Project Completion Report Project Title: Grain Hub (G-Hub) Project: Enhancing structured grain trade for smallholder farmers in Eastern Africa Organisation: CTA and Eastern Africa Grain Council Project coordinator: Sabdiyo Dido Bashuna Date: 15/06/2020 This project completion report (project number 11381018) was prepared by the Eastern Africa Grain Council. From 1983 to 2020, the Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) was an international institution of the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (OACPS) and the European Union (EU). Its mission was to advance food and nutritional security, increase prosperity and encourage sound natural resource management in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. In its project portfolio (2016-2020) of 73 projects, CTA focused on digitalisation, youth entrepreneurship, and climate resilience as its priority intervention areas. CTA came to the end of its mandate as the Cotonou Agreement between the EU and the ACP countries, the legal and financial framework within which CTA functioned, ended on 31 December 2020. As part of CTA’s orderly closure, all major projects created project completion reports which are now being made available to the wider public to share lessons learned. These reports specify sections on results, financial information, lessons learned and references. CTA complies with the European data protection legislation, in particular Regulation 2016/679 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data ('GDPR’). When personal data have been processed in the context of the project in which CTA and project partner are involved, CTA can request from project partner to a) permanently delete the personal data, or b) undertake the Data Controller role by signing the Data Controller Role Transfer letter issued by CTA as an Annex to Project Completion Report. This means that the processing of personal data that project partner eventually continues to perform after the project closure date are under sole responsibility of the project partner, as sole controller. The project partner as the new Data Controller shall have the responsibility to comply with the applicable legislation on the protection of personal data, which it is for project partner to verify, and the obligations such applicable law imposes on the Controller. CTA will no longer bear any responsibility for the processing operations, not towards the data subjects, nor towards the data protection authority. ______________ This work has been made possible with the financial assistance of the European Union. However, the contents remain the sole responsibility of its author(s) and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of CTA, its co-publisher or the European Union, nor of any country or member State. The user should make his/her own evaluation as to the appropriateness of any statement, argument, experimental technique or method described in the work. This work is the sole intellectual property of CTA and its co-publishers and cannot be commercially exploited. CTA encourages its dissemination for private study, research, teaching and non-commercial purposes, provided that appropriate acknowledgement is made: – of CTA’s copyright and EU financing, by including the name of the author, the title of the work and the following notice “© CTA 2020 EU financing”, – and that CTA’s or its co-publishers’, and European Union’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way, by including the standard CTA disclaimer. CONTENTS 1 ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES 5 1.1 Description table 5 1.2 Executive summary 5 1.3 Project background 6 1.4 Impacts and outcomes 8 1.5 Outputs and key activities 9 1.6 Analysis of business case/scalability/key success factors 12 1.7 Financial overview 13 2 LESSONS LEARNED 13 2.1 Possible changes that occurred during the period covered by the report 13 2.2 Constraints and problems encountered 14 2.3 Sustainability measures 15 3 ANNEXES 16 3.1 Project logframe 16 3.2 List of partners 19 3.3 Number of digitally registered farmers in grain hubs as at December 2019 20 CTA – Project Completion Report, 15/06/20 Page 3 of 21 1 Assessment of implementation of project activities 1.1 Description table Name of Project Sabdiyo Dido Coordinator: Partner(s) Eastern Africa Grain Council Name of Project Regional Gerald Masila, Executive Director, East Africa Grain Council Coordinator: Title of the Action: GRAINHUBS: Enhancing structured grain trade for smallholder farmers in Eastern Africa Project number: 1-1-38-101-8 Start date and end date of the April 2018 – February 2020 Action: Targeted beneficiaries: Smallholder farmers Target region(s): East Africa Country(ies) in which the Kenya and Tanzania activities take place: 1.2 Executive summary Smallholder farmers are responsible for up to 90% of grain production in East Africa, but most of them face many challenges and are unable to reach the market and make a profit. They depend on their farms for income, but they often lack the skills and the knowledge to trade effectively and secure an income. The inputs they require (such as improved seeds and fertilisers) are expensive and are not always available. There are not enough facilities to store their produce; as such, most farmers are unable to wait for a better market price for their crops. In addition, traders and processors are not able to purchase grain from individual farmers as the volumes they produce are relatively small (showing limited possibilities for economies of scale). In partnership with the Eastern African Grain Council (EAGC), CTA conceptualised the grain trade business hub (G-Hub) model and provided a grant of €400,000 to EAGC to implement a project in Kenya and Tanzania. The G-Hub was designed as a service delivery model aimed at solving some of the challenges that most smallholder farmers in the region face in terms of input and output markets and the need to reduce post-harvest losses. The G-Hub model offered several services, including digital registration and profiling of farmers, consolidation and collective purchase of inputs, leasing or hiring of equipment and machinery, grain aggregation and warehousing, provision of technical advisory services, and a strong link to financial services for credit and output markets (see diagram below). CTA – Project Completion Report, 15/06/20 Page 5 of 21 The project, which started in April 2018, was expected to increase the production and income of 20,000 smallholder grain farmers through the establishment of 20 G-Hubs. The key project interventions included the design and implementation of the G-Hubs in various parts of Kenya and Tanzania, facilitating linkages with input suppliers, financing agencies and grain traders, and building the capacity for a structured trade mechanism. The project supported the execution of the EAGC strategic plan that aims to achieve more and better trade in grain by EAGC members and smallholder farmers’ organisations through the structured trading systems. After almost two years, the project had helped set up 35 G-Hubs in Kenya and 28 in Tanzania. These are all operational and offering a variety of services to more than 42,000 farmers, all of whom were registered digitally as members. The G-Hubs have significantly increased farmers’ access to inputs, finance and output markets. A total of 2,816.8 t of fertiliser, 1,298.7 t of seed and 14,223 litres of agrochemicals were procured by farmers through the G-Hubs, and they received loans amounting to US$154,936. In terms of access to output markets, the G-Hubs enabled trade of 3080.3 t of grains (1,724.25 t of beans, 329.06 t of green gram and 1,020.74 t of maize), valued at US$1,901,165.60. 1.3 Project background As in many other parts of the world, smallholder farmers in East Africa find it difficult to access national or international markets and meet their demands. Most of them lack the skills and knowledge needed to trade effectively. In many cases their yields are lower than international averages; in addition, they lack the capacity to store their produce, and as such they are unable to wait for a better market price in the near future. Trying to address this general situation, CTA signed a strategic partnership agreement with EAGC in 2014, focusing on the adoption of a structured grain trading system (STS) in the region. Their main objective was to help farmers, traders, warehouse managers and processors to produce, trade and market products more effectively and cost effectively. This partnership built on previous collaboration initiatives between CTA and EAGC and, in particular, the development and publication of a reference manual on STS for grain that was then used by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the offices of the World Food Programme (WFP) in Africa for training purposes. CTA’s support helped EAGC train CTA – Project Completion Report, 15/06/20 Page 6 of 21 about 20,000 farmers and other actors in the grain value chain (traders, millers, warehouse operators, bankers) and helped EAGC generate commercial revenues from its training activities, thereby contributing to its long-term sustainability. A review of the results convinced both organisations to work to enhance the participation of smallholder farmers in an STS in the Eastern Africa region. This was to be accomplished through the G-Hub model, aimed at linking farmers grain markets, services and trade across the region. The hubs were expected to be led by the private sector. The idea behind the G-Hubs was to enhance smallholder farmers’ access to agro-related services and markets. Through the hubs, smallholder farmers can access inputs such as seeds and fertiliser, get market information and learn about grades and standards. In addition, smallholder farmers can aggregate their produce as a farmer group and sell collectively, store their produce in certified warehouses and access markets through the EAGC G-soko online trading platform and the EAGC trade facilitation process (see http://g-soko.com). CTA – Project Completion Report, 15/06/20 Page 7 of 21 1.4 Impacts and outcomes The G-Hubs were meant to provide smallholder farmers with a structured trade function, helping them to trade their produce transparently and earn better livelihoods. They were also meant to help unlock access to finance by allowing farmers to use their produce as collateral for loans. Warehouses and traders are also able to manage their inventory and plan. The hubs were to help smallholder farmers build strong and ongoing links with private-sector grain traders. These links will not only help farmers to earn more, but also incentivise them to grow higher and better-quality yields by providing greater access to buyers. The idea behind the project proposal was that farmers would be able to improve their post-harvest practices, access the necessary post-harvest technology and Key figures improve their storage practices, and in this way ensure that the produce meets the required • 42,644 farmers were digitally standards. registered. • 78 G-Hub operators were trained The project was designed to help 20,000 smallholder grain farmers increase their • 21 grain buyers, 9 input suppliers production and incomes, setting up 20 new and 7 banks were linked to the G- grain hub enterprises in Kenya and Tanzania. Hubs Two years later, the results surpassed the initial • The G-Hub business model targets by more than 100%, with 63 G-Hubs promoted for private sector uptake benefitting 42,000 farmers. The establishment • 63 G-Hubs established and of the G-Hubs improved farmers’ access to operational inputs, finance and output markets. The G- • A total of 2,816.8 TM of fertilizer, Hubs have been linked to nine agro-dealers, 1,298.7 TM of seed and 14,223 litres leading to sourcing of 2,817 t of fertiliser, of agrochemicals were procured by 1,299 t of seed and 14,223 litres of farmers through the G-Hubs agrochemicals. The G-Hubs have also been • Total value of loans issued to linked to seven banks and microfinance farmers through the G-Hubs institutions, leading to increased access to amounted to US$154,936 credit. A total of US$154,936 was loaned out to • A total of 3,080.3 TM of grains farmers. (1,724.25 TM of beans, 329.06 TM of green-grams and 1,020. 74 TM of Farmers are now able to acquire inputs at a maize) valued at US$1,901,165.60 reduced cost. Farmers and agro-dealers are sold through the G-Hubs embracing the idea of an aggregated input purchase as this helps reduce the costs of these inputs and increases sales. The adoption of the G-Hub model is therefore creating an opportunity for farmers and agro-dealers to work together to improve access to inputs and boost their productivity and profitability. Farmers’ better access to agro-inputs means that their production levels are likely to improve, thereby attracting buyers looking for a regular supply. The agro-dealers are interested in increasing their sales. Therefore, there is an opportunity for farmers and agro-dealers working together to improve access to input supply. The data generated as a result of the registration and profiling of thousands of farmers adds value back to the farmers themselves, as it allows sharing of information. This offers farmers a number of potential benefits, including improved farmer productivity, by addressing key constraints, providing knowledge and access to appropriate inputs, extension advice, weather warnings and market prices among others. Registered farmers receive tailored and more timely and relevant information and advice (e.g. weather, agronomic advice, markets information, etc.), all of which are customised around their vicinity. This has increased interest of the service providers (agro-dealers and banks) who use the G-Hubs. CTA – Project Completion Report, 15/06/20 Page 8 of 21 Just as important is that farmers are in a better position to negotiate with suppliers and buyers. Understanding their true production costs helps farmers analyse the expected margin if they are to sell at prevailing market prices. (In most instances, farmers would quote unrealistically high sale prices that drove away potential buyers.) Most farmers are willing to pay for the services offered by G-Hubs. This shows that the G-Hub model is creating a sustainable farmer-based delivery service. The G-Hubs are becoming a one- stop shop for agribusiness services, hence there is the need to bring together service providers to sell and provide knowledge to the farmers at the hub. This may include holding mini exhibitions at the hubs. 1.5 Outputs and key activities Planned for two years, the project considered five major components: 1. Organising the farmers into trade units/farmer registration and profiling The main activities under this component were to identify the already existing farmer groups/farmer aggregation centres that EAGC had been working with over the years, together with any new ones. The most suitable ones were selected, and the farmers associated with them were registered and profiled using digital tools that capture information about the individual farmer and farmer groups. The project facilitated the development of a digital farmer registration and profiling tool. By the end of the project, a total of 42,644 farmers had been registered into the G-Hub farmers database (20,667 men and 21,977 women). This registration is still going on through the community aggregation centres (CACs), the precursors of the G-Hubs for connecting the farmers to the markets. EAGC will continue to support the CACs to transform into G-Hubs, and help link them to the markets and other G-Hub services. The G-Hubs have contributed to an increase in the number of smallholder farmers participating in structured trade in Kenya and Tanzania. Additionally, the farmer registration and profiling tools have been adopted by other EAGC projects. The tool is being used in Kenya to register farmers under the Kenya Cereals Enhancement Programme funded by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the State Department of Agriculture. The project is being implemented by EAGC and other partners, and EAGC intends to extend the G-Hub model and target the different CTA – Project Completion Report, 15/06/20 Page 9 of 21 farmer groups with which it works, potentially reaching a total of 185,000 farmers in the next 3 years. 2. Facilitating the setup of G-Hubs The second component of the project aimed to facilitate the setup of the G-Hubs and help smallholder farmers benefit from structured trade across the entire value chain. This was to be done by transforming the existing CACs into business entities that offer services to farmers in a commercial and sustainable manner. EAGC was been able to identity and setup a total of 63 G-Hubs (35 in Kenya and 28 in Tanzania). These hubs are operational and are linking farmers to many different service providers. 3. Facilitating linkages with input suppliers and financing agencies Stronger linkages This activity was meant to facilitate the In Tanzania, some G-Hubs have been development of strong linkages between the G- linked to three agro-input companies – Hubs and the various service providers SeedCo, Panner Seed and Kibo Seeds – operating in the region, building on the needs of for the supply of seeds, and two banks the farmers and the need to improve their – National Microfinance Bank (NMB) participation in structured trade. Onboarding of and CRDB Bank – for financing various service providers would support the services. In addition, one equipment creation of a one-stop shop for the services supply company – BCA Ltd. – has been required by farmers at the G-Hub. linked to the hubs for equipment leasing services. The project saw nine agro-input suppliers link to the G-Hubs. This resulted in the sale of more In Kenya, some G-Hubs have been than 2,000 t of fertilisers, 1,200 t of seeds and linked to Kenya Seed/Simlaw Seeds more than 14,000 litres of agrochemicals to Ltd. and Mea Ltd. for supply of seeds farmers through the G-Hubs. The stronger links and fertiliser, respectively. Unaitas also helped farmers benefit from loans issued Sacco, Rafiki Microfinance and through the G-Hubs, reaching a total of more Universal Traders Sacco have been than US$150,000. linked to the hubs for financing services. In addition, the Ndanai and Meguara hubs have requested agribusiness mentorship – a fee-based service offered by EAGC through Business Mentors. CTA – Project Completion Report, 15/06/20 Page 10 of 21 4. Build capacity for structured grain trade Training and capacity building The process for strengthening the skills of In June 2019, EAGC conducted a series farmers around the structured grain trade of G-Hub awareness events in involved training the farmer-group leaders and Tanzania. On 20 and 21 June, EAGC the G-Hub staff. They all followed a training created awareness on G-Hubs during programme that covered group dynamics, the Agribusiness Expo in Morogoro business planning, the East African Community where a total of 838 farmers were (EAC) grain-quality standards, the use of reached. On 24 June, EAGC hosted a proper post-harvest technologies, and the stakeholders’ meeting in Iringa that importance of group marketing, market aimed at creating awareness on the G- dynamics and negotiation skills. The objective Hub model and developing a plan to of these training courses was to equip the activate the G-Hub services in the leaders and operators with the knowledge and region. information needed for running the G-Hubs successfully in a manner that would serve the In June 2019, G-Hub activation visits farmers better. A total of 78 G-Hub operators were carried out in Nakuru and (including 17 women) benefitted from the Laikipia regions with the G-Hubs various courses that were offered (see box). An visited being Smart Farmers, exchange program for G-Hubs was organised in Chomoza, Ndururumo, Sipili, Ngarua, June 2019, where representatives of eight G- Njoro Coop, Sigotik and Yator farmers. Hubs in Kenya visited the most successful G- Through these visits, the farmers were Hub in Laikipia – the Ngarua G-Hub. Together able to learn how the G-Hub model with these visits, the farmers received technical works and how it would help them support, with advice that showed how to increase their production and make operationalise their G-Hub services with more income. Some of the G-Hubs different service providers, and how to increase were in the process of setting up agro- their yields and secure a higher price. shops at the G-Hub and EAGC will assist them in linking them to input EAGC also provided inspection services for 12 suppliers. G-Hub warehouses. The EAGC inspection and certification service reinforced the “Good Practice Transfer”, supporting the adoption of warehouse practices that help maintain grain quality. CTA – Project Completion Report, 15/06/20 Page 11 of 21 5. Output-market linkages for G-Hub established Better supply chains The G-Hub project established In Tanzania, Monaban Trading & Milling Ltd. is output-market linkages through already discussing with the Gendi Hub in Babati on business-to-business connections. the supply of 200 t of sorghum while New Boogalo EAGC established trade Milling Company is negotiating with Kingori G-Hub relationships between the buyers on the supply of 30 t of maize weekly. and sellers and facilitated the In Kenya, Spice World Ltd. has already contracted supply of a total of 3080.3 t of Kitise Cooperative in Eastern region to buy 30 t of grains (1,724.25 t of beans, green gram worth US$18,125. Ndanai and Meguara 329.06 t of green gram and hubs are waiting for a contract to supply 4,000 1,020.74 t of maize), valued at a ninety-kilogram bags and 2,000 ninety-kilogram total of US$1,901,165.60. This was bags of beans respectively to WFP. all sold through the G-Hubs. 1.6 Analysis of business case/scalability/key success factors This project has shown very positive results, even though it ran for less than two years. One of the reasons for this was its focus on training farmers and staff, and in showing the advantages of the G-Hub to all those involved. The training programme built on the experience of the different stakeholders, making it especially relevant. Equally important has been that it built on the experience of EAGC and previous results. In a way, this was not a new project but rather the continuation of the cooperation agreement signed with CTA in 2014. All activities were directly linked to EAGC’s ongoing programme, responding to its long-term mission and vision. As one of the team members put it, “There was no need to look for experts: they were all already working there.” Working in parallel in two countries also helped see the importance of context. Although this requires a more detailed analysis, the political context and existing rules and regulations, and the way in which these are implemented, also supported the design and implementation of all activities. The greater use of digital tools in Kenya also played a role: having more operators and more “experts” helped in terms of farmer registration and profiling (with all stakeholders being more aware of the benefits of digital tools, and therefore more interest in their use). CTA – Project Completion Report, 15/06/20 Page 12 of 21 1.7 Financial overview Financial support to partners (€) Managed directly by CTA (€) Category 2018 2019 Subtotal 2018 2019 Subtotal Total Salaries 72,784 62,071 134,855 134,855 Per diem 27,526 20,231 47,757 47,757 Travel 25,668 26,856 62,525 62,525 Equipment 6,128 6,128 6,128 Local office Publications 5,439 2,266 7,706 7,706 Studies 33,386 25,596 58,892 58,892 Audit 5,221 5,221 5,221 Evaluation costs Translation 1,652 1,652 1,652 Conferences 8,388 11,714 20,102 20,102 Visibility actions 15,075 9,800 24,876 24,876 Training costs IT services Innovation support Indirect costs 25,886 25,886 Total 395,690 395,690 2 Lessons learned 2.1 Possible changes that occurred during the period covered by the report The G-Hubs have shown a significant impact, increasing market opportunities available while at the same time enhancing farmers’ access to inputs and finance. This was enabled by the business relationships that were developed. No major changes were seen during implementation, but the team recognised several issues that are being considered by EAGC. For example, the farmer profiling exercise is expensive, since it requires resources to collect and analyse the data. It was also suggested that it could be useful to provide farmers with membership smart cards after the registration process. These cards could then be used by the farmers for identification purposes during provision of various services within the G-Hub. The card would make it easier for the G-Hub to track the services offered to each farmer and analyse their participation at the hub. A more detailed analysis also showed that: • The digital registration of farmers helped them receive more relevant information. It was possible to share timely and relevant information and advice through the different G-Hubs, CTA – Project Completion Report, 15/06/20 Page 13 of 21 focusing on weather or agronomic recommendations. In the future it will be easy to customise the messages and increase the interest of the service providers (agro-dealers and banks), who can send information about their products through the G-Hub app. • The G-Hub model created an opportunity for agro-dealers who are interested in increasing their sales to increase their networks and reach a wider clientele, helping them develop an improved and efficient input distribution mechanism. It was noted that once trust is created between farmers and the service providers, the service providers are willing to offer more services such as soil analyses. • Though most farmers are willing to pay for the services offered by G-Hubs, this experience has shown that success depends on the spectrum of services offered by the G-Hub and the fees charged to farmers. The fees should be affordable, since most farmers have a limited capacity to pay (or little interest to do so). A general problem is that farmers are used to the free services that are offered by non-governmental organisations working in the area and are not used to paying for services. Moreover, farmers and traders may resist using the platform if they feel that these services are expensive. The sustainability of the G-Hub also relies on trust among members of farmer groups or cooperatives and their cohesion, the commitment of the agro-input companies and availability of reliable off-takers. For increased adoption and utilisation of the G-Hub services, promotion and marketing of the service model across all the agribusiness actors is critical as it will help increase the number of users and the volume of traded commodities. 2.2 Constraints and problems encountered Despite the achievements, EAGC faced some challenges that affected the project’s overall results. The digital registration and profiling of farmers, for example, was affected by low membership numbers in some G-Hubs (on average, each G-Hub has a membership of 200 farmers). The consolidation of a farmer’s inputs requirement was often slow as it was done manually. Farmers are required to physically visit the G-Hub to make their individual requests. CTA – Project Completion Report, 15/06/20 Page 14 of 21 This shows the need for an information and communication technology (ICT) solution that would allow farmers to post their input requests virtually. The project also faced other difficulties that influenced the overall results: • A lack of favourable financing products. Most financial institutions do not have tailor-made credit products for small-scale farmers. Moreover, most of the existing products have high interest rates and a long processing period, making them unattractive. This resulted in a lower value of loans disseminated than originally anticipated. • Grain-market distortions in Kenya and Tanzania contributed to a high degree of instability in market prices, a situation which reduced the impetus to aggregate production and sell collectively. In Kenya, the distortions caused by the government maize procurement system affected the prevailing market prices. In Tanzania, the maize prices were very low as a result of the government’s decision to allow imports. • The eastern regions of Kenya experienced drought in the first season (March to June) which reduced volume and value of inputs purchased as well as grain outputs. • Delays in the disbursement of funds: The project saw a delay in the disbursement of funds, a situation which negatively affected the implementation of most of the planned activities. 2.3 Sustainability measures One of the objectives of this project was to demonstrate that the G-Hubs work, and that they can effectively link farmers to national markets. It was able to do this in less than two years, reaching a much larger number of beneficiaries than originally planned. However, millions more farmers could also benefit from these hubs. EAGC has therefore decided to run this project as part of a larger effort – the long-term programme implemented by EAGC. Drawing on the lessons learned, and adapting it to the specific context in Kenya, Tanzania and in other countries, it will be possible to replicate the steps that were taken and work with many more groups and individuals. As part of these efforts, EAGC is also sharing the main lessons learned with IFAD and other donors. The interest that they are showing will help start new initiatives, reaching many new farmers. CTA – Project Completion Report, 15/06/20 Page 15 of 21 3 Annexes 3.1 Project logframe Baselines Targets Sources and Intervention Indicators (incl. (incl. Value means of Assumptions logic reference reference achieved verification year) year) IM12_OO1 IM12_OO1.1 Number of farmers reporting 20,000 10,342 Farmer registration Increased incomes increased incomes App data for smallholder GTBH records farmers IM12_OO1.2 Number of grain trade 16 63 business hubs (GTBH) running after 2 years IM12_SO1 IM12_SO1.1 Number of farmers trading 0 20,000 10,342 Monthly progress GTBHs are Smallholder farmer through GTBH reports, quarterly increasingly used grain trade progress report by farmers and associations formed IM12_SO1.2 Number of additional 0 10,000 32,420 Activity report buyers for and strengthened farmers using knowledge of Structured increased profit Performance Trading to organise their trade assessment reports IM12_SO2 IM12_SO2.1 Number of GTBHs providing 0 20 63 Monthly progress Smallholder GTBH services to farmers reports, quarterly functional progress report IM12_SO2.2 Number of farmers accessing 0 20,000 10,342 services (inputs) Activity reports IM12_SO2.3 Number of 42 46 business/operational arrangements or GTBH records partnerships Input Provision, finance, market access) secured by CTA- supported value chain actors CTA – Project Completion Report, 15/06/20 Page 16 of 21 Specific objective(s): Outcome(s) Overall objective: Impact Baselines Targets Sources and Intervention Value Indicators (incl. (incl. means of Assumptions logic reference reference achieved verification year) year) IM12_R1 IM12_R1.1 Number of farmers registered 20,000 42,762 Monthly progress Governments Improved digitally 0 reports, quarterly legal and management of progress report regulatory buyer/ seller IM12_R1.2 Number of smallholder grain 0 20 Activity reports frameworks groups trader associations registered with GTBHs remain GTBH/ Farmer favourable for the associations IM12_R1.3 ICT based Grain Trade Hubs 0 1 1 setting up and records operations of the Management System established (EG GTBHs market information system, database of service providers) IM12_R2 IM12_R2.1 Number of cooperatives 0 20 63 Smallholder GTBH applying the Hub model operational IM12_R2.2 Number of GTBH 0 30 63 registered/integrated with G-Soko IM12_R2.3 Number of smallholder 0 20,000 42,762 farmers linked to the GTBH IM12_R2.4 Code of practice developed for 0 1 1 each GTBH IM12_R3 IM12_R3.1 Number of farmers made 0 20,000 42,762 Improved aware of post-harvest handling practices competencies of through the GTBH grain stakeholders in structured trade IM12_R3.2 Number of service providers 0 30 44 made aware on the opportunities of the GTBH CTA – Project Completion Report, 15/06/20 Page 17 of 21 Baselines Targets Sources and Intervention Value Indicators (incl. (incl. means of Assumptions logic reference reference achieved verification year) year) IM12_R3.3 Number of farmers trained 20,000 32,420 (group dynamics and business planning) IM12_R3.4 Number of farmer group 0 80 78 leaders/ GTBH operators trained IM12_R4 IM12_R4.1 Number of buyers and sellers 0 100 46 Input –output contacted market linkages for the GTBH IM12_R4.2 Number of institutions 0 30 37 established contacted for services IM12_R4.3 Capacity assessed for GTBH 0 1 1 CTA – Project Completion Report, 15/06/20 Page 18 of 21 3.2 List of partners Grain off-takers/buyers Seed suppliers Equipment/storage bags WFP Kenya Seed Agro Z Sotik Technical Agriseed Co. Village Industrial Power (VIP) National Cereals & Produce Dryland Seeds BCA Cargil Simlaw Seeds Kentainers Ltd Ndeche Millers Sorghum Pioneer Grain Pro Inc Mois’s Bridge Grain Ltd Paneer Seeds Zodiac Exporters Ltd Corn Belt Seedco Quip Bank Leakey Millers Shalem Ltd Pamaki Enterprises Spice World Kibo Seeds Baraka Stores Unga Limited Kanawa Enterprises Agrochemical suppliers Fertiliser suppliers Christian Aid 1. OCP Africa 1. Yara Fertiliser Kitui Grains 2. Bell Industries 2. Baraka Fertilizer Sorghum Pioneer 3. Elgon Kenya 3. MEA Pipeline Kisumu 4. Meru Agro 4. National Cereals & Produce Board United Millers Shalem Ltd Mama Millers Ltd Kings Commodities Kamili Packers CTA – Project Completion Report, 15/06/20 Page 19 of 21 3.3 Number of digitally registered farmers in grain hubs as at December 2019 Kenya G-Hubs Male Female Total 1 Ndanai Umbrella Cooperative 296 351 647 Society 2 Angata Umoja Cooperative Society 356 123 479 3 Naima Development CBO 198 263 461 4 Lemook-kamasia Cooperative 209 178 387 5 Muungano Cbo 128 246 374 6 Tharaka Growers 81 285 366 7 Suwerwa Huruma 195 135 330 8 Nzoia Farmers’ Cooperative,Sinoko 126 181 307 9 Kitise Rural Development 78 176 254 10 Taitaveta Farmers’ Cooperative 118 67 185 11 Ng'arua Cereals Cooperative 91 55 146 12 Chemuswo 43 68 111 13 Mulala CBO 45 50 95 14 Soy Mateeny 63 31 94 15 Gamumwe CBO 10 78 88 16 Kimachia CBO 9 65 74 17 Amka CBO 32 29 61 18 Njukini Farmers’ Cooperative 34 12 46 19 Meguara Cooperative Society 17 24 41 20 Chomoza Cooperative Society 13 19 32 21 Aimi CBO 4 27 31 22 Ndalu Cooperative 14 12 26 23 Lukosi CBO 14 11 25 24 Wamuini Soko Huru Cbo 13 12 25 25 Marakusi Mali Shambani Coop 21 2 23 26 Gakiuma Farmers’ Cooperative 3 17 20 Society 27 Kuona Mbele Investment 11 3 14 Cooperative 28 Luyekhe Kazi na Maendeleo 4 7 11 29 Gachua Mukindu Water SHG 4 5 9 30 KIPEP Kipchamo 4 4 8 31 Super Search 4 Agrinet FCS 4 3 8 32 Cheptarit Star 1 6 7 33 Owefwe Self-help group 3 - 3 34 Saboti CBO 2 - 2 35 Tharaka Cereal Growers - 1 1 SUB-TOTAL KENYA 2,244 2,546 4,791 Additional Farmers Digitally 14,704 17,339 32,147 Registered T OTAL KENYA 16,948 19,885 36,938 CTA – Project Completion Report, 15/06/20 Page 20 of 21 Tanzania G-Hubs Male Female Total Itumbi Amcos 639 530 1,170 Isenyela Amcos 607 378 985 Kaning'ombe Amcos 264 227 491 Sambewe Amcos 230 91 321 Malampaka 210 80 290 King'ori Saccos 155 48 203 Muungano Saccos 95 55 150 Bulinge Amcos 71 72 143 Mgazini Amcos 82 60 143 Mpito Amcos 113 29 142 Motombaya Amcos 111 26 137 Kilimanjaro Amcos 77 55 132 Hampangui Amcos 97 25 130 Shiwamuka Hub 56 63 119 Uwamale Saccos 76 42 118 Magamba Amcos 78 24 102 Ibumila Amcos 48 52 100 Iyenga Amcos 83 12 98 Iwalanje Amcos 71 12 83 Magulilwa Amcos 54 25 79 Igomaa Amcos 48 21 69 Iganda Amcos 57 4 61 Gendi Amcos 39 13 52 Utambalila Amcos 47 5 52 Utulo Amcos 30 18 48 Isansa Amcos 17 28 45 Nansama Amcos 40 5 45 Herman Amcos 28 15 43 SUB-TOTAL TANZANIA 3,523 2,015 5,551 Additional farmers digitally 196 77 273 registered TOTAL TANZANIA 3,719 2,092 5,824 GRAND TOTAL 20,667 21,977 42,762 CTA – Project Completion Report, 15/06/20 Page 21 of 21