noted, you are free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format), adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) for any purpose, even commercially, under the following conditions: » The work must be attributed, but not in any way that suggests endorsement by ILRI or the author(s). » For any reuse or distribution, the licence terms of this work must be made clear to others. » Any of the above conditions can be waived if permission is obtained from the copyright holder. » Nothing in this licence impairs or restricts the author’s moral rights. » Fair dealing and other rights are in no way affected by the above. » The parts used must not misrepresent the meaning of the publication. ILRI would appreciate being sent a copy of any materials in which text, photos etc. have been used. Editing, design and layout: ILRI Editorial and Publishing Services, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. ISBN: 92–9146–693–x Citation: Maina, K., Baltenweck, I., Lukuyu, B., Teufel, N., Mwendia, S., van Mourik, T. and Peters, M. Assessment of the forage seed sector in Kenya and Uganda. ILRI research report 94. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/116651 Patron: Professor Peter C Doherty AC, FAA, FRS Animal scientist, Nobel Prize Laureate for Physiology or Medicine–1996 Box 30709, Nairobi 00100 Kenya ilri.org Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Phone +254 20 422 3000 better lives through livestock Phone +251 11 617 2000 Fax+254 20 422 3001 Fax +251 11 667 6923 Email ilri-kenya@cgiar.org ILRI is a CGIAR research centre Email ilri-ethiopia@cgiar.org ILRI has offices in East Africa • South Asia • Southeast and East Asia • Southern Africa • West Africa Contents Abbreviations and acronyms 7 Executive summary 8 1 Introduction 9 2 Approach and data methodology 11 3 Key findings 12 3.1 Forage seed sector in Kenya and Uganda 12 3.2 Forage seed companies and forage status in Kenya and Uganda 13 3.3 Forage seed production, certification and trend in demand 13 3.3.1 Forage seed production 13 3.3.2 Forage marketing 16 3.3.3 Trends in forage demand 18 3.4 Forage production and marketing challenges 20 3.5 Government policies affecting forage production and marketing 22 3.6 Women and youth gap in the forage enterprise: what next? 23 4 Conclusion 25 5 Next steps 26 References 27 Annexe 1: List of forage seed companies/entities contacted and the type of forages stocked in Kenya and Uganda 29 Annexe 2: Key informant interview guide for sellers of forage planting materials in Kenya and Uganda 32 List of figures Figure 1: Forage seed refers to both true seed and vegetative planting material for forages 10 Figure 2: Aspects considered in seed certification in Kenya and Uganda. 15 Figure 3: A moisture meter for forage seeds 16 Figure 4: Anautomated packaging machine 16 Figure 5: Major forage seed customers in Kenya and Uganda 16 Figure 6: Quality control measures in forage seed marketing in Kenya and Uganda 17 Figure 7: Examples of packaging material for forage seeds in Kenya and Uganda 17 Figure 8: Forage seed production constraints in Kenya and Uganda 20 Figure 9: Major challenges in marketing forage seeds in Kenya and Uganda 21 Figure 10: Government policies affecting the production and marketing of forage seeds in Kenya and Uganda 22 Pastoral women, tenure and governance 7 Abbreviations and acronyms ATC Agricultural Training Centre DUS Distinctiveness, uniformity and stability FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ILRI International Livestock Research Institute KALRO Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization KEPHIS Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service NARO National Agricultural Research Organization (Uganda) NGO Non-governmental organization NSCS National Seed Certification Service (Uganda) NWO Dutch Research Council QDS Quality Declared Seed Executive summary Dairy production in east Africa is crucial for rural development, poverty reduction and food and nutrition security. Dairying has increased recently due to the high demand for milk and value-added milk products by a growing population and an expanding urban middle class. The sector contributes to more than 9% of the gross domestic product in Kenya and Uganda. However, suboptimal feeding forms a major constraint for further growth and development of the dairy sector. As feeding represents 65% of production costs, improved forage productivity will greatly increase milk production efficiency and thus reduce the production costs and price of milk. Currently, farmers mainly rely on grazing poor pastures, feeding crop residues and collecting feeds. As a result of a poorly functioning forage seed value chain, promising and demanded species and varieties which provide high-quality forage for Kenya and Uganda remain under-utilized. To promote forage production, a study was conducted to assess constraints and opportunities in forage seed production in Kenya and Uganda. The study used desk reviews and key informant interviews with sellers of forage planting material and seed companies, using a sample of 16 seed companies and entities to assess existing production and marketing business models for different forage species considering the biophysical and socio-economic contexts of Kenya and Uganda. Preliminary findings from the key informant interviews indicate that more than 50% of seed transfers and sales to farmers are conducted through the informal sector. The most commonly traded propagation materials are of grasses and leguminous forages. The seed quality certification standards are limited more to large-sized companies, and thus small- and medium-sized companies often trade in uncertified seed and planting material. The study concludes that in order to create demand for improved forages, there is a need to raise awareness and improve knowledge through innovative promotion pathways for forages and extension among farmers. There is also a need to develop the nascent informal seed sector by supporting and developing quality declared seed standards. This will increase seed availability and reduce cost of seed for smallholder farmers. Lastly, there is a need to harmonize seed policies in Kenya and Uganda to allow smooth importation of forage seed. Pastoral women, tenure and governance 9 1 Introduction Population growth, urbanization and a shift in consumer dietary preference inclined towards increased consumption of livestock products are reshaping livestock systems globally (White et al. 2013; Bosire et al. 2016). Livestock remains a major source of food and income for most rural households in sub-Saharan Africa (ILRI 2019; Baltenweck et al. 2020). Demand for livestock products in Kenya and Uganda is likely to double by 2050 (FAO 2017, 2019). Thus, doubling the demand for livestock products presents a means of improving the welfare of farmers in the region. This raises concerns about the capability of the sector to increase production sustainably while avoiding negative impacts on the environment and promoting ecosystems benefits. Therefore, there is an impetus to enhance availability, affordability and accessibility of sustainable feed sources to support any commercial livestock production, including dairy. Livestock production is hampered by limited feed resources characterized by suboptimal quantities and lower nutritional contents (McKune et al. 2015; Lugusa et al. 2016; Paul et al. 2020). Increased climate variability characterized by high temperatures and prolonged drought negatively affects forage quality and quantity, thus reducing livestock productivity (Dawson et al. 2014). Additionally, the variation threatens the sustainability of the sector by increasing cost of feed and reducing livestock productivity (Gachuiri et al. 2017). Consequently, feed scarcity increases the burden of work on all household members, and especially women, who are already constrained by time poverty (Tangka and Jabbar 2010; Bain et al. 2018). Women are responsible for feed-related activities in addition to other household activities. Thus, feed scarcity creates undue stress in sourcing for feeds. Therefore, the success of any programmes or policies to expand the dairy sector will require an adequate and constant supply of high-quality feed. It is projected that future demand for livestock products will be supplied by peri-urban and intensive farms, with an increase in demand for forages (FAO 2019), although rising cost of production with constant or even declining real milk price may limit the uptake. Current feeding regimes are characterized by suboptimal feeding that hinders further professionalization and development of the dairy sectors in Kenya and Uganda. In Kenya, for instance, smallholder farmers supplement on-farm forages by buying fodder (Creemers and Adolfo 2019a). Medium- to large-scale farmers with sufficient land for fodder production often encounter shortages during the dry season and wastage in the rainy season (Creemers and Adolfo 2019a; Maina et al. 2020). Therefore, the current feed regimes increase the cost of feed, which accounts for more than 50% of the costs of production (SNV 2013). Introduction and promotion of improved forages and their management can reduce the cost of production among farmers and mitigate seasonal scarcities. This will increase efficiency in milk production and stabilization of the milk supply and related prices. Improvement in forages through research and innovation is a key strategy in increasing livestock productivity through a constant supply of quality forages (Chakravarti 1987; Peters and Lascano 2003: Lukuyu et al. 2017). 10 Research report 92 Figure 1: Forage seed refers to both true seed and vegetative planting material for forages. Photo credit: Seeds for Africa. However, access to forage seed and planting material for improved forages remains limited for smallholder dairy farmers in Kenya and Uganda. The Dutch Research Council (NWO) funded “Feed and forage seed business models project” aims to bridge this gap by providing insights on how to effectively invest private and public resources in fostering production, marketing, promotion and use of high-quality planting materials (both seed and vegetative material) for farmers. The project aims to develop viable business models for forage seed production and marketing to sustainably provide farmers access to high-quality forages in Kenya and Uganda. Development partners in collaboration with national and international research institutions have over time developed and disseminated different improved forages to bridge the gap. However, the uptake of the interventions on feed has often been low (Murage et al. 2015; Baltenweck et al. 2020). Access to planting material for improved forages has been cited as one of the factors underlying low uptake of improved forages (Chakoma et al. 2016; Chakoma and Chummun 2018). Additionally, competition for land for alternative uses such as the production of high-value crops and the development of real estate has contributed to the reduction in forage production (Lugusa et al. 2016; Njarui et al. 2016; Gachuiri et al. 2017). A competitive and vibrant seed sector results in the availability of affordable high-quality seeds for farmers (Waithaka et al. 2019). However, feed and forage value chains remain undeveloped, and thus untapped agribusiness opportunities are foregone, denying the expansion and development of the livestock sector. Chakoma and Chummun (2019) note that existing forage seed value chains in eastern and southern Africa hinder accessibility to improved forage seeds by smallholder farmers. Feed remains the largest factor in the development and expansion of the dairy sector, thus underscoring the need to increase uptake of improved forages by increasing access to forage seed. Therefore, the current study aimed at answering the overarching question of how to realize forage seed production and marketing in a commercially sustainable manner through a desk review and key informant interviews of forage seed companies in Kenya and Uganda. The study was premised on the following research questions: » What types of suppliers of forage planting material operate in the project focus areas? » Which public–private collaboration configurations can strengthen the business case for commercial production and/or marketing of forage planting material? » What kind of configuration between international, national and local producers of planting material and traders best serves the needs of the diversity of dairy farmers? » How can employment opportunities in the forage seed business be optimized, with a specific focus on women and youth employment? Pastoral women, tenure and governance 11 2 Approach and data methodology In order to answer the research questions, the study gathered literature on the forage seed systems in Kenya and Uganda. After securing ethical approval from ILRI’s Institutional Research Ethics Committee (ILRI-IREC 2020–2038), key informant interviews were subsequently undertaken with seed producers and sellers in Kenya and Uganda (see checklist in Annexe 2). These included public and private entities involved in the production and marketing of forage planting material in Kenya and Uganda, especially of new varieties. The relevant entities were identified through a systematic screening of all actors in the countries’ seed sectors, selecting actors with a substantial engagement in forages. Out of 20 companies identified and targeted (11 in Kenya and 9 in Uganda), we were able to interview 16 (7 in Kenya and all 9 in Uganda). Additionally, three seed sellers were interviewed during a larger community survey that was conducted as part of the project activities. In Kenya, five companies that were interviewed were private registered companies, while one was a public institution and one a farmer group/cooperative, as shown in Table 1. Table 1: Types of seed entities interviewed in Kenya and Uganda. Type of seed entity Kenya Kenya Uganda Uganda (target sample (actual number (target sample (actual number size) interviewed) size) interviewed) Private national/ local 9 5 4 4 company International company 0 0 2 2 Cooperative society 0 0 1 1 Farmer group 1 1 Community-based 1 1 organization Public institution 1 1 1 1 In Uganda, there were four local private companies and two international companies. Additionally, a cooperative society, community-based organization and a public institution were interviewed. Due to confidentiality and data privacy issues, we did not get data on prices or sales volume of forage seed from private seed companies. 12 Research report 92 3 Key findings 3.1 Forage seed sector in Kenya and Uganda The seed industry in Uganda and Kenya consists of two systems: a formal and informal seed sector. As defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the informal seed sector refers to a system whereby farmers produce, obtain, maintain and supply seed/planting material from one growing season to another (Waithaka et al. 2019). Farmers rely on informal means of accessing improved forage where quality is uncertain (Chakoma and Chummun 2019). The sector is characterized by farmers sharing seed and planting Some public institutions such as NARO material as gifts or through sale. Quality standards in this Holdings in Uganda and farmer groups sector are not controlled, and more often than not farmers such as Dream Farm Kiruhura, Kazo Dryland rely on indigenous knowledge and standards established and Ikinyukia are registered as seed by social structures that exist within the local farming enterprises supplying certified forage society. However, research institutes such as the Kenya seeds and planting materials in the more Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO), formalized sector. National Livestock Resources Research Institute (NaLiRRI), Agricultural Training Centers (ATCs) and ILRI that operate within the legal framework use their own set of quality standards that mirror the requirements of the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS) and Uganda’s National Seed Certification Service (NSCS), but might not be registered as commercial suppliers of certified forage seeds – i.e. the forage varieties are not registered in the national crop variety list (Creemers and Adolfo 2019a; Waithaka et al. 2019). The formal seed sector, on the other hand, refers to a system within which certified seeds are marketed. The quality standards are set and monitored by the respective government agencies, such as NSCS under Uganda’s Ministry of Agriculture, Animal and Fisheries and KEPHIS in Kenya. The formal seed sector in Kenya started in the early 20th century through research support on food, industrial and export crops (Government of Kenya 2010). This sub-sector mainly comprises privately registered seed companies (both local and international) and registered seed enterprises of research institutions such as KALRO, the ATCs and Uganda’s National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO). The seed enterprises in the formal sector mainly focus on the evaluation of improved varieties, multiplication and breeding. Pastoral women, tenure and governance 13 3.2 Forage seed companies and forage status in Kenya and Uganda Table 2 highlights the types of business approaches used by the seed companies interviewed in Kenya and Uganda. Table 2: Types of business models used by forage seed companies in Kenya and Uganda. Type of business model/operation Kenya Uganda Private local company importing and reselling seed 4 2 Private local company buying locally and reselling seed 1 0 Private local company buying locally, multiplying and selling seed 0 2 Farmer group buying locally, multiplying and selling seed 1 2 Individual farmers buying locally, multiplying and selling seed/splits 0 3 International company importing and reselling seed 0 2 Public institution buying locally, multiplying and selling seed 1 1 There are private companies that mainly import and resell seeds in both Kenya and Uganda. Some private companies buy locally and resell, as in the case of Kenya; others buy locally, multiply and sell, as in the case of Uganda. Local companies such as SPEN Youth Group in Kenya and Robran Holdings and Itungo Pastures in Uganda also provide extension services to farmers. Public institutions and farmer groups buy planting material locally, multiply and sell to farmers. 3.3 Forage seed production, certification and trend in demand 3.3.1 Forage seed production A similar study conducted by SNV In Kenya, the study identified 18 entities involved in production in 2019 identified about 20 companies and supply of seed and planting material for forages. Out of this, in Kenya that supply certified seven entities were interviewed due to some non-response from forage seed. Out of the 20 seed contacted seed enterprises. Half of the entities interviewed companies, 9 had stocked certified are classified as part of the informal seed sector. In Uganda, forage seeds; whereas only 7 had there are more than 18 entities involved in the supply of seed multiplication sites. Additionally, there and planting material. Half of the 18 entities identified were were ,more than 20 informal seed/ interviewed, in addition to three seed sellers contacted during planting material suppliers in Kenya the community survey. More than half of the entities interviewed including ATSc. In Uganda, there represented the informal seed sector. Out of the 16 seed were 23 seed companies and none entities and three seed sellers interviewed, only four entities of the private companies had seed in Kenya and four in Uganda are licenced by KEPHIS and NSCS multiplication sites. respectively to produce seed and planting material. (Creemers and Adolfo 2019a, 2019b) 14 Research report 92 Most entities that are involved in seed production in Kenya and Uganda do not contract other farmers to produce seed. For instance, Ikinyukia and Kazo Dryland produce forage seed through their member farmers. As noted by the chairperson for Ikinyukia: ‘We have about 23 members whom we train on seed production. We usually do not recruit new members but prefer to replace deceased members with suitable family members.‘ In Uganda, only six entities engage individual farmers and farmer groups in contractual agreements (mostly informal, verbal agreements) for the production of seed. This implies that the contracts are verbal and are difficult to enforce in case of a breach. For most private companies in Kenya, most seeds are imported; many of the certification processes are performed in the country of origin and counter-checked by KEPHIS officials for conformity. Farmer groups in Kenya such as Ikinyukia also have their seeds certified by KEPHIS. In Uganda, five out of nine seed entities are involved in seed production (both own production and through farmers) and certification, as shown in Table 3. Table 3: Seed production entities (both formal and informal) identified in Kenya and Uganda. Seed production entities and their characteristics Kenya Uganda Total number of entities involved in production and/or supply 18 20 of seed/planting material for forages Number of entities interviewed 7 9 Number of entities involved in seed certification, whether seed is imported 2 5 or produced locally (out of those interviewed) Number of entities involved in seed production through farmers 0 2 or farmer groups Number of entities producing seed in own multiplication sites and facilities 0 3 Number of entities involved in seed processing (out of those interviewed) 6 6 Some of the aspects considered in seed production and certification include inspection of off-types, maturity rate of the seed, purity of seed, germination rates of the seed and storage of seed (moisture content). As quoted by some importers of improved forage seeds: ‘When testing the germination rates for Brachiaria, KEPHIS applies a generalized rate. However, the germination rate varies between local and improved varieties for Brachiaria. Therefore, most improved Brachiaria varieties fail the test at KEPHIS.’ This translates into losses, as this seed cannot be distributed to farmers. Pastoral women, tenure and governance 15 Figure 2: Aspects considered in seed certification in Kenya and Uganda. However, there are challenges in seed certification for the two countries. For instance, seed companies in Kenya indicate that there is a lack of a clear certification criteria, especially for grasses. For example, the germination rate for grasses is set to be above 50%, whereas most germination rates for grasses are below 40%. Similarly, Brachiaria varieties also differ in germination rates; thus, when set standards by KEPHIS are adhered to, certain varieties fail to pass and are considered not fit. One of the recommendations is to have harmonized KEPHIS forage seed standards that are adaptable and applicable to specific varieties. In Uganda, the majority of informal seed sources do not undergo any quality control procedures (including informal quality declaration). Lack of training and awareness contributes to this. However, some farmer groups such as Kazo Drylands have undergone training through the Integrated Seed Sector Development project and are now producing quality declared seed (QDS) of rhodes grass (Chloris gayana). Decentralization of the seed certification services in Uganda to the district level has increased the number of farmers, farmer groups and private entities that have their seed certified, including forage seeds. Currently two farmer groups are producing QDS of rhodes grass. Variety registrations of new forage varieties in Kenya undergo two main processes: » National performance trials (NPTs) » Distinctiveness, uniformity and stability (DUS) tests. The two processes combined take about 2–3 years, with an estimated cost of USD 3,000 per variety. In Uganda, the process involves national performance trials that are conducted by the breeders. The DUS tests are conducted by the NSCS. The total time to go through the process in Uganda is about 1 year (2 seasons). The majority of seed companies in Kenya and Uganda engage in seed processing, which includes sorting, drying, seed treatment, packaging and labelling. However, smaller entities such as start-up companies and farmer groups lack enough capacity in terms of equipment to process forage seed. Additionally, the level of technical know-how is still low and would require capacity building. 16 Research report 92 Figure 3: A moisture meter for forage seeds. Figure 4: An automated packaging machine. Photo credit: ILRI/Kevin Maina. 3.3.2 Forage marketing The majority of forage customers are individual farmers in both Kenya and Uganda, as shown in Figure 5. Figure 5: Major forage seed customers in Kenya and Uganda. Farmer groups, cooperatives and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) buy forage seeds for multiplication and redistribution to either their members, if a farmer group, or to target beneficiaries of a project in the case of NGOs. Additionally, findings from the interviews with sellers of planting material in Uganda indicate that individual farmers are the main customers for vegetative planting materials. Pastoral women, tenure and governance 17 To cater to the needs of most customers, the majority of the seed entities have varying packaging sizes starting from as low as 2-10 kg depending on the needs of the customers. Small package sizes often increase the accessibility and uptake of forages as opposed to scenarios where farmers are forced to buy specific large quantities. Most businesses have adopted various measures to ensure the end users acquire seed that is of high quality, as shown in Figure 6. Figure 6: Quality control measures in forage seed marketing in Kenya and Uganda. Seed companies that supply directly to farmers sometimes establish fodder plots as a form of quality assurance. They provide farmers with agronomic support, as in the case of Itungo Pastures and Robran Holdings in Uganda and Ikinyukia and SPEN Youth Group in Kenya. Formal companies such as Simlaw, East Africa Seed, Hygrotech and Advantage Crops Ltd have their distribution outlets across the countries. Additionally, the use of labelled and tamper-proof packaging with certification stamps assures the quality of seed. Figure 7: Examples of packaging material for forage seeds in Kenya and Uganda. Photo credit: ILRI/Kevin Maina. 18 Research report 92 3.3.3 Trends in forage demand An assessment of forage demand for the last three years i.e. 2018, 2019 and 2020 is presented in Table 4. Demand and sales of Brachiaria varieties and most leguminous forages (e.g. Lucerne, Centrosema) have been increasing as a result of improved marketing coupled with promotion by development projects. For instance, demand for Brachiaria in Kenya is a result of promotion through the United States Agency for International Development’s Feed the Future Accelerated Value Chain Development project, the climate-smart push-pull1 technology being promoted in the western region in Kenya, and the Grass to Cash programme in e.g. western Kenya and Meru. At a localized level, the demand for the traditional forage grasses such as Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) has reduced in favour of other improved forages. ‘Farmers tend to share planting materials especially Napier grass amongst themselves as gifts. In a similar fashion, promotion of more nutritious forages such as Brachiaria has reduced the demand for improved Napier grass. Farmers now prefer Brachiaria to Napier grass’ as noted by some respondents. Centrosema (Centrosema molle) and alfalfa/lucerne (Medicago sativa) can be planted together with rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) and enrich the hay with protein. This has increased their demand especially among dairy producers in Uganda as mentioned during the interviews. Demand for some forages such as High Altitude Composite (HAC) maize fluctuates due to seasonality. The same applies for cases where the forages are perennial. Another factor that might affect demand for seed is the use of vegetative materials such as splits and cuttings. Farmers often get vegetative materials as gifts from their fellow farmers and this might affect the aggregate demand for seed in the market. Table 4: Demand trend of main forages traded between 2018 and 2020 in Kenya and Uganda, based on survey data on seed companies.   Name of forage Trend in sales Reasons for trend Trend in sales Reasons for trend (Kenya) (Uganda) 1. Brachiaria (Mulato) Increasing Increase in demand Increasing Increase in demand and improved marketing and improved marketing 2. Brachiaria (Cayman) Increasing Increase in demand Increasing Increase in demand and improved marketing and improved marketing 3. Brachiaria (Cobra) Increasing Increase in demand Increasing Increase in demand and improved marketing and improved marketing 4. Alfalfa/lucerne Fluctuates Increased competition Increasing Increase in demand and low demand 5. Calliandra Increasing Increase in demand Increasing Increase in demand and improved marketing and improved marketing 6. Centrosema Increasing Increase in demand Increasing Increase in demand and improved marketing and improved marketing 7. Rhodes grass Increasing Increase in demand Increasing Increase in demand and improved marketing and improved marketing 1 Push-Pull is a conservation agriculture technology developed by the International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology to control maize stem borer and striga weeds in maize production. It involves intercropping maize, Desmodium and forage grass (napier grass or Brachiaria). Pastoral women, tenure and governance 19   Name of forage Trend in sales Reasons for trend Trend in sales Reasons for trend (Kenya) (Uganda) 8. Desmodium Static/fluctuates Increased competition Increasing Increased awareness 9. Lablab Decreasing/ Increased competition, Increasing Increase in awareness increasing and demand and Increase in demand improved marketing and improved marketing 10. Double bean Static Low demand N/A 11. Fodder barley Increasing Improved marketing N/A 12. Fodder beet Static Low demand N/A (Mangels) 13. Fodder pea Static Low demand N/A 14. Forage millet Increasing Increase in demand Decreasing Low demand (Nutrifeed) and improved marketing 15. Forage sorghum Increasing Increased awareness Static Low demand and marketing 16. HAC maize Fluctuates Seasonality N/A 17. Kikuyu grass Increasing Increase in demand Static Increase in demand, and improved marketing improved marketing and increased competition 18. Lupin Fluctuates Increased competition N/A and low demand 19. Maize forage Increasing Increase in demand Increasing Increased awareness and improved marketing and demand 20. Mucuna Increasing Increase in demand Increasing Increase in demand and improved marketing and improved marketing 21. Napier grass Fluctuates Increased competition Increasing Increased quality, and a perennial crop demand and marketing 22. Oat Fluctuates Low demand N/A Low demand 23. Panicum Static Current demand is low Decreasing Low quality especially but increasing gradually for Panicum maximum 24. Purple Vetch Increasing Increase in demand N/A and improved marketing 25. Sesbania Static Low demand and Increasing Increase in demand increased use of and improved marketing vegetative material as opposed to seed 26. Sorghum Increasing Improved marketing Increasing Improved marketing (Sugar graze) 27. Tree lucerne Increasing Increase in demand Increasing Increase in demand and improved marketing and improved marketing 28. Yellow maize Increasing Increase in demand Increasing Increase in demand and improved marketing and improved marketing 20 Research report 92 3.4 Forage production and marketing challenges Forage seed producers often face numerous challenges especially those in the informal seed sector. The majority of them lack enough capital to invest in technologies. Additionally, the process of seed production is labour intensive and requires some level of technical expertise as shown in Figure 8. Figure 8: Forage seed production constraints in Kenya and Uganda. Some of the entities lack appropriate machines to process seed citing high costs. Moreover, others lack technical capacity in terms of human capital. Existing entities such as farmer groups highlighted limited skills and knowledge in seed production and processing as a challenge to their operations in the forage seed business. Seeds are sensitive and require proper handling and thus, proper storage is important. Lack of adequate storage, as well as high cost of packaging materials, affects the production and processing of forage seeds. Figure 9 indicates that low/unreliable demand affects the marketing of forages. There is a lack of farmer awareness on the existence and importance of improved forages for increased animal production and productivity of the enterprise. Additionally, stockists lack knowledge on the agronomic and nutritional information on forages. ‘Most stockist are more knowledgeable on food crops as opposed to forages. Therefore, when farmers ask about forages they are not able to give informed feedback’ as noted by some respondents. In Uganda, most seed companies often do not stock a lot of forage varieties due to low demand. Individual entities such as Itungo pastures have resorted to marketing forages by having weekly adverts on a local newspaper and use of social media platforms. Pastoral women, tenure and governance 21 Figure 9: Major challenges in marketing forage seeds in Kenya and Uganda. Marketing was also affected by the COVID-19 pandemic as most companies rely on agricultural shows and farmer field days which were not possible during most of 2020. Additionally, there is a high transaction cost in the delivery of forage seed especially vegetative materials. Ikinyukia group in Kenya piloted new ways of propagating and selling Napier grass through splits/shoots as opposed to cuttings2. This reduced the cost of transport and increased the amount of Napier grass that can be packaged especially when the package is being delivered to distant customers. There is also high competition among the entities, especially in the formal seed sector. The pool of farmers who access seed Traders in the informal seed through the formal sector is smaller compared to those accessing sector access seeds locally. through the informal sector. The informal sector is able to attract The seeds/planting materials farmers by offering relatively lower prices of seed compared do not undergo the rigorous to the formal sector. For example in Kenya, the price of Desmodium process of certification (both green and silver leaf) is about Kes 3,600 per Kg in the informal by KEPHIS or NSCS sector whereas it is Kes 5,685 per Kg in the formal sector. 2 Splits are preferred over cuttings because one can pack more splits than cuttings e.g. 90 Kg sack can carry as much as 4000 splits as opposed to 1500 cuttings. Additionally, cuttings are bulky and adds on to transportation charges. 22 Research report 92 3.5 Government policies affecting forage production and marketing Figure 10 shows some of the government policies that affect forage production and marketing in Kenya and Uganda. High taxes/levies and licence costs affect forage production and marketing. For instance, getting the KEPHIS certification stamp on the seed package costs about Kes 4 per label in Kenya. Additionally, phytosanitary costs are high during registration of forage seeds and the process takes long delaying the introduction of varieties on the market. ‘If I import seeds, the process of verification takes long (about 90 days) for the seeds to be cleared. At the end of the day I am not able to adequately meet demand due to the delays. I prefer sourcing seeds locally from farmers as this does not go through the rigorous certification proces’ sentiments share by one of the respondents. Thus, most companies in the informal seed sector would prefer to remain unregistered and trade in uncertified seeds. Therefore, there is need for government and seed certification agencies to bundle, decentralize or aggregate services to reduce the transaction cost and increase the number of entities utilizing the certification services. Figure 10: Government policies affecting the production and marketing of forage seeds in Kenya and Uganda. Length varietal registration and certification, as well as import and export restrictions on seeds, affect inter- regional trade on improved forage seeds, especially in Kenya. To import/export new seed between Kenya and Uganda one has to undergo a rigorous process in obtaining permits and going through seed certification such as national performance trials. Mwendia et al. (2016) note that such processes are expensive and take longer. Sometimes companies are unable to deliver on orders due to these processes. Pastoral women, tenure and governance 23 3.6 Women and youth gap in the forage enterprise: what next? Women and youth play an important role in the forage value chain, providing labour in production of forages. While their level of participation in the formal seed sector did not come out clearly, insights from the informal seed sector indicates lower levels of involvement. The sector remains unattractive especially women and the youth, due to their limited access to land and productive resources, as well as unfavourable household level task division and gender norms. As noted during the interviews: ‘Seed production requires some level of skills and patience. The youth you see around prefer enterprises such as boda boda. They do not see value in production not only of forage seeds but also forages.’ ‘Women have to choose between household chores and forage production. Besides they also do not own land. They only provide labour and tend to the farms.’ Results from discussions with the forage seed/planting material sellers indicate that forage seed production is interesting for women and youth, provided that they receive some initial support for accessing land and training, because: » There is continued increase in demand for forages » It generates money and thus, a good source of income There exist gender gaps within the forage seed systems especially in determining how seeds are used and who gains from the benefits that are realized. Therefore, good information on constraints for women and youth is essential to enable an inclusive business model for forage seeds and the forage and dairy value chain as a whole. This refers to a private-sector approach in providing goods and services, in this case, improved forages, on a commercial basis to people at the base of the pyramid; women and youth in the context of forages (Mangnus 2019). Integration of the informal and formal seed system can increase women and youth participation. Moreover, the informal seed system can reach out more to women and youth (Kramer and Galie 2020). It is imperative to take into consideration the barriers that limit youth and women participation in the forage value chain. For instance, women and youth have limited access to enabling productive resources such as land and finance. Additionally, they have limited knowledge and awareness of the significance of improved forages on livestock systems and the agribusiness opportunity in forages (both seed & feed). Literacy levels among women are lower compared to youth thus, affects their participation in forage production and marketing. Similarly, youth are more inclined to agricultural enterprises that have a high rate of return to investment and shorter time to recoup profits such the horticultural and poultry sector. However, forage production and marketing enterprise is different in the sense that the benefits may not be realized in the short run. Moreover, it is characterized by limited markets that are uncoordinated. Women, on the other hand, are constrained by time as they are food producers, and this may limit their involvement in forages. 24 Research report 92 The youth and women gap can be bridged by increasing training and sensitization among this group on forages and the untapped agribusiness opportunities. This can be done through mass media and social media. The farmer field schools should also increase the number of women and youth that are trained. Increasing access to finance can also bridge this gap. Stakeholder engagement with financial institutions can result in the development of financial packages that are suited to agribusiness ventures on forages and seed production. Promotion of value addition activities such as the making of hay and silage can create an additional source of employment for youth. Pastoral women, tenure and governance 25 4 Conclusion There exist formal and informal seed systems in Kenya and Uganda with the latter dominating. Most livestock producers access forage planting materials from the informal system by either buying or as gifts. There is an opportunity for reducing the cost of seeds by promoting local seed production and reviewing of the cost associated with certification for locally produced seeds/planting materials. Additionally, the registration process of new varieties imported varieties should be revised and the expected period expedited in terms of timelines to increase the rate of varietal release to farmers. There is potential to upscale the adoption of improved forages, increasing business volumes for seed companies, and an overall improvement in the productivity of livestock by having targeted awareness campaigns on the importance of improved forages and sources of seed. This can be done using mass media especially the local vernacular media as well as social media that targets youth and urban farmers. Additionally, there is a need to develop seed systems to be more inclusive and optimize employment opportunities for women and youth. This can be done by integrating formal and informal seed systems. QDS certification standards can be adopted to formalize the seed businesses that operate within the rural areas and are farmer-led. This will create space for women and youth to actively participate in the value chain and evolve towards formal businesses. 26 Research report 92 5 Next steps Due to confidentiality and data privacy issues, the study proposes four case studies for the business models in order to capture the relative cost and revenues from different business models in Kenya and Uganda namely: » The farmer group model (multiplying certified seeds/QDS) » International companies (importing seed and selling locally) » Local companies (producing certified seeds locally) » Individual farmers/group (multiplying non-certified seeds locally) This will enable a business case cross-comparison of the business models in operation in Kenya and Uganda. The list can be drawn from already interviewed seed entities in Kenya and Uganda. Pastoral women, tenure and governance 27 References Bain, C.; Ransom, E.; Halimatusa’diyah, I. 2018. ‘Weak winners’ of women’s empowerment: The gendered effects of dairy livestock assets on time poverty in Uganda. Journal of Rural Studies 61: 100–109. Baltenweck, I.; Cherney, D.; Duncan, A.; Eldermire, E.; Lwoga, E.T. et al. 2020. A scoping review of feed interventions and livelihoods of small-scale livestock keepers. Nature Plants 6: 1242–1249. Baltenweck, I.; Enahoro, D.; Frija, A.; Tarawali, S. 2020. Why is production of animal source foods important for economic development in Africa and Asia? Animal Frontiers 10(4): 22–29. Bosire, C.K.; Krol, M.S.; Mekonnen, M.M.; Ogutu, J.O.; de Leeuw, J. et al. 2016. Meat and milk production scenarios and the associated land footprint in Kenya. Agricultural Systems 145: 64–75. Chakoma, I.; Chummun, B.Z. 2018. Insights into forage seed production and marketing in smallholder systems of Zimbabwe. Africagrowth Agenda 15(2). Chakoma, I.; Chummun, B.Z. 2019. Forage seed value chain analysis in a subhumid region of Zimbabwe: Perspectives of smallholder producers. African Journal of Range & Forage Science 36(2): 95–104. Chakoma, I.; Gwiriri, L.C.; Manyawu, G.; Dube, S.; Shumba, M.; Gora, A. 2016. Forage seed production and trade as a pathway out of poverty in the smallholder sector: Lessons from the Zimbabwe Crop Livestock Integration for Food Security (ZimCLIFS) project. African Journal of Range & Forage Science 33(3): 181–184. Chakravarti, A.K. 1987. Availability of cattle fodder in India. Geographical Review 77(2): 209–217. Creemers, J.; Adolfo, A.A. 2019a. Quick scan of Kenya’s forage sub-sector (July 2019). Nairobi, Kenya: NEADAP. https://cowsoko.com/programs/kmdp/publications. Creemers, J.; Adolfo, A.A. 2019b. Quick scan of Kenya’s forage sub-sector (November 2019). Nairobi, Kenya: NEADAP. https://cowsoko.com/programs/kmdp/publications. Dawson, I.K.; Carsan, S.; Franzel, S.; Kindt, R.; Graudal, L. et al. (2014). Agroforestry, livestock, fodder production and climate change adaptation and mitigation in East Africa: Issues and options. ICRAF Working Paper No. 178. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre. https://doi.org/10.5716/WP14050.PDF. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2017. Africa Sustainable Livestock 2050: Country Brief Kenya. Rome, Italy: FAO. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2019. The future of livestock in Uganda: Opportunities and challenges in the face of uncertainty. Rome, Italy: FAO. Gachuiri, A.N.; Carsan, S.; Karanja, E.; Makui, P.; Nyaguthii, A. et al. 2017. Diversity and importance of local fodder tree and shrub resources in mixed farming systems of central Kenya. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 8028: 1–13. Government of Kenya. 2010. National Seed Policy. Nariobi, Kenya: Government of Kenya. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute). 2019. Meat: The Future series – options for the livestock sector in developing and emerging economies to 2030 and beyond. White Paper. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. Kramer, B.; Galie, A. 2020. Gender dynamics in seed system development. CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM) Synthesis Brief. November 2020. Lugusa, K.O.; Wasonga, O.V.; Elhadi, Y.A.; Crane, T.A. 2016. Value chain analysis of grass seeds in the drylands of Baringo County, Kenya: A producers’ perspective. Pastoralism 6: 6. Lukuyu, B.A.; Lule, P.; Kawuma, B.; Ouma, E. 2017. Feeds and forage interventions in the smallholder pig value chain of Uganda. ILRI Research Brief 78. Nairobi, Kenya:ILRI. Maina, K.W.; Ritho, C.N.; Lukuyu, B.A.; Rao, E.J.O. 2020. Socio-economic determinants and impact of adopting climate-smart Brachiaria grass among dairy farmers in Eastern and Western regions of Kenya. Heliyon 6(6): e04335. Mangnus, E. 2019. How inclusive businesses can contribute to local food security. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 41: 69–73. 28 Research report 92 McKune, S.L.; Borresen, E.C.; Young, A.G.; Auria Ryley, T.D.; Russo, S.L. et al. 2015. Climate change through a gendered lens: Examining livestock holder food security. Global Food Security 6: 1–8. Murage, A.W.; Pittchar, J.O.; Midega, C.A.O.; Onyango, C.O.; Khan, Z.R. 2015. Gender specific perceptions and adoption of the climate-smart push-pull technology in eastern Africa. Crop Protection 76: 83–91. Mwendia, S.; Notenbaert, A.; Paul, B. 2016. Forage seed systems in Kenya. CIAT Working Paper. Nairobi, Kenya: CIAT. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1429.1604. Njarui, D.M.G.; Gichangi, E.M.; Ghimire, S.R.; Muinga, R.W. 2016. Climate smart Brachiaria grasses for improving livestock production in East Africa: Kenya experience. Proceedings of the Workshop Held in Naivasha, Kenya, 14-15 September 2016. 271 p. Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO), Nairobi Kenya. Paul, B.K.; Koge, J.; Maass, B.L.; Notenbaert, A.; Peters, M. et al. (2020). Tropical forage technologies can deliver multiple benefits in sub-Saharan Africa: A meta-analysis. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 40: 22. Peters, M.; Lascano, C.E. 2003. Forage technology adoption: Linking on-station research with participatory methods. Tropical Grasslands 37: 197–203. SNV (Netherlands Development Organisation). 2013. Study on the Kenyan animal feed and fodder sub-sectors. Sub-report I: Summary report. Nairobi, Kenya: SNV Kenya Market-Led Dairy Programme. Tangka, F.K.; Jabbar, M.A. 2010. Implications of feed scarcity for gender roles in ruminant livestock production. Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen, the Netherlands; University of Reading, UK; Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland and ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya, 2010 287–296. Waithaka, M.; Mburu, J.; Mugoya, M.; Tihanyi, K. 2019. Kenya Brief 2018 – The African Seed Access Index (TASAI). Kenya White, D.S.; Peters, M.; Horne, P. 2013. Global impacts from improved tropical forages: A meta-analysis revealing overlooked benefits and costs, evolving values and new priorities. Tropical Grasslands – Forrajes Tropicales 1: 12–24. Pastoral women, tenure and governance 29 Annexe 1 List of forage seed companies/entities contacted and the type of forages stocked in Kenya and Uganda 30 Research report 92 Seed company Website Country Type of institution Contact Type of planting material Forage varieties SPEN Youth Group spen.com Kenya Private 0712515285 Seed, vegetative material Yellow maize, Desmodium, Calliandra, lupin, tree lucerne, 0728632109 lucerne, Sesbania, boma rhodes Pannar Seed (K) pannar.com Kenya Private 0728601260 Seed Yellow maize East Africa Seed Co. Ltd easeed.com Kenya Private +254734333161 Seed Sorghum (Sugar graze), millet (Nutrifeed), lucerne, Desmodium, +254722207747 fodder beet (Mangels), fodder pea, Sudan grass Hygrotech hygrotech.co.ke Kenya Private 0722 205 148 Seed Sorghum (Cow candy), lucerne Kalro-Muguga Kenya Public 0721422978 Vegetative material Napier (Kakamega 1 & 2) Ikinyukia Resources Center Kenya Private 0724492456 Seed, vegetative material Vetch, lupin, barley, sorghum, napier, HAC maize Advantage Crop Limited/Tropical aclseeds.com Kenya Private 0729152473 Seed Panicum (Mombasa, Mulato II, Cobra) Seed Ltd/Papalotla 0711489550 Coopers K Brand coopers.co.ke Kenya Private 0734330044 Seed Purple vetch, tree lucerne, alfalfa/lucerne 0722753851 Simlaw Seed/Kenya Seed simlaw.co.ke Kenya Private 0739034729 Seed Oats, pasture beet, boma rhodes, elmba rhodes, Columbus grass, Sudan grass, Desmodium, tick clover, alfalfa/lucerne Amiran baltoncp.com/amirankenya Kenya Private 800720720 Seed Brachiaria (Mulato, Cayman) Royal Seed Africa royalseed.biz Kenya Private 0734257635 Seed Alfalfa/lucerne 0725549997 Kenya Highland Seed Co. Ltd accesstoseeds.org/index/eastern- Kenya Private +2542652031 Seed Alfalfa/lucerne southern-africa/company-scorecards/ +254265229/ 30 kenya-highland-seed Advanta Seeds Kenya Private 0717403637 Seed Victoria Seeds victoriaseeds.com Uganda Private Seed Panicum, Brachiaria, rhodes grass Simlaw Seeds Uganda simlawseeds.ug Uganda Private 782323334 Seed Rhodes grass, alfalfa/lucerne, sorghum (Sugar graze), millet (Nutrifeed), Desmodium East Africa Seed (U) Ltd easeed.com Uganda Private 772583783 Seed Alfalfa/lucerne Rhino Seeds Africa Ltd rhinoseeds.net Uganda Private 702363165 Seed Millet, maize, sorghum National Forestry Authority nfa.go.ug Uganda Public 781519433 Seedling Calliandra, lucerne, Sesbania (National Tree Seed Centre) ROBRAN Holdings Ltd robranholdings.org Uganda Private +256753456298 Seed, vegetative material Giant Panicum, Desmodium, kikuyu grass, Brachiaria (Mulato), +256789491350 napier grass, rhodes grass, lablab, mucuna Itungo Pastures Uganda Private Seed, vegetative material Desmodium, Centrosema, alfalfa, yellow maize, Sorghum (Sugar graze), napier grass, Calliandra, rhodes grass, Brachiaria (Mulato), Brachiaria ruziziensis Dream Farm Kiruhura Uganda Private +256772637373 Seed, vegetative material Rhodes grass Kazo Drylands Ltd Uganda Private +256783976368 Seed, vegetative material Glycine, lablab, Centrosema, napier grass, sugar napier, Brachiaria (Mulato), rhodes grass, Calliandra haematocepha Pastoral women, tenure and governance 31 Seed company Website Country Type of institution Contact Type of planting material Forage varieties SPEN Youth Group spen.com Kenya Private 0712515285 Seed, vegetative material Yellow maize, Desmodium, Calliandra, lupin, tree lucerne, 0728632109 lucerne, Sesbania, boma rhodes Pannar Seed (K) pannar.com Kenya Private 0728601260 Seed Yellow maize East Africa Seed Co. Ltd easeed.com Kenya Private +254734333161 Seed Sorghum (Sugar graze), millet (Nutrifeed), lucerne, Desmodium, +254722207747 fodder beet (Mangels), fodder pea, Sudan grass Hygrotech hygrotech.co.ke Kenya Private 0722 205 148 Seed Sorghum (Cow candy), lucerne Kalro-Muguga Kenya Public 0721422978 Vegetative material Napier (Kakamega 1 & 2) Ikinyukia Resources Center Kenya Private 0724492456 Seed, vegetative material Vetch, lupin, barley, sorghum, napier, HAC maize Advantage Crop Limited/Tropical aclseeds.com Kenya Private 0729152473 Seed Panicum (Mombasa, Mulato II, Cobra) Seed Ltd/Papalotla 0711489550 Coopers K Brand coopers.co.ke Kenya Private 0734330044 Seed Purple vetch, tree lucerne, alfalfa/lucerne 0722753851 Simlaw Seed/Kenya Seed simlaw.co.ke Kenya Private 0739034729 Seed Oats, pasture beet, boma rhodes, elmba rhodes, Columbus grass, Sudan grass, Desmodium, tick clover, alfalfa/lucerne Amiran baltoncp.com/amirankenya Kenya Private 800720720 Seed Brachiaria (Mulato, Cayman) Royal Seed Africa royalseed.biz Kenya Private 0734257635 Seed Alfalfa/lucerne 0725549997 Kenya Highland Seed Co. Ltd accesstoseeds.org/index/eastern- Kenya Private +2542652031 Seed Alfalfa/lucerne southern-africa/company-scorecards/ +254265229/ 30 kenya-highland-seed Advanta Seeds Kenya Private 0717403637 Seed Victoria Seeds victoriaseeds.com Uganda Private Seed Panicum, Brachiaria, rhodes grass Simlaw Seeds Uganda simlawseeds.ug Uganda Private 782323334 Seed Rhodes grass, alfalfa/lucerne, sorghum (Sugar graze), millet (Nutrifeed), Desmodium East Africa Seed (U) Ltd easeed.com Uganda Private 772583783 Seed Alfalfa/lucerne Rhino Seeds Africa Ltd rhinoseeds.net Uganda Private 702363165 Seed Millet, maize, sorghum National Forestry Authority nfa.go.ug Uganda Public 781519433 Seedling Calliandra, lucerne, Sesbania (National Tree Seed Centre) ROBRAN Holdings Ltd robranholdings.org Uganda Private +256753456298 Seed, vegetative material Giant Panicum, Desmodium, kikuyu grass, Brachiaria (Mulato), +256789491350 napier grass, rhodes grass, lablab, mucuna Itungo Pastures Uganda Private Seed, vegetative material Desmodium, Centrosema, alfalfa, yellow maize, Sorghum (Sugar graze), napier grass, Calliandra, rhodes grass, Brachiaria (Mulato), Brachiaria ruziziensis Dream Farm Kiruhura Uganda Private +256772637373 Seed, vegetative material Rhodes grass Kazo Drylands Ltd Uganda Private +256783976368 Seed, vegetative material Glycine, lablab, Centrosema, napier grass, sugar napier, Brachiaria (Mulato), rhodes grass, Calliandra haematocepha 32 Research report 92 Annexe 2 Key informant interview guide for sellers of forage planting materials in Kenya and Uganda Pastoral women, tenure and governance 33 NWO Feed and Forage Seed Business Models Key Informant Interview guide for sellers of forage planting material in Kenya and Uganda General info Village Name: ........................ ID: ........................ Date: ........./........./......... Type of business  agro vet shop  farmer – seller  milk cooperative  other: ........................ Seller Name: ........................ Seller ID: ........................ Sex  male  female Age: ........................ ........................ Year started business: ........................ Is selling forage seed/planting  yes materials your main activity?  no What other seed/planting material do you sell? What other income-generating activities do you have? 34 Research report 92 Forage planting materials specifics Forage 1 Forage 2 Forage 3 Forage name: ........................ ........................ ........................ Type of PM (seed-split-other): ........................ ........................ ........................ Source of PM (own production, purchase ........................ ........................ ........................ from whom, specify): Buyers of PM ........................ ........................ ........................ (cattle keepers, medium scale etc): Volumes traded in 2019 (kg/bundles): ........................ Demand trend  ↑  ↑  ↑  ↓  ↓  ↓  →  →  → Prospects Do you think your business will grow in the next 2 to 5 year?  yes  no Why/why not? 3 top opportunities 3 top challenges Statements “This business is perfect for youth”: do you agree?  yes  no Why/why not? “I would advise my sister or daughter to go into this business”:  yes do you agree?  no Why/why not? ISBN: 92–9146–693–x The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) works to improve food security and reduce poverty in developing countries through research for better and more sustainable use of livestock. ILRI is a CGIAR research centre. It works through a network of regional and country offices and projects in East, South and Southeast Asia, and Central, East, Southern and West Africa. www.ilri.org CGIAR is a global research partnership for a food-secure future. Its science is carried out by 15 Research Centers in close collaboration with hundreds of partners across the globe. www.cgiar.org