(DTIS) Update, Volume 1 – Main report - Enhanced Integrated ...

long distances, given the high cost of transport in Burundi. Producers must therefore sell their productsin their local areas, some of which are far removed from major urban populations. This underscores theimportance of reducing the connectivity gap in lagging regions to enable access to both the local (urban)markets as well as exports of niche horticulture products. Without addressing the constraints at the subnationallevel, exports to regional and international markets will not materialize.Additional constraints such the lack of market knowledge, the lack of storage facilities, especiallycold chains for perishable products, the lack of extension services and agricultural inputs as wellas unorganized producers limit the participation of horticulture farmers in commercial and tradeactivities. Markets for agricultural produce are not working properly. Even producers based less than 50km from Bujumbura find it difficult to access the central market in the capital city. To identify theconcrete constraints that hamper the participation of horticulture farmers in production and tradeactivities, a detailed survey was administered to 36 farmers in ten locations, spread in five communesnear the RDC and Rwanda (Rumonge, Mutimbuzi, Rugombo, Matongo and Kayanza). Despite the smallsample size, the results of the survey are illustrative of the distortions related to the production andcommercialization of horticultural products in Burundi (see Box 3.4).Box 3.4: Results of a qualitative survey administered to small producers of horticulture productsAccess to information:Over two thirds of the respondents (25 out of 36) own cell phones, most of which were acquired between2004 and 2011. Moreover, most of the respondents who do not currently have a cell phone plan onacquiring one in the near future. Only two of the farmers surveyed explained that mobile phones areunaffordable.Mobile phones are used more most frequently to get information on prices (61% of respondents) and onquality (53%), for tracking and follow-up purposes (53%), to get information on demand conditions(47%) and to a lesser extent to get paid (22%). Out of the 25 cell phone owners, 21 responded thatdecisions to sell their products are in part based on information received by phone. The availability ofmobile telephony therefore appears to have been an important factor to facilitate the diffusion ofinformation and communication for these farmers.However, the impact of possessing a mobile phone on obtaining other important types of information(e.g. access to extension services, weather conditions, or production and commercialization techniques)seems to be more limited. In fact, most respondent reported that they never seek information on thesepoints.Sourcing of agricultural inputs:A majority of the surveyed farmers reported that they were sourcing inputs in local markets orcooperatives, most of which are less than 20 kilometers away, rather than from traders selling at farmgate.Only a third of respondents declared that they coordinate with other farmers on how much input tobuy in terms of quantity, through the organization of meetings or the use of mobile phones. Moreover,none of the respondents reported coordination with others regarding the price of inputs. This suggeststhat they these small farmers have insufficient weight to negotiate with traders and are price-takers.Storage and processing:None of the farmers surveyed owned storage facilities or had contracts with other providers for storagespace. This means that agricultural products must most of the time be brought directly to the market orbe consumed locally. Furthermore, no processing or value addition was reported by farmers prior toselling their products.Transport:67 / 153