The potential of farmers’ markets: the Uganda case

3.1 Case study

The study data were collected from farmers and stakeholders in the Kampala District, central Uganda. In terms of territory, the Kampala District (Figure 2) is divided into five divisions: Kampala Central, Kawempe, Makindye, Rubaga and Nakawa. Kampala has a land area of 189.3 km² (Kampala Capital City Authority, 2019) with an estimated population of 1.6 million in 2019 and a population growth rate of 4.02% per annum (Uganda Bureau of Statistics, 2020). It has been noted that urban and peri-urban agriculture in Kampala represents important economic activity within the city and significantly contributes to the food basket (Sabiiti et al., 2014; Prain et al., 2010; Bryld, 2003). Unlike in the past, when urban farmers belonged to low-earning groups, they now belong to low-to high-earning households for various reasons and strategies. Larger plots are available for cultivation in the peri-urban areas of Kampala. In contrast, agriculture is carried out closer to the city center in backyards, public land and around buildings (Bryld, 2003). Vegetable production and livestock keeping, primarily poultry, dairy cattle and pigs, are the dominant components of urban agriculture. However, the Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA), the city's governing body, considers it illegal for farmers and vendors to trade their products or fruits on pavements and roadsides (Sabiiti et al., 2014). Kampala was selected as a study area because farmer markets have been observed to be popular in urban areas.

3.2 Data collection

The data used in this study were collected from thirty (30) farmers and two (2) stakeholders in May 2022 through semi-structured interviews. Qualitative interviews are one of the most widely used forms of social inquiry. Miles and Huberman stated that there is a specific value gained from using in-depth interviews since they focus on particular, naturally occurring situations, thereby providing rich and holistic descriptions that relate to real life (Huberman and Miles, 1994).

The stakeholders involved in this study were agricultural advisory personnel who provided advisory services to farmers. One stakeholder was an agronomist for a private food and vegetable export company, and the other was an agribusiness officer at KCCA. Farmers were selected from three of the five divisions of Kampala: Kawempe, Makindye and Rubaga. The study’s sample size was determined using the concept of saturation by Glaser and Strauss when the new data collection did not shed any further light on the issue under investigation (Glaser and Strauss, 1999). A typical recommendation for in-depth interviews is to have a sample size of 20–30 respondents (Mason, 2010). Farmers were selected using both purposive sampling and snowballing. The initial plan was to select farmers solely using purposive sampling and a list of farmers with their telephone numbers was provided by an agricultural officer of the KCCA. However, only 10 farmers were selected using this method, and later, the snowball method was adopted because of incorrect phone numbers and difficulty in scheduling appointments with the farmers on the provided lists. The stakeholders who participated in the study were purposely selected, meaning that individuals known to have experience with the specific phenomenon being studied by the researcher were selected.

The interview questions were formulated based on previous research on farmers' markets in other countries and the components of the LAFS (Muchnik et al., 2007; Munchnik and Sautier, 1988). The interview questions were structured as follows:

1. The socio-demographic profile of the respondent: characteristics of the respondents.

2. Coordination with stakeholders/collective action (Figure 3): this gauges collective action through farmers' participation in groups or their willingness to participate in groups or group activities.

3. Resource management explores the management of natural resources, environmentally friendly practices carried out by farmers and the possession of local or rare varieties/breeds.

4. Knowledge and competence explore how producers relate to their customers and the value that farmers place on producer-consumer relationships. How information is shared among the actors and places farmers obtain support and knowledge about their farming.

5. Qualification of products: examined farmers' attitudes toward rules and regulations and their notion of the quality of the products they produce.

The interviewers obtained consent from the respondents before conducting the interviews. The interviews were conducted in Luganda (the local language) and English, depending on which language was more convenient for the respondents. Each interview lasted approximately 30–45 min. Probing was performed by the interviewers, and the respondents were free to express additional views and comments. All discussions were audio recorded.

3.3 Data analysis

The researcher listened to and then transcribed interview recordings. Codes were developed from the transcripts through inductive coding using NVivo 2020 software and later reduced to eight broad themes that were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Thematic analysis refers to the identification, interpretation, or “extraction” of patterns of meaning in the data.

It moves beyond describing data to analyzing it and thus requires relatively more involvement from the researcher, including intellectual contribution (Staller, 2015). Clarke and Braun described thematic analysis as a method for identifying, analyzing and interpreting patterns of meaning or themes within qualitative data that can be applied across a range of theoretical perspectives (Clarke and Braun, 2017). NVivo automatically counts the number of times the files correspond to each category and subcategory. Each category had subcategories that were referenced differently by the respondents. Demographic data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and descriptive statistics.

4.1 Characteristics of the respondents

Of the 30 participants, 57% were females and 43% were males. The mean age of the respondents was 48 years, with the age group of more than 50 years being the most significant percentage (53.3%). Up to 63.3% of the respondents were married, 26.7% were single and 10% were widowed. All respondents attained a certain level of formal education, with most having attained lower education. 36.7% attained secondary education, 30% attained primary education, 10% obtained a diploma, 13.7% achieved a tertiary level and 10% earned a bachelor’s degree. Male respondents had significantly higher educational levels than their female counterparts. The respondents' mean household size was 6.3 people. Of all the respondents, 83.3% farmed on their land, whereas 16.7% used rented land. The average size of the land on which the enterprises were located was 0.22 acres. Of the respondents, 43.3% had more than ten years of farming experience, 36.7% had 5–10 years of experience and 10% had 1–4 years of experience. Mushrooms and poultry were the most common enterprises practiced by farmers, followed by other types of production, as shown in Table 1.

60% of farmers depend on farming as their primary source of income, whereas 40% have occupations other than farming, such as teaching and businesses. Of the farmers, 73.3% identified themselves as organic farmers and 26.7% used both organic and conventional farming methods.

Most farmers use at least two marketing channels to sell their produce. Farmers mainly sell their produce at the farm gate to the final consumers (19 of 30) or to traders who are intermediaries (18 of 30). A few farmers (10 out of 30) transported their produce to the market in search of buyers. Males (70%) transported their produce more to the market than females (30%). Despite extensive participation in these marketing channels, farmers highlighted that they face various challenges as shown in Table 2.

4.2 The LAFS' components in explaining the potential of farmers’ markets in Uganda

1. Dynamics of knowledge and competencies

Farmers were asked how they perceived the relationship between producers and consumers (Table 3) and which channels they used to obtain knowledge or advice to improve their farming (Table 4). Of these 30 farmers, 26 (86.7%) were willing to establish relationships with consumers or buyers. Interestingly, the majority of respondents explained a good relationship between consumers and producers as one where both parties provide fair prices to each other and customers pay their dues to the producer in time. Others emphasized good customer care in terms of good language, providing bonuses, doing follow-up activities and provision of quality products to the consumers by the producer.

Farmers revealed that the relationship between a producer and consumer is essential and valuable because the consumers are the farmers' customers; thus, there is a need for a good relationship for the business to thrive. Many farmers highlighted that a good relationship between a producer and consumer is one where both parties provide fair prices to each other; that is, the consumer pays an excellent price to the farmer at which the farmer makes a profit, and the producer sells the products at an affordable price that the consumer can manage. Farmers found fair prices between producers and consumers as the most important relationship because many are still constrained by the unfair and low prices they receive, as reported by farmer A: “I think the relationship should be that the customer should not overburden the farmer by offering low prices because the farmer goes through a lot to ensure they produce quality food. The farmer should not overcharge the customer: it should be a balance.”

However, Lanfranchi and Giannetto (2014) mentioned that farmers' markets are not characterized simply by sales from producers to consumers but require a much deeper relationship between the two parties, creating knowledge about products and confidence in the producer, which are essential elements for the consumer. This knowledge is usually assimilated into contextualized learning, drawing on local experiences to be transmitted to consumers.

The results show that farmers sought and obtained knowledge about their farming enterprises mostly from their fellow farmers (farmer B “Another way is, I get it from my fellow farmers and not necessarily an organization. We do not have any organizations coming to teach farmers”) as compared to other channels, such as government or private institutions. Farmers highlighted that they did not receive frequent support from the government or private organizations to elevate their farming.

1. Qualification of products

Farmers were asked which people in their areas they would be willing to collaborate with to establish and oversee the operation of FMs (Table 5). This represents the institutional framework. A common view among the respondents was that it would be best for the local leaders in the areas where the FMs would be based on being in charge, especially the local council leaders (LCLs) and the women leaders in the area. As mentioned by Farmer A, “Local councils can help us, and women or women groups, they care a lot and have been engaged in activities to develop/grow themselves.” Farmers emphasized how local leaders knew them on a personal level and that they would easily understand their needs. In addition, Farmer C mentioned “how local leaders could easily reach out to the people in the area to encourage them to participate in the farmer’s markets.”

Surprisingly, farmers were unsure when asked which government organizations were involved in setting up FMs. Farmers had to think a lot before finding an answer; some were simply doing guesswork. The most mentioned government institutions were the KCCA and the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS). These two government institutions have collaborated to extend extension services to farmers in Kampala, and they provide start-up inputs for farming enterprises such as poultry, mushrooms and piggery. Furthermore, the respondents mentioned the need for themselves as farmers to be at the forefront of setting up, running and overseeing farmers' markets as they understand themselves best compared to the leaders or authorities.

Additionally, the farmers were asked if they were willing to abide by the rules and regulations set for the FMs, especially regarding products' quality. 27 out of 30 farmers highlighted how they were willing to follow set rules and regulations and how important they regarded quality in their production processes. Farmers related the quality of products to the ease with which they can easily purchase and receive higher prices in the market.

To the question “Would it be possible for you to maintain your product quality and produce based on the rules and regulations of the FM?” Farmer D answered “Yes, because if you do not have good quality, you will not have customers. Some mushrooms go to supermarkets, and local consumers too need quality ones. If the mushroom stays brown, it is no longer quality”, and Farmer E answered “Yes, I would follow. An important aspect I put forward is quality/standards. I discovered the quality people want, for example, milk without any water dilution, and not selling animal/bird products that have just received drugs.”

Farmers' markets are used to assess food quality in particular areas, and it is often assumed that food from FMs is of high quality. Therefore, it is important to maintain and to observe quality (Smithers et al., 2008). However, quality is defined differently in various farmers' markets; some refer to produce as being qualified in terms of being organic, local, sustainably produced, fresh, healthy and in terms of better animal welfare (Gomiero et al., 2011; Marino et al., 2013; McNeill and Hale, 2016; Reisch et al., 2013). One of the farmers mentioned that a product is of high quality if it is clean, free from contaminants and placed on a clean surface for sale. Farmers highlighted that they would need proper training and guidance on how to achieve the desired quality, while others mentioned that they would have to invest more in their enterprises by buying the required inputs and infrastructure needed to produce the desired quality. Some farmers resorted to stopping investing in specific inputs for their enterprises as they received very low prices on their harvest; therefore, they were unable to get a return on their investment. However, with farmers' markets providing a stable market and better prices, farmers feel that they can easily invest in producing quality products.

Additionally, the farmers highlighted some limitations that might hinder them from achieving the proposed quality required for the FMs. These included, as stated by Farmer F (“Yes, I can maintain the quality as long as I have been well trained ”) and Farmer G (“Yes, I would be able to follow, but producing quality food requires putting up good facilities that need much money, which is not available”), limited funds to buy infrastructure or inputs needed to produce quality products, lack of training to meet the required quality and ineffective implementation of the set standards in the market.

1. Management of resources.

Farmers mentioned practices implemented to protect the environment and manage natural resources (Table 6). The farmers acknowledged the use of organic practices in their farming and said that they did not like to engage in activities that harmed the environment. The use of animal waste or crop residues as fertilizers and pesticides was the leading practice used by farmers to conserve the environment. Some farmers mentioned how confident and proud they were of using these environmentally friendly practices, as they made their products unique to other producers. Other farmers who could not use crop/animal residues sold them or freely gave them to neighboring farmers or customers. Very few farmers used local varieties or breeds in their commercial enterprises. Local varieties and breeds were found to have been grown or reared for home consumption.

As many farmers are concerned about not harming the environment and ensuring the provision of quality products (in terms of safety) to consumers, the few in the study who used conventional methods stated that they used them at very minimal rates. These findings are compared with the standards of FMs that have been known to provide consumers with products that are organic, healthy, local, or sustainably produced (Brookman, 2009; Singleton et al., 2015). In terms of species diversity, many farmers did not produce using local varieties and lacked diversity in the types or species they grew and reared. Farmers focused on growing varieties or breeds that maximized resources and gave high yields to the small spaces in which they farmed.

1. Coordination between stakeholders and collective action

Collective actions are activated by the mediating role of social capital. Social capital enables actors and allows them to act in a better-coordinated manner (Van der Ploeg et al., 2008) by stimulating coordination and networking between stakeholders, which is a pivotal factor in strengthening FMs. According to Snider et al., (2014), social capital can be divided into bridging social capital, which refers to networks of kin and closed-knit groups and bonding social capital, which refers to vertical networks across many groups. A balance between high bridging and high bonding social capital is required to cultivate progressive participation in determining community priorities and shared resources. When both types of social capital are low, communities are plagued by extreme individualism and opportunistic exploitation of shared resources. In Uganda, social capital for farmers is usually observed through farmers' participation in farmers' or collective groups (USAID, 2019). These groups can take the form of cooperatives, village-saving groups and youth and women training groups.

Farmers were asked about their willingness to coordinate, create networks, or work with others to achieve a projected goal. It was found that 24 of the 30 farmers had participated in a group before, and 6 of the 30 farmers had not been in a group before but were interested in joining or engaging in group collaborations. Several farmers mentioned having engaged in money savings groups, specifically youth and women-saving groups. Farmers highlighted how important and valuable it was to be involved in groups or to collaborate with others; for example, they could teach, learn and inspire each other. Farmer H mentioned, “Yes, I am in a group right now. We save money and learn from each other. These groups have empowered us women from stay home mums with no income to starting to make our own money.”

These findings reveal that farmers have high bridging capital and low bonding social capital; therefore, a balance is lacking to allow proper community prioritization and the use of shared resources among various actors. For this reason, farmers mentioned that they did not receive much support from government institutions to improve their farming. Farmers rely primarily on themselves and their colleagues (farmers) to share knowledge and advice about their enterprises. The respondents blamed government institutions for not collaborating with more private institutions or NGOs to assist farmers, as it was in the past. The KCCA and National Advisory Agricultural Services are two organizations that have collaborated to work with farmers in the city. However, these efforts are still small and limited. Therefore, coordination between farmers and other stakeholders is not very strong, and more effort is needed to integrate all actors.

Furthermore, farmers mentioned how good and necessary it was to collaborate and work together; however, they had both positive and negative experiences of collaborating with others. Although several farmers found being in a group instrumental, they faced challenges in these collaborations and some groups failed. As we can understand by the words of Farmer J “Through my experience, I was in a group for youth farmers around Natetee (Great initiative for Youth empowerment). The objective was to acquire skills and knowledge about urban farming. The experience was that they were interested in the outcome, but the involvement was not easy. Even after receiving the skills and expertise, the tiniest percentage continued in the project.” The main challenge was the difficulty in actively engaging all group members to participate and to carry out group assignments. The workload of the groups was left to the leaders. Poor leadership also strained the groups, as some leaders are not empathetic or available to their members.

5.1 Limitations of the work

The study was carried out in three divisions of Kampala District, an urban area; therefore, the research findings cannot be generalized to fit other regions of Uganda, especially the rural areas. However, this study provides a platform for understanding farmers' perceptions on farmers' markets and the requirements for establishing FMs in Uganda. Furthermore, due to limitations of time and cost, the study had a limited sample size of farmers; this could be why no significant differences in perception in relation to socio-demographic characteristics like gender, age, education level and others were portrayed. Similarly, it had a minimal sample size of stakeholders because the study focused more on capturing farmers' opinions, and thus, the minor involvement of the stakeholders. However, this study recommends that further research be conducted with a focus on stakeholders because, as Hultine et al., (2007) mention, LAFS (FM) is a multi-actor case in which farmers are only one component, but the other leading role can be played within the supply chain or civil society; therefore, stakeholders are essential parties.