It's 6 am on a Friday morning in a small town in the arid parts of Kenya. It's still dark, but it's a hive of activity outside. Everyone is awake and busy with one chore or another. It's market day for this particular town, which happens once a week. The traders and the locals must be well prepared since the distance to the market is quite long. The traders come in with foodstuff and other basic commodities in their big lorries from the nearby towns, while the locals bring in their livestock individually. The livestock are the heart of this particular market. Every activity is affected by the price and the number of livestock sold on a particular market day. Trading typically begins around 7 am and winds down by 4 pm, when most of the livestock have been sold. The market’s success depends on the volume and price of livestock traded, making it a crucial part of life in this community. We also have brokers in the market; both the locals and the traders must go through them to complete the transaction.
The livestock market association officials collect taxes for each head of livestock brought into the market. Once a deal is made, the pastoralist receives their payment, settles the broker's fee, and purchases the household commodities they need before beginning the journey back home. Once in a while, you will meet a group of pastoralists who are selling their livestock as a group, but it's rare. Collective marketing has a lot of advantages, and that's why pastoralists must embrace this marketing method. Collective action is one of the initiatives that may enhance small-scale farmer’s participation in high-value markets. There have been success stories of collective marketing in Kenya, such as in banana farmers' organizations and mango group farmers. Why not in livestock farming?
What is collective marketing?
Collective Marketing is the act of farmers coming together to market their combined products/goods and purchase their inputs. It's derived from the word collective action, which is a voluntary action taken by a group of individuals who invest time and energy to pursue common shared interests and goals.
Collective action can range from cooperation between two neighbors to a large-scale community movement. Trust, unity, cooperation, experience, knowledge, and strong leadership are key factors that contribute to the success of collective marketing.
It is essential that all members actively contribute to the group, ensuring no one benefits unfairly at the expense of others. Every member should participate in the decision-making process, including determining where to market their produce, the number of animals to sell, and each member's roles and responsibilities.
When group rules are clearly defined, opportunism decreases, and trust within the group strengthens, fostering a more effective and cohesive collective effort.
Individual marketing faces several challenges, including:
- Low production of poor-quality products: Individuals often have limited purchasing power, restricting their ability to buy the necessary inputs to produce high-quality goods.
- Transport difficulties: Insecurity along routes to the market poses significant transport challenges.
- Low prices from local traders and brokers: Selling fewer animals results in weaker bargaining power, leading to lower prices.
What are the advantages of collective marketing?
- Increased Bargaining Power: Collective marketing enhances the competitive advantage of smallholder farmers by strengthening their bargaining power, allowing them to negotiate better prices.
- Reduced Marketing Costs and Improved Security: By pooling resources, farmers can transport animals together, reducing individual transport costs and increasing security for both livestock and herders.
- Access to Knowledge and Technology: Collective marketing provides farmers with access to new technologies, marketing knowledge, skills, and up-to-date market price information, fostering stronger institutions and informed decision-making.
- Access to Credit and Financial Services: Through collective action, members can combine assets, increasing their chances of securing loans and credit facilities. In remote pastoralist areas with limited banking services, groups often engage in table banking, merry-go-round savings schemes, and welfare support activities.
- Elimination of Middlemen: Collective marketing reduces reliance on exploitative middlemen who distort market information and profit from producers’ lack of knowledge. By uniting, farmers can bypass intermediaries, gaining direct access to broader markets.
- Strengthened Social Cohesion and Trust: Working collectively fosters social unity and trust among group members. In times of need, neighbors are more likely to support each other within a cooperative and functional group.
- Improved Farmer Incomes and Livelihoods: Enhanced bargaining power leads to better prices for produce, increasing farmers' incomes and improving their overall quality of life.
- Greater Political Influence: Organized groups of farmers are more likely to influence local government decisions and market associations, advocating for improved services and favorable policies within their communities.
Conclusion
For collective marketing to succeed, pastoralists need to establish strong marketing associations or groups. They must understand the process of forming these associations, recognize the types of groups that can thrive in collective marketing, and be aware of both the benefits and challenges of participation.
To effectively compete, pastoralists must also meet market requirements in terms of quality and quantity. Their produce should be of high quality and suitable for local and international markets.
Referensces
- Nyasulu, L. (2019). Participation of Small-Scale Farmers in Collective Marketing of Potato in Molo Sub County, Nakuru County, Kenya.
- Samuel, K (2023). Impact of collective marketing participation on farmers' income: Evidence from smallholder avocado farmers of Murang'a County, Kenya https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100614
- Ester, Jon. 1985. “Rationality, Morality, and Collective Action.” Ethics 96:136–55.
- Laura, G.& Hailemichael, T. (2002) The Many Meanings of Collective Action Lessons on Enhancing Gender Inclusion and Equity in Watershed Management.
- Abebaw, D., & Haile, M.G. (2013). The impact of cooperatives on agricultural technology adoption: Empirical evidence from Ethiopia. Journal of Food Policy, 38, 82–91.
- Arlotti-Parish, E. (2014). Gender in Agribusiness an analysis of gender dynamics in cash and food crop marketing clubs in Southern Malawi. https://issuu.com/catholicreliefservices/docs/gender_in_agribusiness
- Bastakoti, R.C., & Shivakoti, G.P. (2012). Rules and collective action: An Institutional analysis of the performance of irrigation systems in Nepal. Journal of Institutional Economics, 8, 225- 246.
- Bernard, T., & Spielman, D. (2009). Reaching the rural poor through rural producer organizations: A study of agricultural marketing cooperatives in Ethiopia. Journal of Food Policy, 34(1), 60-69.
- Chau L. T. M., Lebailly, P. & Trung, T. Q. (2017). Enhancing farmers’ market power and income in the pig value chain; a case study in Bac Giang province, Vietnam. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 29(12), 1-13.
- Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory, The Belknap Press of Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. ISBN 978-0-6743-1226-5
- Fischer, E., & Qaim, M. (2012). Linking smallholders to markets: Determinants and impacts of farmer collective action in Kenya. World Development, 40(6), 1255–1268.
- Fischer, E., & Qaim, M. (2014). Smallholder farmers and collective action: What determines the intensity of participation? Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65(3), 683–702.
- Gicheha, K.S., Ngigi, M., & Hillary, K.B. (2015). Determinants of farmer participation in collective marketing and intensity of participation in indigenous chicken markets in Western Kenya. Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, 8(10), 98-105.
- Koku, E., & Gustafsson, J. (2003). Local institutions and natural resource management in the South of Tongu district of Ghana: A case study. Sustainable Development, 11, 17-35.
- Kristin, D. & Negash, M. (2005). Gender, Wealth, and participation in community groups in Meru central district, Kenya. International Food Policy Research Institute, CAPRi working paper 65, Washington, D. C.
- Kruijssen, F., Keizer, M., & Gulliani, A. (2009). Collective action for small-scale producers of agricultural biodiversity products. Elsevier. Food Policy, 34, 46-52