|
{"metadata":{"id":"01133f881fad39ff538687eceaf56a74","source":"gardian_index","url":"https://cgspace.cgiar.org/rest/bitstreams/2f8e6ba6-a7b3-4335-8d35-f09fa4076272/retrieve"},"pageCount":31,"title":"","keywords":[],"chapters":[{"head":"List of Tables","index":1,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"List of Figures","index":2,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"List of Acronyms","index":3,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"ADIS","index":4,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":74,"text":"The goal of the project is to contribute to efforts for enhancing the quality and consumption of milk for improved income and nutrition in Rwanda. The country's Innovation Platform convened by the LSIL identified that increasing the quality, marketing and consumption of animal source foods (ASF), especially milk, is an important research for development priority for Rwanda. The Livestock Systems Innovation Lab project will achieve its overall objective by generating and communicating evidence on:"},{"index":2,"size":51,"text":"a) The impact of nutrition education on ASF consumption and nutritional status of 12-23-month-old children and pregnant and lactating women in poor households that have received a dairy cow. b) The impact of selected capacity development interventions on the marketing performance of dairy cooperatives. c) The viability of supplying quality milk."},{"index":3,"size":88,"text":"The proposed project draws upon the work and lessons of a previous Government of Rwanda (GoR) programthe One Cow per Poor Family (Girinka), and a recently concluded USAID Feed the Future funded program known as the Rwanda Dairy Competitiveness Program (RDCP II) to achieve each of the project's specific objectives. To ensure sustainability of the project's impacts, project design has taken into consideration the role of three important crosscutting themes, namely, the role of gender in livestock systems, human and institutional capacity development, and human health and nutrition."}]},{"head":"Research Objective","index":5,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":77,"text":"To address objective 2 of the project, a quasi-experimental design in the form of a onegroup pretest-posttest design to assess performance and capacity of dairy cooperatives to improve market access for smallholder milk producers has been applied. TechnoServe has applied AgPOSA, a harmonized tool developed by TechnoServe, ILRI and Land O'Lakes, to assess capacities and performance of 30 producer organizations in four milksheds of Rwanda. This survey took place during the months of September and October 2017."},{"index":2,"size":53,"text":"The aim of the survey was to establish baseline indicators against which the project shall be monitored. A capacity development intervention for the producer organizations will then be conducted for 12 months and an endline AgPOSA survey conducted to assess changes in capacities and market performance. The following outcomes and indicators are envisaged: "}]},{"head":"Baseline survey Methodology 1.3.1. Survey Design","index":6,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":127,"text":"The participants of this survey were 30 dairy cooperatives that were part of the Rwanda dairy competitiveness program (RDCPII). These dairy cooperatives went through capacity assessments focusing on key sustainability dimensions that include governance, financial health, value proposition to markets and farmers, relationship with the external environment. Key respondents for this assessment were the managers, board of directors and key staff of the cooperatives. This assessment enabled determination of capacity gaps of the cooperatives targeted for a capacity development intervention. A sub-sample of the cooperatives will then be targeted for capacity building and mentorship. Four cooperatives will receive intensive trainings coupled with coaching and mentorship while 16 will be targeted for a market systems facilitation approach to enable linkages with business development service providers and other actors."}]},{"head":"The AgPOSA tool","index":7,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":205,"text":"The AgPOSA tool is a harmonized tool from two separate tools; a) the Producer Organization Sustainability Assessment (POSA) tool developed by ILRI and TechnoServe and b) the AgroPro (Cooperative performance assessment tool) tool developed by Land O'Lakes. The AgPOSA tool reflects generally accepted fundamental dimensions of sustainability, which the project will track over time. The tool enables collection of quantitative data. AgPOSA is useful in objectively determining capacity gaps of Producer Organizations (PO's) (related to management and leadership, financial health, value proposition to market/farmers, relationship with the external environment, among other sustainability dimensions) as well as supporting PO management to develop action plans for closing capacity gaps (Figure 1). Pilot testing: After the enumerator training, a half-day pilot-testing was conducted in Rwamagana District. The pilot test was essential in verifying that the survey questions were well understood by the respondents. The test helped the enumerators to assess various aspects of the survey platform including how to ask questions right, how to collect the right data, ensure clarity of survey questions, record survey data, and capture GPS location data. The pilot test also enabled the enumerators to determine if the survey questions were clear to the respondents and if the flow of the questions was logical."}]},{"head":"Sampling","index":8,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":36,"text":"The survey sample comprised 30 PO's selected from a sampling frame of 81 PO's that were working with the Rwanda Dairy Competitiveness Program (RDCP II). The set selection criteria used for selection of the 30 were:"},{"index":2,"size":132,"text":" Physical infrastructure: Existence/non-existence of a milk collection center (MCC) for milk bulking and chilling. The MCC is an important parameter for implementing the hub model approach. Gender and youth: With the various activities conducted in the MCC, women and youth should play an important role in the advancement of the producer organization. Hence, the gender composition of Board of Directors (BOD) was a key component. Milk potential: high milk potential is an indicator of likely future growth and expansion of the producer organizations. Poverty and malnutrition: TechnoServe took into consideration both poverty and malnutrition levels, which vary across the milk sheds. Farming systems: Farming systems differ in different milk sheds of Rwanda and influence milk volumes and the incomes of smallholder farmers, due to different production costs."}]},{"head":"Survey data collection","index":9,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":78,"text":"Data was collected from 30 producer organizations across the four milksheds from September 19 th , 2017 to October 17 th , 2017. The TechnoServe project staff accompanied the enumerators to ensure that there was authenticity and accuracy of the data collection. The AgPOSA tool was printed and two enumerators did the data collection per cooperative, which helped keep the data in check during its collection process. Data collected and submitted was reviewed daily during the fieldwork period."}]},{"head":"Data Analysis","index":10,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":59,"text":"Data was collected using hardcopy of AgPOSA tool questionnaires then entered into the the tool in Microsoft Excel at the end of the fieldwork period. Data cleaning (to mainly address duplicated numbers and typing errors) took place after the fieldwork. The analysis of the data collected by the AgPOSA tool is based on four major and inter-related components namely:"},{"index":2,"size":413,"text":" A sustainability strategy that defines the vision and levers within the enabling environment (based on the balanced score card) An internally aligned scoring system that defines the practices results for sustainability A continuous improvement process through gap analysis, benchmarking and planning A graduation process and exit procedures that aim to reduce support to cooperatives over time An overall score was derived by aggregating all the scores under each dimension. Respective indicators are allocated weighted scores based on their importance in contributing to PO sustainability. The total aggregate maximum score is 100. The tool classifies the PO's into stages (1-5) depending on the scores obtained as shown in the figure below. From the 30 PO's that were assessed, eight PO's attained a score of 50 or more, and two PO's scored below 20. There is need to conduct a deeper analysis for the 2 POs that scored over 60 in order to identify areas requiring strengthening for them to become role model PO's for the market systems faciliatation approach. COABONDE which scored the lowest (7.88) is not connected to the electric grid and thus incur alot of costs in chilling the milk due to relying on a diesel-powered generator which consumes approximately 20 litres of diesel a day which is 20,000Rwf (US$ 23). From the scores obtained, 2 POs were in stage 1, 14 POs in stage 2, 12 PO's in stage 3 and 2 POs in stage 4. This shows that a majority of the PO's (47%) are in the systems development phase, where they are focusing on getting the business running. The findings above show that PO's in stage 1 are very weak in financial health, access to dairy inputs and services and member loyalty but strong in relationship with external environment. This means that they are in the set-up phase where they are focusing on business start-up, they can advance into stage two when an improvement on the weak dimensions is done to improve operations. It is noted that financial health and access to dairy inputs and services are weak crosscutting dimensions in PO's in both stage one and two while engagement with output market, relationship with external environment are strong crosscutting dimensions for PO's in stage three and four respectively. Effective and transparent leadership and management are some of the dimensions that affect most of the PO's. Access to dairy inputs and services and engagement with output market are the most challenged dimensions for the PO's."}]},{"head":"PO distribution by stage","index":11,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"PO overall performance","index":12,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Stage Four","index":13,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Figure 9. Stage Four","index":14,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":87,"text":"Seven percent of the PO's assessed are in stage four, implying that they are in the stabilization and growth phase where they are focusing on a holistic business improvement with a major focus on financials. Lack of a connection to the electric grid had affected the PO's operations mostly on the financials since they had to rely on dieselpowered generators. This increased the costs as well as not having a diversity of the business development services at the PO affecting the access to dairy inputs and services."}]},{"head":"Average scores per dimension per milkshed","index":15,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Figure 10. Average scores per dimension per milkshed","index":16,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":60,"text":"The survey shows that 66% of the average scores per dimension were scored highly in the Eastern milkshed, those being: financial health, access to dairy inputs and services, relationship with external environment and member loyalty. The southern milkshed scored highly in efficient and transparent leadership and management dimension. The Kigali milkshed scoring highly in the engagement with output market dimension."}]},{"head":"PO scores per dimension per milkshed 2.7.1. Eastern Milkshed","index":17,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Figure 11. Eastern milkshed","index":18,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":107,"text":"In the Eastern Milkshed, the survey shows that 40% of the PO's are above the average score for the financial health dimension, 30 % of the PO's are above the average score for the engagement with output market dimension and that 60% of the PO's are above the average score for the efficient and transparent leadership and management dimension. Furthermore, 50% of the PO's are above the average score for the access to dairy inputs and services dimension; 60% of the PO's are above the average score relationship with external environment dimension and 60% of the PO's are above the average score for the member loyalty dimension."},{"index":2,"size":85,"text":"With the fact that the Eastern Milkshed has the biggest population of cows in Rwanda, there are many stakeholders in the dairy sector in the milkshed and thus leading to a high relationship with external environment dimension, member loyalty and effective and transparent leadership and management dimensions were high. High seasonal variance and informal market affect the milk quality and quantity delivered to the POs. Poor record keeping done at the POs affects the data available which in turn leads to poorly generated financial reports."}]},{"head":"Northern Milkshed","index":19,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Figure 12. Northern milkshed","index":20,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":105,"text":"In the Northern Milkshed, the survey shows that 28% of the PO's are above the average score in the financial health dimension, 57% of the PO's are above the average score in the engagement with output market dimension, 57% of the PO's are above the average score in the efficient and transparent leadership and management dimension. Furthermore, 57% of the PO's are above the average score in the access to dairy inputs and services dimension, 28% of the POs are above the average score for the relationship with external environment and 57% of the POs are above the average score for the member loyalty dimension."},{"index":2,"size":153,"text":"Poor recordkeeping and ability of PO staff to develop financial reports for the milk business as well as other BDS services has led to poor performance in the financial health dimension and thus capacity building of staff and Board of Directors to foster efficient and effective supervision and controls is required. In the Southern Milkshed, the survey shows that 25% of the PO's are above the average score in the financial health dimension, 37% of the PO's are above the average score in the engagement with output market, and 75% are above the average score in the efficient and transparent leadership and management dimension. In addition, 50% of the PO's are above the average score in the access to dairy inputs and services dimension, 50% of the PO's are above the average score in the relationship with external environment and 62% of the PO's are above average score in the member loyalty dimension."},{"index":3,"size":63,"text":"Poor record keeping and financial reporting has led to the PO's having poor performance in the financial health dimension, seasonal variance has greatly affected the volumes of milk supplied to the PO's. BDS services mostly feeds need to be introduced to the PO's so that the milk volumes delivered increase and building the capacity of PO BODS and staff to increase financial management."}]},{"head":"Kigali Milkshed","index":21,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Figure 14. Kigali milkshed","index":22,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":100,"text":"In the Kigali Milkshed, the survey shows that 60% of the PO's are above the average score in the financial dimension, 60% of the PO's are above the average score in the engagement with output market, and 60% are above the average score in the efficient and transparent leadership and management dimension. Additionally, 40% of the PO's are above the average score in the access to dairy inputs and services dimension, 60% of the PO's are above the average score in the relationship with external environment and 80% of the PO's are above average score in the member loyalty dimension."},{"index":2,"size":58,"text":"With the fact that the PO's are in the Kigali milkshed, the capital city provides a ready market for the milk delivered to the PO's, however value proposition to farmers is still low since access to dairy inputs and services to farmers at the PO's is still low and thus the dairy hub model approach should be escalated. "}]},{"head":"PO scores per dimension for all POs","index":23,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Total BOD members versus total female BOD members","index":24,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":52,"text":"The total number of BOD members in the 30 PO's is 150 members of which 53 are women making 35% of the surveyed sample. It can be noted that most of the posts held by women are either secretary or advisor and only two of the 30 PO's surveyed had female chairpersons. "}]},{"head":"Fully paid up shareholders versus fully paid female shareholders","index":25,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":50,"text":"There was a noticeable difference between registered members and shareholders who have fully paid their equity fee. For the case of fully paid up shareholders, 3,327 members of the surveyed PO are fully paid shareholders of which 824 members are fully paid female shareholders making 25% of the surveyed sample. "}]},{"head":"Fully paid up shareholders versus youth shareholders","index":26,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":70,"text":"From the 30 surveyed PO's, it was noted that 3,327 farmers are fully paid up shareholders of which 70 are fully paid up youth shareholders, making 2%. This shows that the youth aren't engaged in the operations of the POs mostly as members, they are however transporters who either collect milk from farmers and deliver it to the milk collection center or from satellite centers to the milk collection center. "}]},{"head":"Conclusion","index":27,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":33,"text":"Most of the PO's did not have documentary evidence and the information was mainly obtained verbally from the board members. This indicates a need for a quick set up of information management systems."},{"index":2,"size":50,"text":"Interim BOD's or newly elected BOD's are still leading some of the PO's where handover has not been done making it hard for major decisions to be made since the BOD's do not consider themselves to be properly in office as they do not have all documents at their reach."},{"index":3,"size":89,"text":"Most PO's performed better in all dimensions except for financial health and access to dairy inputs and services. This can be attributed to the lack of specific technical expertise of the PO staff, possible documentation errors, and different types of existing farming systems that offered different levels of accessibility to the dairy inputs and services. This can also be attributed to PO accountants lacking the knowledge and experience of creating financial reports and recording daily financial data. These inaccuracies may impact the BOD's ability to make accurate operational decisions."},{"index":4,"size":16,"text":"Integration of gender and youth in the POs is very important to ensure inclusion in POs."},{"index":5,"size":27,"text":"There is need for greater sensitization and mobilization of women and youth in the dairy value chain to enhance their participation and improve operations of the POs."},{"index":6,"size":97,"text":"For the selection of the 20 POs, four will receive intensive capacity building intervention and 16 will be targeted for a market facilitation approach. The following selection criteria will be used to select the 20 PO's from the population of 30 PO's. The criteria below are based on results of the AgPOSA assessment conducted: PO's that have achieved a score of 40% and above: Test market facilitation approach and use the best PO as an innovator, so that others can learn from them as a role model. PO's that have achieved a score of 30-40%:"},{"index":7,"size":109,"text":"o Top performers in this group to join market systems facilitated group; o Middle performers to be referred to other dairy support organizations; o The bottom performers to join the intensive capacity building; PO's that have scored below 30% requires long-term capacity building and hence need to be referred to other dairy support organizations. PO's that fall in different geography, though within the set will be dropped PO's supported by both EADD and RDCP II are not to undergo intensive capacity building intervention but rather market facilitation approach PO's in the same project focal Districts where all three objectives will be implemented shall be selected."},{"index":8,"size":25,"text":"The PO's selected for both the intensive capacity building intervention and market facilitation approach are shown in table 4 and 5 in the annex below."}]},{"head":"Annexes","index":28,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"AgPOSA Tool","index":29,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"AgPOSA survey questionnaires","index":30,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":1,"text":"AgPOSA_2017.xlsx"}]}],"figures":[{"text":"Figure 1 . Figure 1. AgPOSA tool dimensions and scoring system .....................................................................Figure 2. The 5 different stages and their characteristics .................................................................. Figure 3. Distribution of scores ..............................................................................................................Figure 4. Distribution by stage ...............................................................................................................Figure 5. Dimension progression towards sustainability .................................................................... Figure 6. Stage one ................................................................................................................................. Figure 7. Stage Two ................................................................................................................................. Figure 8. Stage three ............................................................................................................................... Figure 9. Stage Four ................................................................................................................................ Figure 10. Average scores per dimension per milkshed .................................................................... Figure 11. Eastern milkshed ................................................................................................................... Figure 12. Northern milkshed ................................................................................................................. Figure 13. Southern milkshed ................................................................................................................ Figure 14. Kigali milkshed ....................................................................................................................... Figure 15. PO scores per dimension for all POs ................................................................................. Figure 16. Average total active suppliers versus the average milk suppliers ................................. Figure 17. Total BOD members versus total female BOD members ............................................... Figure 18. Fully paid shareholders versus fully paid female shareholders ..................................... Figure 19. Vacant posts versus interested female candidates ......................................................... Figure 20. Total BOD members versus youth in BOD ....................................................................... Figure 21. Fully paid up shareholders versus youth shareholders ................................................... "},{"text":"Figure 2 . Figure 1. AgPOSA tool dimensions and scoring system .....................................................................Figure 2. The 5 different stages and their characteristics .................................................................. Figure 3. Distribution of scores ..............................................................................................................Figure 4. Distribution by stage ...............................................................................................................Figure 5. Dimension progression towards sustainability .................................................................... Figure 6. Stage one ................................................................................................................................. Figure 7. Stage Two ................................................................................................................................. Figure 8. Stage three ............................................................................................................................... Figure 9. Stage Four ................................................................................................................................ Figure 10. Average scores per dimension per milkshed .................................................................... Figure 11. Eastern milkshed ................................................................................................................... Figure 12. Northern milkshed ................................................................................................................. Figure 13. Southern milkshed ................................................................................................................ Figure 14. Kigali milkshed ....................................................................................................................... Figure 15. PO scores per dimension for all POs ................................................................................. Figure 16. Average total active suppliers versus the average milk suppliers ................................. Figure 17. Total BOD members versus total female BOD members ............................................... Figure 18. Fully paid shareholders versus fully paid female shareholders ..................................... Figure 19. Vacant posts versus interested female candidates ......................................................... Figure 20. Total BOD members versus youth in BOD ....................................................................... Figure 21. Fully paid up shareholders versus youth shareholders ................................................... "},{"text":"Figure 3 . Figure 1. AgPOSA tool dimensions and scoring system .....................................................................Figure 2. The 5 different stages and their characteristics .................................................................. Figure 3. Distribution of scores ..............................................................................................................Figure 4. Distribution by stage ...............................................................................................................Figure 5. Dimension progression towards sustainability .................................................................... Figure 6. Stage one ................................................................................................................................. Figure 7. Stage Two ................................................................................................................................. Figure 8. Stage three ............................................................................................................................... Figure 9. Stage Four ................................................................................................................................ Figure 10. Average scores per dimension per milkshed .................................................................... Figure 11. Eastern milkshed ................................................................................................................... Figure 12. Northern milkshed ................................................................................................................. Figure 13. Southern milkshed ................................................................................................................ Figure 14. Kigali milkshed ....................................................................................................................... Figure 15. PO scores per dimension for all POs ................................................................................. Figure 16. Average total active suppliers versus the average milk suppliers ................................. Figure 17. Total BOD members versus total female BOD members ............................................... Figure 18. Fully paid shareholders versus fully paid female shareholders ..................................... Figure 19. Vacant posts versus interested female candidates ......................................................... Figure 20. Total BOD members versus youth in BOD ....................................................................... Figure 21. Fully paid up shareholders versus youth shareholders ................................................... "},{"text":"Figure 4 . Figure 1. AgPOSA tool dimensions and scoring system .....................................................................Figure 2. The 5 different stages and their characteristics .................................................................. Figure 3. Distribution of scores ..............................................................................................................Figure 4. Distribution by stage ...............................................................................................................Figure 5. Dimension progression towards sustainability .................................................................... Figure 6. Stage one ................................................................................................................................. Figure 7. Stage Two ................................................................................................................................. Figure 8. Stage three ............................................................................................................................... Figure 9. Stage Four ................................................................................................................................ Figure 10. Average scores per dimension per milkshed .................................................................... Figure 11. Eastern milkshed ................................................................................................................... Figure 12. Northern milkshed ................................................................................................................. Figure 13. Southern milkshed ................................................................................................................ Figure 14. Kigali milkshed ....................................................................................................................... Figure 15. PO scores per dimension for all POs ................................................................................. Figure 16. Average total active suppliers versus the average milk suppliers ................................. Figure 17. Total BOD members versus total female BOD members ............................................... Figure 18. Fully paid shareholders versus fully paid female shareholders ..................................... Figure 19. Vacant posts versus interested female candidates ......................................................... Figure 20. Total BOD members versus youth in BOD ....................................................................... Figure 21. Fully paid up shareholders versus youth shareholders ................................................... "},{"text":"Figure 5 . Figure 1. AgPOSA tool dimensions and scoring system .....................................................................Figure 2. The 5 different stages and their characteristics .................................................................. Figure 3. Distribution of scores ..............................................................................................................Figure 4. Distribution by stage ...............................................................................................................Figure 5. Dimension progression towards sustainability .................................................................... Figure 6. Stage one ................................................................................................................................. Figure 7. Stage Two ................................................................................................................................. Figure 8. Stage three ............................................................................................................................... Figure 9. Stage Four ................................................................................................................................ Figure 10. Average scores per dimension per milkshed .................................................................... Figure 11. Eastern milkshed ................................................................................................................... Figure 12. Northern milkshed ................................................................................................................. Figure 13. Southern milkshed ................................................................................................................ Figure 14. Kigali milkshed ....................................................................................................................... Figure 15. PO scores per dimension for all POs ................................................................................. Figure 16. Average total active suppliers versus the average milk suppliers ................................. Figure 17. Total BOD members versus total female BOD members ............................................... Figure 18. Fully paid shareholders versus fully paid female shareholders ..................................... Figure 19. Vacant posts versus interested female candidates ......................................................... Figure 20. Total BOD members versus youth in BOD ....................................................................... Figure 21. Fully paid up shareholders versus youth shareholders ................................................... "},{"text":"Figure 10 . Figure 1. AgPOSA tool dimensions and scoring system .....................................................................Figure 2. The 5 different stages and their characteristics .................................................................. Figure 3. Distribution of scores ..............................................................................................................Figure 4. Distribution by stage ...............................................................................................................Figure 5. Dimension progression towards sustainability .................................................................... Figure 6. Stage one ................................................................................................................................. Figure 7. Stage Two ................................................................................................................................. Figure 8. Stage three ............................................................................................................................... Figure 9. Stage Four ................................................................................................................................ Figure 10. Average scores per dimension per milkshed .................................................................... Figure 11. Eastern milkshed ................................................................................................................... Figure 12. Northern milkshed ................................................................................................................. Figure 13. Southern milkshed ................................................................................................................ Figure 14. Kigali milkshed ....................................................................................................................... Figure 15. PO scores per dimension for all POs ................................................................................. Figure 16. Average total active suppliers versus the average milk suppliers ................................. Figure 17. Total BOD members versus total female BOD members ............................................... Figure 18. Fully paid shareholders versus fully paid female shareholders ..................................... Figure 19. Vacant posts versus interested female candidates ......................................................... Figure 20. Total BOD members versus youth in BOD ....................................................................... Figure 21. Fully paid up shareholders versus youth shareholders ................................................... "},{"text":"Figure 1 . Figure 1. AgPOSA tool dimensions and scoring system 1.3.2. Data Collection Process The AgPOSA baseline survey process was planned and executed collaboratively by ILRI and TechnoServe project team. Each of the stages of the process is described briefly below: Enumerator Team Training: Training of enumerators took place on July 5, 2017 in Kigali. TechnoServe conducted the training in collaboration with ILRI and University of Rwanda (UR) team members. The training covered the overview of the LSIL project, the AgPOSA tool content, survey objectives, interviewing skills refresher, survey target group, survey logistics, planning and a pilot feedback review session. "},{"text":"Figure 2 .Figure 3 . Figure 2. The 5 different stages and their characteristics 2. Results and discussions 2.1. Distribution of AgPOSA scores "},{"text":"Figure 4 . Figure 4. Distribution by stage "},{"text":"2. 5 . Figure 6. Stage one Seven percent of the PO's assessed are in stage 1 which is on the start-up phase. The most challenging dimension of the two PO's are financial health with COABONDE having stalled operations due to problems with electricity and Indakemwa Mugandamure having problems of documentation of their data. Access to dairy inputs and services is another challenging dimension because there are no Business Development Services (BDS) at the PO affecting the value proposition to farmers and in-turn affecting the member loyalty. "},{"text":" Figure 13. Southern milkshed "},{"text":"Figure 15 . 3 . Women and Youth Representation 3 . 2 .Figure 16 . Figure 15. PO scores per dimension for all POs "},{"text":"Figure 17 . Figure 17. Total BOD members versus total female BOD members "},{"text":"Figure 18 . Figure 18. Fully paid shareholders versus fully paid female shareholders3.1.4. Vacant posts versus interested female candidatesDuring elections at the PO's, 167 vacant posts were available during the survey period and interested female candidates who vied for the posts were 98 making 59%. The number of women elected was 53 in comparison to 98 who vied for posts making it 54% of women in various posts. "},{"text":"Figure 19 . 3 . 2 .Figure 20 . Figure 19. Vacant posts versus interested female candidates3.2. Youth representation in the POs3.2.1. Total BOD member versus youth in BODFor the BOD representation, of the total number of 150 BOD members for the 30 PO's only 11 were youth (35 years and below) making 7% of the leaders in the BOD positions. It can be noted that most of the positions that are occupied by the youth in the various PO's are advisors. "},{"text":"Figure 21 . Figure 21. Fully paid up shareholders versus youth shareholders "},{"text":" "},{"text":" "},{"text":" "},{"text":" "},{"text":" "},{"text":"Table 1 . Outcomes and indicators of LSIL Objective 2 ........................................................................ "},{"text":"Table 2 . PO overall performance ........................................................................................................... "},{"text":"Table 3 . The surveyed POs including milkshed and GPS coordinates ........................................... Table 4. List of POs selected for the capacity building intervention ................................................. Table 5. List of POs selected for the Market Systems Approach ..................................................... "},{"text":"Background of the Livestock Systems Innovation Lab Rwanda Reach Project The Livestock Systems Innovation Lab Rwanda Reach Project is a 3 year, 1 million USD project funded by the USAID Feed the Future initiative, through the University of Florida. The project is implemented by a consortium of partners consisting of International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) as the lead partner, RTI International, University of Rwanda and TechnoServe. 1. INTRODUCTION 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Access to Dairy Input and Services 1.1.Access to Dairy Input and Services AgPOSA Agricultural Producer Organization Sustainability Assessment AgPOSAAgricultural Producer Organization Sustainability Assessment BDS Business Development Services BDSBusiness Development Services BOD Board of Directors BODBoard of Directors COABONDE Cooperative y'Aborozi ba Ndego COABONDECooperative y'Aborozi ba Ndego EADD East African Dairy Development Project EADDEast African Dairy Development Project EOM Engagement with Output market EOMEngagement with Output market ETLM Efficient and Transparent Leadership and Management ETLMEfficient and Transparent Leadership and Management FH Financial Health FHFinancial Health ILRI International Livestock Research Institute ILRIInternational Livestock Research Institute LSIL Livestock Systems Innovation Lab LSILLivestock Systems Innovation Lab PO Producer Organization POProducer Organization POSA Producer Organization Sustainability Assessment POSAProducer Organization Sustainability Assessment REE Relationship with External Environment REERelationship with External Environment MCC Milk Collection Center MCCMilk Collection Center ML Member Loyalty MLMember Loyalty "},{"text":"Table 1 . Outcomes and indicators of LSIL Objective 2 OUTCOME INDICATOR OUTCOMEINDICATOR Number of dairy farmers trained, mentored and Number of dairy farmers trained, mentored and coached coached Number of dairy cooperatives implementing improved Number of dairy cooperatives implementing improved Vibrant, well managed and governance and management practices Vibrant, well managed andgovernance and management practices performing dairy Volume of members' milk supplied through performing dairyVolume of members' milk supplied through cooperatives with improved cooperatives cooperatives with improvedcooperatives market access Number of male and female members supplying milk market accessNumber of male and female members supplying milk through the cooperative through the cooperative Number of men and women in the board and Number of men and women in the board and management of cooperatives management of cooperatives Improved access to BDS by Number of business agreements with BDS to provide Improved access to BDS byNumber of business agreements with BDS to provide cooperatives, improving services to cooperative members (signed cooperatives,improvingservices to cooperative members (signed value proposition to agreements) valuepropositiontoagreements) members members "},{"text":"Table 2 . PO overall performance 16 14 1614 14 12 1412 12 12 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 2 2 422 2 2 0 0 Stage I Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage IStage 2Stage 3Stage 4 N O PRODUCER ORGANIZATION SCORE MILK SHED N O PRODUCER ORGANIZATIONSCORE MILK SHED 1 Kamate Dairy Marketing Cooperative (KAMDAMACO) 67.06 East 1Kamate Dairy Marketing Cooperative (KAMDAMACO)67.06East 2 Katabagemu Dairy Farmers Cooperative (KAFCO) 64.71 East 2Katabagemu Dairy Farmers Cooperative (KAFCO)64.71East 3 Cooperative d'Eleveurs Moderne Bigogwe (CEMO) 55.88 North 3Cooperative d'Eleveurs Moderne Bigogwe (CEMO)55.88North 4 Rwimbogo Dairy Farmers Cooperative 54.94 East 4Rwimbogo Dairy Farmers Cooperative54.94East 5 Koperative amizero y'aborozi 53.53 South 5Koperative amizero y'aborozi53.53South 6 Koperative Zamuka Mworozi Gicumbi (KOZAMGI) 52.94 Kigali 6Koperative Zamuka Mworozi Gicumbi (KOZAMGI)52.94Kigali 7 Murambi Dairy Cooperative Society (MUDACOS) 52.35 East 7Murambi Dairy Cooperative Society (MUDACOS)52.35East 8 Giramata Mworozi Nyagisozi 52.35 South 8Giramata Mworozi Nyagisozi52.35South 9 Kinazi Dairy Cooperative (KDC) 49.41 South 9Kinazi Dairy Cooperative (KDC)49.41South 10 Cooperative d'Eleveurs du zone Nyiragikokora (CEZONYI) 49.41 North 10 Cooperative d'Eleveurs du zone Nyiragikokora (CEZONYI) 49.41North 11 Bugesera Milk Collection Center (BMCC) 48.82 Kigali 11 Bugesera Milk Collection Center (BMCC)48.82Kigali 12 Borozi Twisugane 48.82 North 12 Borozi Twisugane48.82North 13 Abashumbabeza Cooperative 43.53 East 13 Abashumbabeza Cooperative43.53East "},{"text":"Dimension progression towards sustainability 14 Terimbere Mworozi w'inka 41.76 South 14 Terimbere Mworozi w'inka41.76South 15 KOPIZI Zirakamwa 38.82 North 15 KOPIZI Zirakamwa38.82North 16 Zirakamwa Twicundire 38.47 North 16 Zirakamwa Twicundire38.47North 17 Gwizumukamo Busoro 37.65 South 17 Gwizumukamo Busoro37.65South 18 Cooperative des Eleveurs de Kayenzi (COOPEKA) 35.88 South 18 Cooperative des Eleveurs de Kayenzi (COOPEKA)35.88South 19 Cooperative de Transformation du Soja et des Oleagineux 34.71 North 19 Cooperative de Transformation du Soja et des Oleagineux34.71North de Rulindo (CTSOR) de Rulindo (CTSOR) 20 CECOLA Zirakamwa 34.71 East 20 CECOLA Zirakamwa34.71East 21 Bwera Ntoma Rutungu Tworore (BNRT) 34.71 East 21 Bwera Ntoma Rutungu Tworore (BNRT)34.71East 22 Cooperative y'Aborozi Ba Ndego (CODEN Jyambere) 33.58 East 22 Cooperative y'Aborozi Ba Ndego (CODEN Jyambere)33.58East 23 Cooperative d'Eleveurs Moderne Bukure (COOPEMOBU) 32.94 North 23 Cooperative d'Eleveurs Moderne Bukure (COOPEMOBU) 32.94North 24 Cooperative Turwanye Bwaki (CTBK ) 32.94 North 24 Cooperative Turwanye Bwaki (CTBK )32.94North 25 Koperative Indashikirwa Mubworozi (KOINDAMU) 29.41 Kigali 25 Koperative Indashikirwa Mubworozi (KOINDAMU)29.41Kigali 26 Rusatira Dairy Company (RUDACO) 28.82 South 26 Rusatira Dairy Company (RUDACO)28.82South 27 Buhabwa Dairy Cooperative 24.12 East 27 Buhabwa Dairy Cooperative24.12East 28 Agiragiterka Kinigi 21.76 North 28 Agiragiterka Kinigi21.76North 29 Indakemwa Mugandamure 19.41 South 29 Indakemwa Mugandamure19.41South 30 Cooperative y'Aborozi Ba Ndego (COABONDE) 7.88 East 30 Cooperative y'Aborozi Ba Ndego (COABONDE)7.88East Figure 5. Dimension progression towards sustainability Figure 5. Dimension progression towards sustainability "}],"sieverID":"0c5b50fa-db1d-4c52-be59-a30aff231ae6","abstract":""} |
