The Dairy Value Chain in Rwanda

A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program October 2008

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Rwanda produces around 185 million liters of milk annually (2007 data, estimates), which translates into an average daily yield per cow of just 3.2 liters, an unsurprisingly low yield given that improved breeds constitute less than 10% of the 157 thousand milking cattle in the country, and given that their nutrition is inadequate. While the government is undertaking a number of initiatives to improve the dairy sector (e.g. “One cow, one household” which aims to alleviate rural poverty by providing a heifer to each family), given execution challenges, it will take time to effect widespread change. Dairy consumption is difficult to assess because of the large volume of milk that is sold in the informal market (defined as sales of unprocessed milk). TechnoServe estimated that approximately 96% of milk marketed is in the informal market, and that approximately half of all the milk produced never makes it to the market (due to losses along the chain as well as on-farm consumption). The value of milk produced annually is estimated to be ~64 billion USD using data collected in September/October 2008. Processed milk sells for between 2 to 2.5 times fresh raw milk. That dramatic price difference between the informal and formal markets helps to explain the popularity of the informal market, even amongst those who can afford processed milk. Annual milk consumption per capita is reported at 12 liters (compared to approx. 100 liters per capita in Kenya and 22 liters per capita in Uganda). Comparing to local production, imports are insignificant – less than 1% (after conversion of imports into Liquid Milk Equivalent numbers). There are three types of dairy farmers, as defined by the way in which cows are fed – open grazing, semi-grazing, and zero-grazing. Most semi-grazing farmers are transitioning between open and zero grazing and do not intend to remain in this stage for long. The reliance on naturally growing or cultivated grass as the sole source of nutrition (i.e., open grazing and some semi-grazing farmers) creates a production system dependent on weather. As a result, prices fluctuate as milk supply changes between rainy and dry season. The open grazing farmer achieves a profit margin of ~60% due to his minimization of costs (no money is spent on feed or napier growing). For the semi-grazing farmer, labor accounts for almost 50% of monthly costs, while feed constitutes an additional ~40%. This farmer segment suffers from the greatest economic challenges because of relatively lower milk production while exotic cattle are growing and increased expenses for feed. Indeed, the semi-grazing
A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program

2

farmer only achieves a profit margin of ~30% For the zero-grazing farmer, feed accounts for over 70% of monthly costs, and profit margins are around 45%. However, zero-grazing offers the best level of earnings for the farmer - annually, a zero-grazing farmer can earn over 5 million RWF in profit from milk, while a semi-grazing farmer can make only around 320,000 RWF, and an open-grazing farmer around 600,000 RWF. In terms of agricultural inputs, the products dairy farmers typically purchase are bran for feed (e.g., maize), salt blocks and treatment for ticks and worms. These inputs are largely sourced from Kigali, with few feed products reaching other regions as transport is difficult and branches of these stores are few. However, smallholder farmers’ use of these inputs is low due to limited knowledge of feeds and their benefits, inability to pay, and the challenge of physically procuring materials. As farmers turn their attention to the increased revenue that improved breeds can bring, demand for artificial insemination (AI) is increasing. The government is the main supplier of bull semen in Rwanda, though ABS Global is also active here. The industry is not market competitive, as the government is sustaining it in multiple ways. RARDA provides free and mandatory training for AI providers, supplies the provider with all equipment at no cost, and sells semen at cost on credit. A chiller/bulker (a milk collection center - MCC).in Rwanda is typically supported by the government (PADEBL project) to encourage farmer cooperatives. Fifteen such chilling plants are currently operational, with another sixteen scheduled for completion by November 2008. Out of the six sites EADD is currently operating in, five were funded by PADEBL. Such chilling plants typically have only one tank, require a one-time fee from farmers for membership, and will be sustained by milk revenues. Many MCCs own milk shops in Kigali, ensuring that there is a market for milk. If a MCC does not own a milk shop, it will likely sell its milk to a transporter, who is then responsible for finding buyers. This reliance can be devastating in some cases, particularly during the rainy season when demand for transport is high and transporters can determine the price at which they purchase milk. MCCs interviewed earned on average 20 RWF per liter on the milk they sold. Given that many MCCs received large capital expenses like the building and chilling tank free from the government, they need only focus on operating expenses. Staff salaries constitute the largest proportion of monthly expenses (30% to 70%). The other major cost category is that
A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program

3

of electricity or a generator. This cost can be very high (in some months exceeding the cost of staff salary), and is only somewhat proportional to volume. Thus, most of the MCCs costs are fixed and maximizing the volume of milk received and sold is key to the center’s financial success. On average, MCCs earn only a 6% profit margin and even this slim profit is at risk during the dry season when volumes are too low to cover the fixed operational costs. Part of the challenge is that the chairmen and/or staff are not aware of general business principles; as a result, there is not a culture of cost-consciousness or decisive decision-making. When it comes to the next stage in the value chain, processing, the main processors in Rwanda are (in rough descending order of volume of dairy processed): Nyanza (formerly known as Nyabisindu), Inyange, Rubirizi and Masaka. All processors except Nyanza are located in or around Kigali. According to interviews, a processor can make a healthy profit margin of approximately 15%. Though the processors are only operating at ~20% of installed capacity, each has expansion plans that hope to be implemented in the near future. It is unclear whether the volume of dairy products will indeed increase (these processors also produce mineral water and juices). There is a need to cultivate a customer orientation in the industry. Currently, the processors produce whatever products are easiest and at the maximum price Retailers in Rwanda can be split into three categories based on the products they sell and their scale. The first is sellers of raw fresh milk and some processed goods, the second is sellers of boiled fresh milk (not examined in this study) and finally is sellers of processed dairy products only (supermarkets). Sellers of raw fresh milk can be very profitable, due to the minimal costs of the operation. Most shop owners maximize profit by forcing the farmer or hawker to take on milk transport costs. Sellers of processed dairy products are making healthy margins, with some reporting success in selling products with ~10-20% markup.

A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................................2! INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................7! METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................................7! OVERALL ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE ..........................................................................................................8! DAIRY SECTOR: PRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................11! Eastern Province...........................................................................................................................................14! Southern province ........................................................................................................................................15! City of Kigali................................................................................................................................................16! Northern province ........................................................................................................................................16! Western province..........................................................................................................................................16! DAIRY SECTOR: CONSUMPTION ...................................................................................................................18! DAIRY VALUE CHAIN.......................................................................................................................................21! Pricing ...............................................................................................................................................................22! Artificial Insemination ......................................................................................................................................26! Chillers/bulkers .................................................................................................................................................32! Processors..........................................................................................................................................................37! Retailers ............................................................................................................................................................40! RELATED PROGRAMS ......................................................................................................................................42! Dairy Cattle Development Support Project (PADEBL) ...................................................................................42! Other programs .................................................................................................................................................44! RECOMMENDATIONS FOR VALUE CHAIN..................................................................................................45! INTERVIEW DETAIL..........................................................................................................................................47! REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................49!

A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program

5

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ABS AI BDS CAGR EADD GDP MCC MINAGRI NGO PADEBL RARDA RWF UHT UK USD African Breeder Services—Total Cattle Management Artificial Insemination Business Development Services Compound Annual Growth Rate East African Dairy Development Program Gross Domestic Product Milk Collection Center Ministry for Agriculture and Animal Resources Non-governmental Organization Dairy Cattle Development Support Project Rwanda Animal Resources Development Authority Rwanda Francs Ultra-high Temperature Processing United Kingdom United States dollar A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 6 .

this analysis relies largely on primary data. Given the paucity of data available. This study seeks to inform the public about the economics and challenges facing each segment of the value chain and ultimately identify opportunities to increase farmers’ income and/or expand the dairy industry. from the producers. First.”1 METHODOLOGY The findings in this study are based on primary and secondary data gathered. or farmers.g. two to three farmers. We interviewed over 50 individuals regarding data on milk production. These activities will stimulate dairy farm production. As a result. written in 2004). the team interviewed as many players in the value chain as possible. Leveraging expert knowledge.. not available in English or not documented. Unfortunately. Research and documentation of effects. Developing technically trained. Secondary data proved extremely difficult to find. one to two chiller/bulkers. East. the North. referred to as the dairy value chain. any present processors and 1 EADD Grant Proposal – Summary Information for Submission of August 30. 2007 A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 7 . business development and dairy market pull. to the end consumers of dairy products. The vision of EADD is to “move smallholder farmers out of poverty by delivering farmer-focused. our team gathered primary data from around the country. This usually involved a few input providers. we identified two districts within each region that would provide representative data on dairy farming in the region. The team first created a comprehensive list of secondary data sources. ranging from ministry officials to processors to research institutions. business-savvy farmers and services providers will generate success and sustainability. In each district. dairy-sector services. value-chain activities that are implemented simultaneously. West and South. we divided the country into five main regions: Kigali city. demand and trade. outcomes and lessons will inform decision-making as this project develops and will identify future opportunities for effective interventions in the dairy value chain. The project will deliver direct economic benefit to rural dairy households—the common vision of the implementing partners.INTRODUCTION The East Africa Dairy Development (EADD) project commissioned this study to provide information on the chain of players involved in the dairy industry in Rwanda. most figures were outdated (e.

with about 370 inhabitants per square kilometer. In some cases. leading experts to project that the population will increase to 15 million in 20204.9% per year.2 According to the World Bank’s World Development Indicators.74 million. sales or expenses. with answers immediately verbally translated into English. although these can be significant in Rwanda. World Development Indicators. Indeed.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/RWANDAEXTN/0.3 As a result. no farmers interviewed kept records of milk production. OVERALL ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE Rwanda is a landlocked country with an area of 26. Rwanda’s population in 2007 was 9.menuPK:368741~ pagePK:141132~piPK:141109~theSitePK:368651. though it provides a picture of the general condition. Data collection relied on sector veterinarians or agronomists to identify interviewees and facilitate introductions. The problem of land scarcity will continue to worsen. all data is subject to the truthfulness of respondents as well as their knowledge of the data provided. Transporters proved difficult to contact. 3 World Bank. as they are either transient and/or not based in the region in which they operate. Rwanda has one of the highest population densities in Africa. the data gathered may not be entirely accurate.one or two retailers. 2007 <http://web. Moreover. the dairy farms seemed to have ledgers though no records were shown to the interviewers. profit margins do not take into account milk losses. some subjects were difficult to discuss given the sensitive or confidential nature of the topics.338 square kilometers. 4 And 20 million in 2030 – source: World Bank A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 8 . as Rwanda’s demographic growth rate is estimated to be 2. This is especially important to note given the impact of spoilt/lost milk on overall profitability – we were not able to assess with confidence the percentage of spoilt/lost milk at each stage of the value chain. Particularly difficult topics include milk spoilage or adulteration and other milk lost.html>. and as a result. Interviews were conducted in Kinyarwanda. Most interviewees responded from memory and did not have written records with which to verify information provided. As a result..00. 2 World Bank. Though interviewers made every attempt to ensure accuracy of information provided. the data provided was contradictory but the respondent was not able to reconcile the differences.

this is the most common source of livelihood and accounts for 60% of all Rwanda household income. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 9 .The overwhelming majority of the country’s working population is employed in agriculture. mostly as subsistence farmers. “Agricultural Innovation and Technology in Africa. with approximately 57% of the population. “Agriculture and Poverty in Rwanda” found that selling milk was significantly associated with being in the highest consumption quintile. Alastair Orr and Abdoul Murekezi.8 The poverty line is defined as the expenditure needed to provide the minimum food requirements of 2100 kcal per adult per day.” (2008).10 Given that agriculture constitutes 36% of GDP. Daniel. when comparing yearly adult equivalent consumption. 5.12 Recently.6 The reliance on agriculture and scarcity of land mean that approximately 46% of the land in Rwanda is cultivated. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid.” (MinFEP. Note that the World Bank lists 79% of the land as used for agriculture.5 This means that approximately 3. 7 37% of the population is identified as living in extreme poverty. 2007) 13. some 90% of the country’s population lives in households in which at least one person works in agriculture. “Agriculture and Poverty in Rwanda. In an analysis of Rwandan households.11 Consequently. 6 Scott Loveridge. 12 Daniel 3. Moreover. 13. 9 Ibid. providing a crucial input for children and the family. Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning.” (2007) 28. Indeed.4% in the period 2001-2006. The average adult poor person consumes 150 Rwandan francs (RWF). as 90% of the poor live in rural areas. living below the poverty line. 13. the second largest category after services. the family has a reliable source for additional cash.32 billion USD and has been growing at a CAGR of 6. attention has turned to the dairy farming sector as a means to improve the economic situation of smallholder farmers. when there is surplus milk. over 5 million people. In fact.1 million adults work on family subsistence farms as their main source of livelihoods. Proponents argue that the cow is a stable source of milk. 8 Ibid. per day. a sum that has only increased by 2% in the past five years. policymakers are turning to agricultural innovation as one of the few tools available to increase productivity and income.7 Poverty in rural areas is even more pronounced.9 GDP in 2007 was 3. with farm wages accounting for an additional 8%.33 USD. the large population and limited land present a challenge for economic development. “Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy 2008-2012. Poverty is a serious issue in Rwanda. the analysis discovered “sales 5 Rukazambuga Ntirushwa T. or 0. 6.

Orr and Murekezi 30. Orr and Murekezi 12. 19 Loveridge. 17 Loveridge. Orr and Murekezi 12. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 10 . thus. Second. fruit or vegetables had a negative or little positive impact on poverty. The report stated that a “higher value of livestock assets per head was highly significant with positive consumption outcomes. owning livestock has a significant impact on wealth.19 Finally. Livestock constituted just 2. However. 15 Loveridge. low influence on consumption ability. leading the report to suggest that it may be “quite important to increase the proportion of farms engaged in milk production. Orr and Murekezi 13. Orr and Murekezi 12. First is the abovementioned benefit for subsistence.” 17 Livestock assets serve as a form of savings. can be sold quickly when households need cash and may also provide supplemental income in the form of fertilizer.2% of GDP on average between 2001 and 2006 and grew at an average annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3. 2007) 15.20 Even the poor themselves identify livestock ownership with better economic means.”13 By contrast.”14 A similar positive effect was found with selling eggs.4% of rural households reported income from sale of milk and 12% from sale of eggs. with respondents sharing that they sell cattle in order to pay for necessary expenses like school fees. Orr and Murekezi 14. perhaps because both activities are the few examples of year-round recurrent revenue in agriculture.18 Though nine in ten rural households own some livestock. sale of traditional cash crops.”15 This is partly due to the low number of households engaged in selling livestock products. owning cattle is associated with higher social status. In a survey of rural community 13 Loveridge. culturally. Sep 2008. 16 Loveridge. the report found that “only 0. personal interview. 18 Technoserve.” (MINAGRI. Interviews verified this claim. This association between selling milk and high consumption was significant.of milk had a positive association with falling in the highest consumption quintile. 20 Anastase Murekezi. “Medium term plans for Agriculture and Growth. leading to a low ratio of livestock assets per head and. In addition.5% in the same period. average ownership is one or two cows. the positive impacts of selling livestock products were weak enough that the report could only conclude that “commercialization of smallholder agriculture has not yet reached the level where it can be expected to make a significant impact on poverty. 14 Loveridge.”16 There are multiple benefits of investment in the dairy industry.

with different data sources often contradicting each other.2 million cattle in Rwanda.members. It should be noted that in 2008.2% of that group. 6.000 heads of 21 Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning 14. 22 Note that number of cattle includes lactating and non-lactating cattle. The 2006 Agriculture Survey indicates that there are 1. of which 13.5% of respondents cited lack of livestock as a major cause of poverty. FAO estimates are inconsistent. 24 See section on Dairy Programs in Rwanda A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 11 .6% are milking cattle. 2007) 11. improved breeds constitute 8. there are a total of 157.23 According to this data source. DAIRY SECTOR: PRODUCTION Chart 1: Cattle and dairy production 22 Livestock data is difficult to collect. The report’s findings are encouraging in identifying the effect livestock ownership can have on a rural family’s economic situation and the activity’s many benefits help to explain the recent attention on the opportunity in dairy cattle. a more realistic estimate would be 35% in a pastoral system.. 2007) 36. 23 National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISAR).” (NISAR MINFEP.479 milking cattle. Ministry for Agriculture and Animal Resources.21 This was the fourth most frequently cited response. the “One cow. one family” program24 distributed more than 10. “Rwanda Agricultural Survey 2006.” (MINAGRI. remaining constant for half a decade and then jumping dramatically. “2007 Annual Report. It is important to note that this statistic is questionable for a sustainable production system – as per ILRI.

Umutara is the least densely populated province and has the largest number of livestock. here. 29 “Rwanda Agriculture Survey 2006” 16. it is expected that livestock numbers are at least greater than 2007 numbers by that amount. the soil is particularly rich and the region produces a high amount of agricultural goods. By comparison. the 2007 MINAGRI Annual Report indicated that 185. However. on the other hand.27 The main reasons for Rwanda’s low yield are the prevalence of local breeds.25 Annualizing that production leads to a yield of 0.04 ha of land per household. with an average of 0. Ruhengeri.410. It is unclear if this figure is for rural milk production only or if it is for the entire country. which by nature do not supply high yields.7 liters per cow per day or an annual yield of 258 liters per cow. 25 NISAR 36. Kenya’s average annual yield per cow is between 290 and 990 liters26.” (2008). feed or genetics 27 Technoserve.2 liters.cattle. followed by Gitarama (Southern Province) with an average of 1.395 liters of milk were produced in 2006. daily yield per cow is 3. 28 NISAR 17.7 liters per cow per day to 3. approximately 0. Despite the significant variance between these estimates. average land size per household across the country is very low.14 hectares (ha).36 ha. The area with the smallest farms is Cyangugu.34 ha per household and is followed by Butare. This study will now turn to each of the regions and some general characteristics of dairy farming in each region.177 liters per cow).000 liters per cow annually.283. without analyzing the possible causes such as any differences in production systems. where each household has an average of 1. The 2006 Agriculture Survey reported that milk production for the first half of 2006 was 20. “Kenya Dairy Value Chain. As a result of Rwanda’s high population density. Developed nations can achieve up to 8-9. Using that figure.7 hectares.160 liters.29 As a result of these land patterns.09 ha per household and Byumba with 1.28 The largest farm sizes are found in Umutara (Eastern Province). with 0. and inadequate nutrition through either grazing or feed.2 liters (annual yield is 1. it is clear that productivity in Rwanda is low. thus. is the most densely populated province. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 12 . Estimates of milk production in Rwanda range from 0. 26 On average.

personal interview. Those friends receive the profit from milk sales every other day as payment for keeping the cattle. Sep 2008.30 These farmers currently have herds of 100+ cattle.Following the genocide. However. and is a lush area to raise cows. they will sell off the ankole cattle and use that profit to purchase exotic milking breeds. some remarked that once their plots are reduced. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 13 . personal interview. The Rwandan government is currently attempting to redistribute this land in a more equitable and standardized manner. he had distributed the rest of his herd to friends with no cattle on other plots. The government has divided the land into six zones. 30 In one case. on which cattle feed. in some instances by up to 50-60%. Regions most affected by the reform include Umutara. Land redistribution is another tool the government is using to encourage zero-grazing. Most cattle-keeping farmers expect to have their plots reduced as a result of land reform. certain plots of land were opened to settlement. It will likely have a temporary negative effect on milk supply as farmers are forced to downsize their herds and begin to raise milking cattle. where the terrain is flat and expansive. with few regulations governing this settlement. Technoserve. each intended to support ~100 families. Sep 2008. a farmer had 80 hectares of land and expected to own 50 after redistribution. where individual plots currently average 50 hectares. which are largely ankole. As a result. The situation is slightly different in Gishwati. and Gishwati.31 Some farmers have not actually decreased the size of their herds. moving from open grazing to zero grazing. the individuals who were able to act most quickly were able to lay claim to large areas of land. 31 Technoserve. Each zone has been segmented into five hectare plots and farmers have been permitted to raise ten cows on each plot. the long-term impact of improved breeds should be increased supply of milk. This mountainous region nurtures the natural growth of kikuyu grass. One interviewer shared that though he only kept the allotted ten cows on his plot. Umutara covers land that was formerly part of Akagera National Park.

As cattle-keeping is very traditional and the number of cattle is high. In addition. personal interview. Farmers generally import exotic cattle from Uganda and/or South Africa. Some farmers in this region do utilize artificial insemination. there is a focus on farmer organization and training. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 14 . It should be noted that dairy farming in the Eastern region is not just defined by practices in Umutara. Most farmers in this region report selling cattle in order to provide for basic needs. One obstacle to this transition is the limited supply of exotic breeds. some farmers have expressed interest in improving cattle breeds. Furthermore. Milking cattle constitute a small proportion of the total cattle. farm sizes are closer to the national 32 All EADD sites in Rwanda are located in the Eastern province 33 “Rwanda Agriculture Survey 2006” 36. though they only pay for ordinary semen. by building several functioning milk collection centers and also a dairy processing plant that hopes to be operational by December 2008. with approximately 9% cross-breeds. Sep 2008. several efforts to modernize the practice are focused in this region. Consequently. In fact. but disease outbreak has reduced the number of cattle available. they wait for land reform to reduce the size of their farms. 34 Technoserve. many farmers are not knowledgeable about forage that can be grown on their farms. the government and private groups have invested in infrastructure to support the dairy industry. given the costs. with ~1. Farmers here have unusually large plots of land.Eastern Province32 The Eastern Province is commonly referred to as Umutara. though land reform will soon reduce the size of the farms. the majority of milking cattle are ankole. most farmers are serious cattle-keepers.33 Farmers in this region generally pursue an open grazing system.34 The yield can double and reach between 3 and 5 liters per ankole during the rainy season.5 liters per ankole cow. at which time they will sell the ankole cattle and purchase fewer exotic cattle. in districts closer to Kigali. raising herds of 100 or more ankole cows. As a result of the large farm sizes. Milk revenue is insufficient to support the family much less additional investments in cattle like feed purchase. Realizing that the potential income from milk is much higher with exotic cattle. the combination of the breed and feeding method leads to low milk yields in dry season.

Farm sizes range widely. insufficient nutrition. 29% are semi-grazing and 1% is zero-grazing. including Gitarama and Muhanga. More typical is the farmer who previously had a herd of 100 ankole cows. farmers are forced to find individuals to buy their milk. for example.36 hectares. 36 Technoserve. personal interview. One interviewee operated a widely acclaimed zero-grazing business. in Rwamagana region. it increases transport time and the cost of marketing milk. The challenge in this district is that there is no milk collection center and limited farmer organization. as most farmers are still struggling to transition from open grazing. Though this diversifies the risk of any one buyer refusing to buy milk. Anecdotally. Sep 2008. the farmer purchased a pure breed Jersey from Kigali for one million RWF.average. as there are no long-term contracts with buyers. making markets for milk more difficult to access. though the cooperatives are rarely active. awareness of cooperatives is limited and farmers are likely to sell milk to hawkers or nearby retailers. the district veterinarian reported that 70% of farmers are open-grazing. Some farmers belong to cooperatives. Southern province The Southern province has a few milk production centers.35 Dairy farmers are moving towards semi-grazing. Success stories like this one. keeping 3 exotic breed dairy cows on 1 hectare of land or less.36 In this region. Gitarama has the second largest farm size in the country with an average of 1. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 15 . thus. Utilizing a loan from African Development Bank. he recently sold most of them to pay for his children’s school fees and aspires to earn money from a milking business of five exotic cows. Milk revenue from that cow and revenue from selling calves has allowed the farmer to pay back the loan in full in three years as well as expand into other businesses like cassava grounding. In the absence of milk collection centers.09 hectares household while Butare has the second smallest farm size at 0. In this case. milk revenue was sufficient to support the family. As a result. though inspiring. One cooperative was quite 35 “Rwanda Agriculture Survey 2006” 16. as they have only been initiated recently. as small land plots force farmers to raise cows next to the housing structure and limited economic means leads to inability to purchase commercial feed and. farmers were observed practicing zero grazing. are few and far between.

there are few. Western province 37 See section on Related Dairy Programs A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 16 . though cooperative growth should be high in the coming year. Staff are employed to run the farm and operations are more modern. Milk volume produced is quite low. ankole cattle as part of the milking herd and most farmers practice semi. Just one chilling plant. the market for milk is more stable. An additional challenge is that the immediate market for milk is limited.or zero grazing. if any. though it can be an important part of the farmer’s income. which in turn sells its goods to Papyrus restaurant as well as other retailers. Though this region borders Uganda. As a result. Masaka dairy farms sells its milk directly to Masaka processing plant. Indeed. funded by PADEBL37. farmers had on average one or two cows. opportunity to sell milk in Uganda is limited. As a result. collects milk from three districts and sells the milk in Kigali. Even in the more active dairy farming regions. Most farmers feed cattle self-cultivated napier and supplement the cow’s diet with local grass. every farm we visited in this region is vertically integrated into the dairy market. likely a mixed breed. middlemen are eliminated and profits are maximized. the one milking machine observed in the interviews was found on a farm in Kigali.exemplar and not only had a chilling tank but also kept livestock to demonstrate best farming practices to local farmers. This was an exception. For example. Northern province Dairy farming is largely semi-grazing in this region and most herd sizes are smaller than ten. Owners of dairy farms also own a processor and/or a retailer. Though this study’s sample size is limited. City of Kigali Farms surrounding Kigali are generally owned by well-to-do individuals whose aim is to run a profitable milk business.

in districts situated farther from the border. though artificial insemination is not yet available through the district and sector offices. the farmer does not have much land and so keeps his few cows in stalls. At the same time. These farms sold over a hundred liters of milk each day and sold directly to buyers. thus. We observed that one of our interviewees kept 3 cows in the open. On the other hand. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 17 .38 As the name suggests. as defined by the way in which cows are fed. these farmers practice a mixture of grazing and fodder use. the cow does not need to move much. as there is no chilling tank in the area. Several farms near Gisenyi were large-scale commercial dairy farms.g. Farms in Gisenyi were also able to sell milk across the border to retailers in Goma. There are three types of dairy farmers. napier). semi-intensive and intensive. he 38 The three systems are also referred to as extensive. cows were limited to small patches of land on which to graze or to be feed napier. Zero-grazing (or intensive) farmers are on the other end of the spectrum and raise cattle in stalls with feed and water troughs nearby. Awareness of exotic breeds is high. The third type of dairy farmer falls in the middle and practices semi-grazing (or semi-intensive). As land is generally used for agriculture. This analyst was not able to visit the Gishwati district in person. with cattle that were almost pure exotic breeds. In the typical case. but some of our interviewees kept cows there and their responses have been recorded and leveraged in this report. Types of grazing systems Cattle raising is dispersed throughout the country and the characteristics of dairy farmers vary widely depending on the region (as described above). allow cattle to feed on whatever grass is growing on public land. Farmers in the first category. Labor under this model is used to grow and cut feed (e. Labor under this form of grazing consists of herding cattle to and from open pasture and sources of water. open grazing (or extensive). farms were once again small and semi-grazing. and keep water and feed troughs full.Dairy farmers in this region include the full spectrum from open range to zero grazing.. Cattle are left to sleep out in the open. with their feet tied to posts on a patch not more than twenty-five meters squared.

However. When asked if selling milk was a profitable enterprise. There are two milking times per day. farmers did not keep records of revenue from milk sold or expenses associated with raising cattle. and the volume of milk produced in the evening is slightly lower. cattle selling can be quite profitable. with an ankole calf earning between 30-400.e.g.. Many farmers. some farmers have found ways to market evening milk. at times. Farmers who do not sell their evening milk may not have considered ways to market it or may be unable to afford charcoal to boil it.does not have sufficient money and/or knowledge to feed his cows properly and may allow his herd to graze on nearby land.. by either boiling it and selling it the next morning or fermenting it. personal interview. Indeed.000 RWF and a pure exotic calf up to 1 million RWF. zero-grazing farmers can be penalized by these fluctuating prices because they incur the same costs year-round. so it may be difficult to isolate quality concerns. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 18 . as evening milk kept overnight without being chilled will spoil. It is unclear if selling boiled evening milk is hygienic. clothing) with milk revenue. Sep 2008. his milk income is low. farmers could only discern this by considering whether they were able to pay for items (e. open grazing and some semi-grazing farmers) creates a production system dependent on weather. As a result. In all cases. The reliance on naturally growing or cultivated grass as the sole source of nutrition (i. but the farmers who follow this practice sell morning milk mixed with the previous evening’s milk. Most semi-grazing farmers are transitioning between open and zero grazing and do not intend to remain in this stage for long. prices fluctuate as milk supply changes between rainy and dry season. As a result. selling cattle provided the money necessary for the family. morning and evening. rather. DAIRY SECTOR: CONSUMPTION 39 Technoserve. 39 Those selling ankole cattle generally have large herds and can sell even 100 cattle in one year. school fees. leading farmers to conclude that the only way to earn a profit is to sell cattle. especially those in the open and semigrazing categories reported that milk was not a profitable enterprise. Most farmers who do not live near their buyers only market morning milk.

TechnoServe estimated that approximately 96% of milk marketed is in the informal market.php3?id_article=23>. Percent consumed at home was calculated as an average of interview responses. Technoserve. Sep 2008.rw/article. the Rwandan government does not sponsor programs to increase milk consumption. and given that a recent FAO study estimates that for instance in Uganda. 41 Ministry for Agriculture and Animal Resources. informal markets are defined as sales of unprocessed milk while formal market sales refer only to dairy goods that have passed through a processor. 2006. formally marketed milk was an average of the liters processors reported receiving. Currently. And. such as providing milk for children in schools. 27% of all milk produced is lost) and informally marketed milk was the balance. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 19 . In this study. wasted milk was taken as an assumption (assuming that milk is wasted/spoilt throughout the chain.gov. personal interview.Dairy consumption is difficult to assess because of the large volume of milk that is sold in the informal market. Chart 2: Destination of milk – across entire value chain MINAGRI reported that annual milk consumption per capita in Rwanda is 12 liters. <http://www.minagri. in fact. compared not only to the Food and Agriculture Organization’s official recommendation of 220 liters of milk annually(though this may be unrealistically high even 40 Numbers are estimates at best. approximately half of all the milk produced never makes it to the market40. (See chart 2.) The value of milk produced annually is estimated to be ~64 billion USD using data collected in September/October 2008. approx. Sales in the informal market are not tracked nor is milk production.41 This is low.

compared to 2007 local production of 185.6.” <http://www.rw/article.) Comparing to local production.6 for butter. 42 Some FAO articles refer to ~45 liters for children aged 5-15 years. (See also chart below.fao. There does not appear to be a relationship between milk produced and dairy imported. According to the records. locally produced milk is largely purchased by local Rwandese while value added products are targeted at businesses and foreigners).000 liters of milk were imported last year. Exports and imports The National Bank of Rwanda reported that 500. Ministry for Agriculture and Animal Resources.4 for cheese (source: ILRI). and 22 liters per capita in Uganda43. <http://www. using the following conversion factors: 1.in developed countries42) but also to consumption in the region – approx. 2006.gov.e. current milk imports are dominated by UHT milk45. Passmore. primarily in powdered milk form.410 tons as per MINAGRI 2007 Annual Report 45 Mainly imported from Kenya A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 20 . Between 1997 and 1999. ILRI 44 Calculated as follows: 2007 imports total 1. R. and 1:4. A possible explanation could be that the two serve different markets (i.. As a result.php3?id_article=23>. foot-and-mouth disease in Uganda led to a ban on imports of liquid milk. “Recommended Intakes of Protein for Growth.org/docrep/meeting/009/ae906e/ae906e31. imports are insignificant – less than 1% (after conversion of imports into Liquid Milk Equivalent numbers)44. but has largely decreased since 1999. total dairy products imported has been a bit erratic. 100 liters per capita in Kenya.250t of Liquid Milk Equivalent. The cessation of these efforts combined with government limits on total tonnage of powdered milk imported have contributed to the dramatic decline of powdered milk imports. One explanation for this is that humanitarian efforts in the early 2000s led to massive importations of powdered milk.htm>. 43 Steve Staal.minagri.

E.php3?id_article=3141>. in 2006. “Milk. goods that are not immediately perishable48. if any. that official records do not disaggregate them from the “Other” category. but the lack of UHT or powdered milk machines severely inhibit the ability to export. following the supply chain and determining the value added and at what expense at each step. However.rwandagateway. Rwanda’s ‘unexploited’ resource. 48 Another constraint (source: ILRI) on exporting milk to Uganda is the difference in farm gate prices. Rwanda [the country] will start exporting milk. or not reported.” (The New Times. Exports are currently so insignificant. Porter.49 It is no different when we consider the dairy value chain in Rwanda. “What is strategy?” (Harvard Business Review. 46 Daniel 9. the head of RARDA. proclaimed that “by 2009. anecdotes suggest that cheese is being exported.Chart 3: Dairy imports 46 The vast majority of milk produced in Rwanda is consumed in the country. Nov-Dec 1996) 61-78. 2 Oct 2006) <http://www. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 21 . DAIRY VALUE CHAIN Overview Value chains traditionally refer to the chain of activities that products pass through as they gain value before reaching the consumer. Currently. which makes it difficult for Rwandese milk to be competitive 49 M. Rutagwenda.org/article. 47 Richard Muliisa.”47 The major challenge to exporting milk is that processors produce few.

thus delaying spoilage. a chiller/bulker or a processor. 50 Please note that the estimated profit margins do not take into account milk losses/spoilage along the chain A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 22 . Below follows more detail about each link in the chain50. That dramatic price difference between the informal and formal markets helps to explain the popularity of the informal market. Chart 4: Dairy supply chain and profit margins Pricing Charts 5 and 6 show the proportion of retail value that each player in the value chain receives and how much each player spends in costs as opposed to retains in profit. Often. payments are made to transporters in order to move milk to the next link in the value chain.5 times fresh raw milk. The processor adds value to the milk by extending its shelf life and producing a variety of goods. Surplus milk is then sold to a retailer. even amongst those who can afford the formal market. a transporter. A chiller/bulker aggregates fresh milk and chills it. It should be noted that processed milk sells for between 2 to 2.Farmers produce fresh milk with the help of agricultural inputs and artificial insemination. before re-selling the milk to a retailer or processor.

by-passing the chilling plant (typically in the case of small-scale processors). farmers will sell their product to buyers who not only provide a higher price. The chilling plant’s reaction time to changing market dynamics will be critical. While farmers in general will adopt revenue-maximizing behavior (and for instance be ready to sell milk to traditional traders who often offer higher prices than the chilling plant). and secondly to develop a suite of services that provide a wider range of benefits to the farmer and thus help build supplier loyalty. but also collect milk directly from the farmer. farmers also have the option of selling directly to the processor.One important conclusion to be drawn from this analysis regards the recommended approach of the chilling plant towards producers (farmers). gain a greater share of value though the actual service provided does not change. they will also be interested in additional services that can be provided by the chilling plant (such as BDS). Another observation is that transporters who charge fixed daily rates for transport are able to secure a greater proportion of value in the rainy season because all other players adjust their prices down. Transporters. 51 One such example is Inyange Dairies A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 23 . In some cases51. It is therefore important for each chilling plant to first understand the range of selling and price options available to the farmer. as when milk is scarce. by not decreasing prices accordingly.

Chart 5: Share of value in the informal market (shown as proportion of retail price) Chart 6: Share of value in the formal market A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 24 .

and the challenge of physically procuring materials. These challenges are compounded when one considers that most farmers only have one or two cows. One farmer in a particularly remote region explained how he organized a large order of feed inputs. whose by-products are converted to animal feed (cake). which is not a large enough volume to justify the investment needed to receive these inputs. Agricultural inputs refer to materials farmers need for cattle. some of the key feed ingredients. One of RARDA’s current initiatives is educating farmers about forage (e. the response was that they were not familiar with the practice and would not know where to begin.g. Smallholder farmers’ use of these inputs is low for the following reasons: limited knowledge of feeds and their benefits. with few feed products reaching other regions as transport is difficult and branches of these stores are few. maize). Livestock World is the main agro-input store in Kigali. Indeed. paid for a truck to transport materials from 52 Steve Staal. There are also small shops that sell custom supplements for cattle. inability to pay. Rwanda suffers from low productivity of such crops as sunflower or cotton. These inputs are largely sourced from Kigali.Agricultural inputs Though agricultural inputs play a small role in the value chain. The products dairy farmers most frequently purchase are various types of bran for feed (e. salt blocks and treatment for ticks and worms. ILRI 53 Technoserve. through its by-products.. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 25 . When asked why they did not grow forage.53 Some farmers who are aware of the benefits of feed are even willing to play a middleman role and earn some profit. Rwanda lacks a thriving milling industry which would provide. napier) and distributing seeds at no cost. personal interview.. they are addressed here because they are a key input for producers. The effectiveness of this initiative has been limited and it has not distributed the targeted amount thus far in 2008 due to budget constraints in procuring the seeds. In addition.g. some traditional cattle farmers were not aware of supplements and how to use them. Sep 2008. Finally. Feed prices are most likely higher in Rwanda than in neighbouring countries such as Kenya due to low levels of grain production52. from medicine to feed.

Prices for AI services depend on the quality of the semen and the AI provider.Kigali and then re-sold the items to neighboring farmers. with the interest of increasing yields. demand for artificial insemination (AI) is increasing. The cheapest. Calculation assumes a price per liter of 150 RWF. farmer education is crucial to increasing understanding of and interest in forage. considering that 1 RWF spent on feed can result in 5 RWF in milk revenue. Most farmers are aware of AI. Artificial Insemination As farmers turn their attention to the increased revenue that improved breeds can bring. 54 Based on information from feed store.55 Stores’ reluctance to increase access to feed in other regions may be due to uncertainty about the potential size of the business.” is semen from local breeds and is unproven. personal interview. there is opportunity to coordinate relationships between farmer cooperatives and feed stores and negotiate bulk shipments of items. In order to spur interest. This farmer also made his own mix of feed for his cattle. referred to as “ordinary. The government is the main supplier of bull semen in Rwanda.54 Stores were reluctant to provide information. claims that 6 kg of feed at 143 RWF per kg will result in 30 liters of milk from a pure Freesian. Higher quality semen is referred to as “super” or “extra-super” and is genetically tested and proven. but one shopkeeper indicated that he earned a 15% margin on custom-mixed feed that he sold. though not all are interested in its use. 55 Technoserve. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 26 . There are three general categories of semen. the investment in feed is sensible. though ABS Global. In addition. is also active here. combining everything from maize to dried fish. Sep 2008. a worldwide provider of bovine reproduction services. According to one vendor.

meaning that the subsidy could be even greater.57 56 Technoserve. the agency supplies the provider with all equipment at no cost and sells semen at cost on credit. allowing for a profit of ~500-1000 RWF on each ordinary insemination.Chart 7: Typical AI provider equipment AI providers are earning a generous margin for their services. In addition. 57 Technoserve. though these account for less than 10% of inseminations. as the government is sustaining it in multiple ways. Once these providers complete training. personal interview. without additional retail margins. Sep 2008.56 For ordinary semen. personal interview. Sep 2008. The industry is not market competitive. AI providers pay 1500 RWF per straw of semen and only pay the government when they pick up their next batch. AI providers build the same margin into super and extra super inseminations. Estimations are based on prices at cost. RARDA integrates them into district or sector offices. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 27 . This amounts to a subsidy of about 450 USD for start-up equipment and an additional 3 USD per insemination. Our interviews indicated that AI providers charge between 2000 and 3000 RWF for insemination using ordinary semen. making them government employees. RARDA provides free and mandatory training for AI providers. Each AI provider is allowed to set his/her price for insemination. though s/he should only add a reasonable amount to cover transportation cost.

which would have consequences for affordability and the speed of transition to zero-grazing. which is a 15% profit margin. if the government ends the subsidy and AI providers are forced to take on equipment costs. personal interview. these margins mean that on average. 61 This does not account for the bull’s re-sale price. In Uganda. Sep 2008.59 This profit is in addition to the government salary of 69.62 Though this method provides access to exotic semen in areas where AI is not available. Technoserve. the government has heavily subsidized the artificial insemination industry. which is only slightly cheaper than AI. Interviews revealed that AI is not yet available in some areas. this includes the variable cost for each insemination and not the fixed cost of the initial investments.61 A farmer may not have many other options in areas where AI is not available. it raises concerns about the spread of disease.000 RWF (~33 USD) per month from inseminations. Sep 2008. it is not sensible to purchase a bull rather than use AI. personal interview. it purchased an exotic bull that farmers could use for a charge.60 From a purely reproductive perspective. An AI provider would charge $9 USD. farmers must rely on the traditional method of using a bull.Based on these numbers. preserving the margin they currently earn could double the price per insemination for farmers. the margins should be quite similar. Technoserve. In its eagerness to accelerate the movement towards zero-grazing63. Sep 2008. an AI provider might make a profit of 20. personal interview. however. After taking those costs into account. as the farmer will never recover the cost of the bull. 62 Technoserve. which usually indicates an experienced provider. In these areas.000 RWF and 17% of farmers interviewed owned their own bulls. Sep 2008. such as Gisenyi. One district pursued a different solution. Each attempt costs 1500 RWF. 58 A straw of ordinary semen costs $3 USD and variable cost for equipment per insemination is $3 USD.000 RWF net per month that s/he receives. 60 Technoserve. 59 Assumes 40 inseminations per month. private providers of AI are earning margins of 33%. as multiple cows interact with the same bull. personal interview.58 In Rwanda. preferably an exotic one. enabling AI providers and farmers to engage in this practice. 63 Although open grazing is in fact more profitable for the farmer A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 28 . However. an AI provider is earning a margin of ~15% on inseminations. Farmers reported purchasing exotic bulls for a price of ~500.

Production In order to estimate the economics of farmers under each system. Overall. those farmers who can afford private service providers will seek them instead. Most farmers choose district or sector veterinarians because of the lower price of service. private providers of veterinarian services must compete with district and sector employees. However. Other basic veterinary services are provided by the farmers or laborers using inputs purchased from shops. In fact. this analysis uses a simple calculation based on a sample size of over 20 farmers from around Rwanda. Vaccination during these periods is essentially mandatory as RARDA takes responsibility for vaccinating the cattle. (2) the sample size is too small to ensure statistical significance and (3) the data provided ranges widely from farmer to farmer. Examples of these activities include administering solutions to prevent ticks and deworming tablets. “Value chain analysis and market power in commodity processing with application to the cocoa and coffee sectors” (Commodity market review 2007-2008) 12. That share is only 28% 64 A simple value share calculation is: retail price of processed dairy = producer price of dairy + gross margin.Veterinary Services Farmers rarely seek veterinary services during the year. most farmers reported vaccinating only in cases of disease outbreak. nor revenue and costs not directly related to milk production (i.. sending the district veterinarian to farms and charging farmers between 200-300 RWF per cow. Moreover. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 29 .e. revenue from selling cattle or manure and costs of feeding non-milking cattle). As a result. these public sector providers tend to be less reliable and there can be a long wait for service. These numbers are estimates at best for the following reasons: (1) it is difficult to isolate the revenue and costs of milking cattle from those of other cattle. As with AI providers. reserving this service for rare cases when when the life of the cow is endangered. in the informal sector in Rwanda. source: Christopher Gilbert. the producer’s share of value ranges64 from 37% to 57% (depending on whether this is in the dry or the rainy season). profit margins might be higher than farmers experience in reality because the calculation does not include initial capital investment in cows and infrastructure.

66 Arabica and Robusta figures are an average of producer prices in ten countries measured against US retail prices. Using the value of any other processed dairy good would result in a lower producer portion of retail value. The open grazing farmer achieves a profit margin of ~60% due to his minimization of costs. these cattle can produce an average of 30 liters. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 30 . respectively. Labor constitutes 80% of the monthly costs and no money is spent on feed or napier growing. 65 20% is the maximum because fresh milk is the cheapest processed dairy good. the farmer could earn slightly over 600. Arabica and Robusta producer value shares were on average between 12 and 25% and cocoa producer price as a share of UK chocolate price was on average 9%. Annually. In the dry season. This number is comparable to producer value shares in other products. which is about 330 RWF a person when split amongst a family of five. Cocoa value is a 10-year average.66 Chart 8: Revenue and cost per liter by grazing system Open grazing Average milking cattle ownership is ~4 ankole and 3 exotic cows. Gilbert 19 and 23. In the rainy season.100 USD) or 1660 RWF daily. of which 18 is sold.000 RWF (~1. production and sales are 45 and 22 liters. considering that milk is the only product input for these final products.for the formal sector65.

from her cattle.69 67 The low number of milking exotic cattle is usually accompanied by a higher number of non-milking exotic cattle. these cattle can produce approximately 150 liters. respectively. Annually. which has value as an energy source. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 31 . The situation is somewhat improved when one considers that a farmer may be able earn additional revenue by selling cattle or manure.Semi-grazing Average milking cattle ownership is ~7 ankole and 1 exotic cow. Interviews suggest that in regions where manure is needed. thus. a zero-grazing farmer can earn ~9. This figure does not include revenues or value from selling cattle or manure. In this category.68 The semi-grazing farmer can earn ~1. the semi-grazing farmer only achieves a profit margin of ~30% and an annual milk profit of ~320. The zerograzing farmers in this data sample were able to procure higher prices per liter. feed constitutes over 70% of monthly costs and labor is over 20%.6 million RWF annually from milk revenue.000 RWF (~600 USD). In the dry season.000 RWF (~1. lower revenues. a farmer can earn 6. In the rainy season. Feed costs are either in the form of supplements or cultivating a hectare of napier. Indeed. production and sales are 50 and 26 liters.67 In the dry season. these cattle can produce an average of 35 liters. In the rainy season. respectively. Feed accounts for an even high proportion of costs in this category because supplements are usually combined with napier. resulting in a lower percentage of milk for sale and. of which 125 is sold. which places a family of five in almost extreme poverty. These non-milking exotic cattle may not yet be of age to produce milk. This farmer segment suffers from the greatest economic challenges because of relatively lower milk production while exotic cattle are growing and increased expenses for feed. As a result. Zero-grazing Average milking cattle ownership in this category is virtually no ankole and 8 exotic cows. the farmer can earn over 5 million RWF in profit from milk. but feed accounts for an additional ~40% of monthly costs. 68 None of the semi-grazing farmers interviewed sold evening milk. of which 17 is sold. Labor still accounts for the largest proportion of monthly costs at almost 50%.000 USD) per cow per month from manure sales. 69 One farmer in the Southern province even mentioned producing gober gas. partly because some of these farms are vertically integrated and can control the selling price.2 million RWF annually from milk revenue. production and sales are 190 and 150 liters. or biogas generated by cow dung.

Among interviewees.000 and they select one member to represent the group. and thus. it was common for farmers to split the cost of membership. Since a MCC is a business. The fee varies and is lowest if one joins when the cooperative is first incorporated. which requires a one-time fee from farmers for membership and is also sustained by milk revenue. A MCC also serves as quality control. Each chilling tank is operated by a farmer cooperative. farmer education and financial credit. In exchange for the fee. though a few centers offer lower prices per liter to non-members. many of the interviewees’ cooperatives were not yet fully functional and merely served as a market for milk. testing milk using a lactodensimeter as it is brought to the center. their voice in the cooperative’s business. the government encourages the creation of farmer cooperatives to manage the milk gathered at a MCC. Each pays 2.Chillers/bulkers A chiller/bulker can also be referred to as a milk collection center (MCC). if membership fee is 10. up to three sectors are served by the same chilling tank. Lack of membership does not preclude a farmer from selling milk to the center. Operating structure A milk-producing sector will likely only have one chilling tank and.000. prompting an increase in registrations. if that. For example. Milk needs to be chilled within two to four hours of milking and kept at a temperature of 4°C in order to prevent spoilage. The vision for these cooperatives is to not only serve as a marketing point for milk. a farmer joins with four other farmers. MCCs are necessary to provide farmers access to the market. Staff reported rejecting less than 1% of milk. As these milk cooperatives are a new development. This can be as simple as a one-room building which holds a chilling tank. but also provide additional services like wholesale agricultural inputs. in some cases. Given that many farmers are many kilometers away from milk markets and do not have access to electricity or other means to chill. The government has heightened its emphasis on the creation of cooperatives. the most common A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 32 . the farmer receives a vote.

000 RWF to procure a copy of standards) and the lack of a central dairy authority to help disseminate information. with some as small as 1. However. This reliance can be devastating in some cases. However. there is no distinction in milk quality. Hygiene is a general concern both for farmers and MCCs.000 liters and others over 3. Most centers operate seven days a week and only accept morning milk. personal interview. ensuring that there is a market for milk. If a MCC does not own a milk shop. it will likely sell its milk to a transporter. the MCCs that aggregate a large volume of milk also accept evening milk. Each MCC employs a full staff. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 33 . However. Following this method has two benefits. particularly during the rainy season when demand for transport is high and transporters can determine the price at which they purchase milk.000 liters.72 Many MCCs own milk shops in Kigali. 70 Technoserve. virtually no awareness of these standards (one must pay a fee of 10. the risk of spoilage may be slightly higher depending on transport time to markets. tank capacity is no longer a constraint to the volume of milk that can be accepted. there is no incentive for farmers to increase attention to hygiene. 72 Some MCCs pass on the risk of spoilage to transporters by selling milk directly to the transporters. Sep 2008. The first is expanding the percentage of milk produced that is marketable and the second is eliminating one physical constraint.000 liters and the morning milk collected in various MCCs exceeds that volume. 71 Tank capacities varied.70 Beyond rejection for failure of the quality test.71 MCCs that choose to chill morning milk must reject any milk beyond tank capacity. the MCC chills evening milk collected and then transports it the next morning with the morning milk collected. Thus. with an accountant and other employees who work with the milk. its efforts are hampered by limited staff to inspect sites. By selling morning milk immediately rather than chilling it. One milk collection center stopped operations for over two weeks because it could not agree on a price for milk with the transporter.offenses are adding water to milk or attempting to sell evening milk after it has spoiled. In such cases. who then takes responsibility for finding buyers. Chilling tanks have an average capacity 2. The Rwanda Bureau of Standards (RBS) is attempting to increase adherence to quality standards.

74 These chilling tanks have a capacity of 2. mostly depending on what the buyer is willing to pay. farmers in the area think they have no choice but to sell to the processor. Sep 2008. However. though it is not a direct relationship. spent approximately 35 million constructing the MCCs and outfitting them. In Gishwati. most of the 73 Technoserve.for comparison. 30 steel cans 1MM. Operating expenses According to interviews. The cost to run the generator is somewhat proportional to volume. This cost can be very high and. 76 Technoserve.Revenue MCCs interviewed earned on average 20 RWF per liter on the milk they sold.000 RWF (~300 USD) per month. these are small (2000l) tanks . Sep 2008. personal interview. which costs an average of 160. the cheese processing plant paid an extremely low price per liter of 100 RWF. Since most MCCs are in locations where there is no electricity. Technoserve. generator 6. staff salary constituted the largest proportion of monthly expenses. PADEBL. Sep 2008. they need only focus on operating expenses. Thus.150 liters and cost ~5 million RWF (~9. Some only earned a spread of 10 RWF and the MCC with the highest volume earned 90 RWF per liter. Ongoing capital expenses include construction of new buildings or investment in generator replacements. personal interview. personal interview. including fuel and maintenance for the generator. 10.2MM. exceed the monthly cost of staff salary. accounting for between 30 to 70%.73 Pricing is rather arbitrary. which constructed many chilling tanks across the country. 74 PADEBL officials approximated that a building costs 14MM. for example. since the nearest market was nine kilometers away and required traveling a mountainous route. cooling tank & accessories 14MM.76 The other major cost category is that of electricity or a generator. 75 Tank cost only.000l tanks cost around $48. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 34 .000 USD75). they must rely on a generator to chill milk. in some months.000. Capital expenses Given that many MCCs received large capital expenses like the building and chilling tank free from the government.

MCCs costs are fixed and maximizing the volume of milk received and sold is key to the center’s financial success.997.768 150 18.176.384.550 525.333 243.415.000 264.976 1894 122.996 200 225.498 0.530 272.266. Part of the challenge is that the chairmen and/or staff are not aware of general business principles.768 128 215..0175 10.0501 2088 77 Technoserve.0673 0.456 0.0525 3092 105.850 349.400 613.539. as a result.500 0 290.300. 2008.980 0 15. there is not a culture of cost-consciousness or decisive decision-making.200 Wghtd Avg 105.582 0.000 79.840 606.000 202. Chart 9: Example MCC financials77 Mbare example Monthly revenue Milk sold (L) Price/liter Total monthly revenue Monthly costs Milk bought (L) Price/liter Staff salary Electricity/generator Transport Generator maintenance Miscellaneous Union fee Capex Total monthly costs Monthly profit Margin Annual profit Daily breakeven liters 69.238.112 Rainy 122.500 17. example for Mbare adjusted to include generator maintenance costs in the rainy season A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 35 .200 0 290.000 199.358 916.177 152 218.856 17.744 1. Oct.996 222 15.887 Dry 69. MCCs earn only a 6% profit margin and even this slim profit is at risk during the dry season when volumes are too low to cover the fixed operational costs.633 0 290.000 119. Profit On average.177 174 18. personal interview.

personal interview. These costs are far outweighed by the higher price 78 In fact. his worker would spill all of the milk on the nine kilometer trip to the MCC. There are few solutions to this challenge. have no control over their actions. Other MCCs expressed fears that transporters would abandon them for higher milk volume producing regions during the rainy season. One MCC explained that they provide farmers a lower price per liter for evening milk because the transporter could not show up without any advance warning as often as twice a week. Otherwise.Challenges and opportunities MCCs perform a very important service for farmers by providing access to the Kigali market. it’s common to hear a farmer report that approximately once a month. Though the construction of MCCs is increasing. or even less than. Sep 2008. Assuming the MCC can obtain a low-interest loan to purchase a truck.78 Integrating the transport function is an attractive option for the MCCs not only for the potential for increased profit but also for the elimination of dependence on transporters. Most MCCs rely on vendors for transport of milk and. the price the MCC is paying for transport currently and the interest payment on the loan is minimal. One inevitable challenge is that of physical access. one of which is investing in a vehicle that can collect milk from more informal collection centers that are positioned around the MCC closer to farmers. thus. Considering that many of these villages have extremely poor roads and bicycles are in poor condition.79 This happened as often as twice a week and can eliminate any profits in a month. 80 Assumes MCCs can negotiate loans with the African Development Bank similar to ones offered to farmers at 2% interest A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 36 . Nyanza pursues this exact method in order to increase the volume of milk they collect.80 This is because the operational costs of the truck are similar to. causing the MCC to lose all milk revenue while still incurring milk purchase costs. farmers would have to work to find independent buyers for their milk and transport milk to each buyer. resulting in a large loss. it is possible to increase profit margins fourfold. The challenge for the MCC is to generate enough farmer awareness to enable the collection of a large enough milk volume to securely pay the fixed operational costs each month. it is still difficult for farmers to access MCCs. 79 Technoserve.

81 Inyange is currently the largest processor of liquids overall. which also includes mineral water and juices. the benefits to the farmers can be minimal beyond a market for milk and farmers may benefit more from higher income. theoretically there should not be an issue with paying farmers less. Inyange is in the midst of general expansion and plans to open a new plant by 2009.. but management chooses to maintain this proportion of production for the moment. in rough descending order of volume of dairy processed: Nyanza (formerly known as Nyabisindu). Financial information was difficult to obtain.g. There is large opportunity for processors to expand. Since MCCs are producer owned. however. though. “Kenya Dairy Value Chain. MCCs should continue to expand and would benefit from (1) an active membership to ensure that farmers are receiving a reasonable return for their investment either in the form of income or other benefits and (2) understanding of economics to identify unnecessarily high cost areas and potential solutions (e. all milk is sourced from 22 farmers around Kigali who are contracted to provide milk all year round. Inyange. All processors except Nyanza are located in or around Kigali. as they will still reap benefits from the cooperative. Thus. Processors The main processors in Rwanda are as follows. forward integrating into transportation). but according to interviews. dairy products constitute only 20% of the goods it produces. the capacity to increase dairy production exists. a processor can make a healthy profit margin of approximately 15%. In reality. This 81 Technoserve. the director general has expressed interest in expanding dairy processing including producing UHT. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 37 . Rubirizi and Masaka. The challenge is that if a MCC integrates transport.that MCCs could obtain by selling directly to a retailer or processor. it becomes responsible for finding a market for the milk as well. This is in line with industry averages of 10-20%. Processors are a key part of the value chain that will need to be addressed to improve the supply of dairy products.” (2008) 20. At the moment. in light of current offerings and gaps with market demand.

Even the small portion of the local population that can afford processed milk may choose the informal market because they do not feel the significant difference in price (2-2. focusing instead on yogurt. product prices are such that only 20% of the population can afford them. all products that were not produced in Rwanda previously. For example. It seems that if prices remain at this level in the processed 82 Technoserve. Furthermore. Initial sales suggested strong demand for these products and the plant is in the midst of expanding its capacity. the upgrade is intended more to increase efficiency and reduce production costs than to increase plant capacity. each has expansion plans that hope to be implemented in the near future. Milk is only sold to individuals in 500ml packets and yogurts are offered in two sizes. Sep 2008. The company is considering integrating backwards by building Inyange designated chilling tanks in the countryside and significantly increasing the volume of milk they process. personal interview. Both the Western region. began operations.000 liters daily and farmers currently struggle to market all of that milk. crème fraiche and a variety of soft cheeses. a niche player that focuses on luxury cheese. in early 2008. Milk production volumes can exceed 5. At the time of this report. It does not produce any milk. There is also a need to cultivate a customer orientation in the industry. both in terms of location and production. Rubirizi is utilizing a grant from the US Development Fund to upgrade their machinery. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 38 . It is unclear whether the volume of dairy products will indeed increase. However. There is certainly opportunity to expand this segment in the supply chain. For example. with hopes to export items to Burundi once domestic sales are stabilized. around Gisenyi or Gishwati. Masaka.piecemeal method of sourcing results in insufficient milk supply in the dry season. the processors produce whatever products are easiest and at the maximum price. Currently. it had only been operating for approximately 3 months. Nyanza’s expansion plans include expanding into water and juice processing.5 times that of raw milk in the informal market) is justified. could benefit from a processor in the area. Furthermore. near Gicumbi.82 Though the processors are only operating at ~20% of installed capacity. meaning that dairy may not remain the core of its operations as it is currently with Inyange. One example of the lack of customer orientation is the rigidity in product offering. and the Northern region.

Chart 10: Sample monthly processor financials 84 83 PADEBL “Trimester Report July-September 2007. even if it means operational changes. Technoserve. 84 These are example financial statement using estimates from a secondary source. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 39 . 2007) 7. There are currently four plants operating. processors will miss a large opportunity to expand the market. in PADEBL’s September 2007 update. Farmers in this region say that the government has promised to build a large dairy processing plant in the Western province that will eventually replace the cheese plants and increase the range of dairy goods produced. Other players in the processor category include cheese-makers in the Gishwati region. however. 5 million RWF was set aside to construct 5 cheese processing plants.83 Economics Processors reported making a profit margin of ~10-20%. Processors should consider customer needs and change their products accordingly. Innocent Rutamu.” (MINAGRI. Sep 2008. Some processors change product prices and milk purchase prices in dry and rainy season.market. each pursuing traditional cheese-making practices and receiving milk from nearby farmers. personal interview. others keep prices essentially constant all year. Indeed. “Investment Opportunities in the Dairy sub-sector of Rwanda” (Aug 2008) 31.

the breakeven point for a small shop (e. The second category of sellers of boiled fresh milk generally includes restaurants. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 40 . The final category of sellers of processed dairy products only includes a range of supermarkets. MCCs and hawkers with limited options for the milk they have available to sell.g. The pure milk shop consists of a chilling tank in a room. Ndoli’s Joint) to large supermarket chains (e. the majority of the remaining costs are fixed. with a tea bag. Based on interviews with milk shops in Kigali. during the rainy season. Under the first category of sellers of raw fresh milk and some processed goods are two types of shops.Retailers Retailers in Rwanda can be split into three categories based on the products they sell and their scale. Other than milk costs.. 7-800 liter tank capacity) was only 20 to 30 liters of milk per day. Sellers of raw fresh milk can be very profitable. Considering that raw milk sold to these shops can be kept for a period of up to a week and that there are no contracts with milk suppliers. leaving farmers. These establishments sell milk by the cup in the form of African tea or as milk. individuals bring their own jerrycans and purchase chilled fresh milk from the tank by the liter. and also sells yogurt and perhaps fermented milk. from smaller neighborhood establishments (e. shops can refuse to buy more milk until they have sold their inventory.. The first is sellers of raw fresh milk and some processed goods.g. Nakumatt). due to the minimal costs of the operation. Indeed. Another shop in this category is the small supermarket. a shopowner has little inventory risk. Most shop owners maximize profit by forcing the farmer or hawker to take on milk transport costs. the second is sellers of boiled fresh milk and finally is sellers of processed dairy products only. African tea is a combination of hot water and milk. which has a small chilling tank from which to sell fresh milk by the liter. these costs are predominantly of building and/or equipment rent and labor.g..

86 This range in profit margin includes a wide range of dairy products. personal interview. Nakumatt requires new 85 Other includes electricity. two large retailers—Nakumatt and Simba—opened. as this study was undertaken during dry season. neither store stocks UHT milk. Technoserve. both in terms of overall milk available in the country. with some reporting success in selling products with ~10-20% markup. miscellaneous. Sep 2008. sellers of processed dairy products are making healthy margins. providing Rwanda residents with a simplified shopping experience by offering an expansive range of goods in one location. these large retailers have been unable to convince suppliers to supply greater quantities at the expense of not supplying smaller retailers. First. utilities can be fixed because it is tied to the building rent.86 In the latter half of 2008. Lastly. and Nakumatt has only recently begun carrying butter. as some restaurants such as those situated near large transit points reported a high dependence of profits on the sale of African tea whereas milk is likely a small contribution to other restaurants’ income.Chart 11: Sample monthly milk shop financials 85 This study did not examine the second category closely: sellers of boiled fresh milk. In addition. water. both stores have struggled to stock a sufficient supply and range of dairy products. Approximately two months after their opening. The range of shops is wide. In some cases. from ice cream and butter to flavored yogurt and cheese. The largest challenge is supply of milk. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 41 . and in terms of supplier willingness to provide product. Inyange continues to supply small retailers who do not move the product daily though Nakumatt is demanding a higher daily volume. However.

will continue to dominate the market because of the lower cost and flexibility in volume purchased.” (MINAGRI. However.763 households. the rate of distribution will need to increase. The program works on the logic that the heifer can provide milk and manure to supplement the family’s income. “Agricultural Sector Performance First Semester 2008. resulting in insufficient supply of cattle for distribution.87 In the first half of 2008. The following section provides information on related programs. The program hopes to reach 668. Dairy Cattle Development Support Project (PADEBL) This government project. In fact. large retailers should work more cooperatively with local suppliers in order to acquire the quantity of milk needed and should sign agreements with importers to stock UHT milk and a larger variety of dairy items. Nakumatt runs out of fresh milk daily and only receives milk from Inyange. Murekezi 15. Large retailers will continue to find it difficult to capture a larger percentage of the local market (excluding expatriates or foreigners) given the high price of dairy products at the retailer compared with the price of raw fresh milk. In addition.471 households benefited from the program. Retailers in the first category. also known as PADEBL. bringing the cumulative total of beneficiaries to close to 30. as a family does not gain full ownership of the heifer until it passes on the first calf to another family. As a result. As for the foreign market.000 households.88 In order to reach the 2012 goal.vendors to forego payment for three months while products are tested in the store. those who sell raw fresh milk. launched by President Kagame in 2001. one poor household” (Girinka) aims to alleviate rural poverty by providing a heifer to each family. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 42 . the department has indicated it has experienced challenges in importing cattle. DAIRY PROGRAMS IN RWANDA The Rwanda government has deemed livestock and dairy a priority initiative. 8. 2008) 16. 88 Ministry for Agriculture and Animal Resources. of which only 25% had been spent in the first 87 Some sources cite a figure of 501. the program is somewhat self-perpetuating. has a few aspects. “One cow.572. supporting multiple programs relating to the dairy sector and spurring NGO action as well. in 2008. the Ministry for Agriculture and Animal Resources (MINAGRI) allocated over 1 billion RWF to the program.

Farmers in Umutara observed that they have a market for their excess ankole cattle because the government is currently buying. some officials were accused of misappropriating funds by providing farmers with ankole cows while charging the government for exotic cows. 15 chilling plants were constructed throughout the country in phase 1 and are currently operational. or tanks where farmers can bring milk for sale. however. Another aspect of this program is focused on chiller/bulkers for milk. PADEBL retains ownership of the chilling plants though it may enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with each site to turn over ownership to farmers. Some interviewees who were recipients of the ankole cows derided the government’s gift. not much investment is needed in return for that milk. 2007) 7.4 million RWF for each milk collection center. 89 This suggests there are execution challenges and that the program’s reach could be greater. which equates to 24. This project has been highly successful and opens opportunities for other organizations now that its funding has expired. Sep 2008. Cows supplied under this program have been of both indigenous ankole and exotic breeds. Sep 2008.half of the fiscal year. as most of these recipients practice open-grazing.92 Currently.91 These chilling plants consisted of a building to house a chilling tank with capacity of 2. At the time of this report. 92 PADEBL “Trimester Report July-September 2007. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 43 .” (MINAGRI. 90 Technoserve. The chilling plants are heavily utilized in 89 Ministry for Agriculture and Animal Resources 23. one family” program has been a temporary increase in demand for ankole milking cattle domestically. 91 Technoserve. personal interview. Sixteen additional chilling centers are scheduled to be completed by November 2008 at a budgeted cost of approximately 390 million RWF. Key accomplishments have been the construction of chilling plants.90 It is true that the milk produced by the cow likely ranges between one to two liters daily. personal interview. The project’s goals were to increase milk production and increase farmer organization. An additional challenge has been program management.100 liters in addition to a generator and other operational supplies. complaining that they may as well have received dogs given the low volume of milk that the ankole cow provided. In fall 2008. An unintentional effect of the “One cow. the individuals were awaiting trial.

93 Other programs In addition to government programs. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 44 . This increases the amount of milk a farmer can sell and can almost double his income. as he was instructed to do. In addition. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR VALUE CHAIN 93 Calculation assumes that 80% of both morning and evening milk are sold compared to 10% of evening milk previously. Allegations of misappropriation again marred the gift. Indeed. with individuals remarking that they are not confident calves were actually passed on to other farmers. various NGOs are active in promoting dairy farming as well. out of the six sites EADD is currently operating in. some of our interviewees had been recipients of an exotic cow from Heifer International. open the possibility of marketing in Kigali. some chilling tanks have recognized that they can chill evening milk for sale the next day. and Send a Cow. 94 Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning 11. but none of his neighbors have received the calf. supplying milk to neighbors or small businesses like restaurants or hotels. The tanks. One farmer stated he had given the calf to the cooperative. five were funded by PADEBL.94 This increase has been along all income quintiles and in all provinces. In fact. the proportion of all households owning animals increased from 60 to 71% between 2001 and 2006. it also serves to increase the importance of expanding the market for dairy products.regions where they are already operational and those who live in regions where tanks are under construction eagerly anticipate the arrival of these tanks. These organizations have primarily focused on placing cows with poor farmers. A key benefit of the chillers is providing farmers with access to a market that is otherwise difficult or impossible to access. There may be additional organizations that have not been mentioned here. indeed. Farmers in regions without chilling tanks are forced to seek business on an ad-hoc basis. The overall impact of these public sector efforts has been to steadily increase the number of farmers who own cattle in Rwanda. one of EADD’s partners. The most active of these NGOs include Heifer International. by aggregating a significant volume of milk. Though this will indeed help improve the situation of households who were previously unable to afford milk.

perhaps by providing feed on credit and increasing awareness of milk economics ! Communicate with agroinput providers and negotiate wholesale prices for large quantities of goods farmers use frequently (e. there is limited insight amongst MCC staff and board members about the center’s financial performance. ! Build awareness of costs and risks to business by helping MCCs create a simple financial template to track the business each month ! Negotiate with transporters to reduce risks in service currently or investigate the potential of purchasing a vehicle ! Alleviate farmer challenges during the transition to zero-grazing. which can impede its effectiveness and ability to improve the farmers’ situation. Milk Collection Centers MCCs have a large opportunity to enable reform in this segment because of the role they play between farmers and markets. through negotiations with vendors ! Some farmers employ too many laborers under the rationale that one laborer is inexpensive. staffing only to what is needed can amount to significant savings given that labor is one of the largest cost categories. salt) ! Aid MCCs in finding and securing markets for milk o Connect with processors to secure fair contracts for unlimited milk volume o Investigate viability of constructing and operating a milk shop in a lesssaturated region area of Kigali or another urban area Processors A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 45 . as prescribed by the feed model. Farmers ! Create an optimal model(s) of feeding for cattle by breed that is based on a costbenefit analysis. Little attention was paid in any segment to operating costs and no mention was made of strategies to increase revenue or eliminate costs. Currently. however.Education and awareness are the most common needs across all segments of the value chain.. maize bran.g. Teach this model to farmers ! Facilitate the purchase of feed.

ensuring that milk is not adulterated in the informal market ! Experiment with “salesman” model for milk where retailers or milk marketers are paid on commission to encourage exploration of new markets. consolidating purchasing relationships rather than Show the value of purchasing milk from cooperatives Retailers ! Work with government to institute milk testing in milk shops. in order to create an understanding of consumer willingness to pay and resulting implications for product range and cost ! Facilitate cooperation with cooperatives.! Encourage and/or support processors to conduct studies on market demand for various types of dairy products. particularly in rainy season A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 46 .

INTERVIEW DETAIL Nyagatare 4 farmers 3 cooperatives 3 transporters Rwamagana 2 farmers Kigali 2 farmers 2 agroinput shops 3 processors 6 retailers Gatsibo 2 farmers 1 cooperative Kamonyi 2 farmers 1 cooperative 1 AI provider 1 retailer Nyanza 1 processor Muhanga 2 farmers 2 AI providers 1 retailer Musanze 2 farmers 1 cooperative 1 AI provider 1 retailer Rubavu 2 farmers A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 47 .

1 cooperative 1 retailer Nyabihu 2 farmers 1 AI provider Gicumbi 2 farmers 1 cooperative Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources (MINAGRI) ICRAF Rwanda Agriculture and Animal Resource Development Authority (RARDA) ISAR (Institute for Agricultural Research) Rwanda Private Sector Federation Rwanda Bureau of Standards Natl Institute of Statistics of Rwanda Ministry of Commerce Rwanda Investment & Export Promotion Agency National Bank of Rwanda CAPMER (national board for SMEs) Rwanda Agricultural Development Agency (RADA) Dairy Cattle Development Support Project (PADEBL) A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 48 .

Loveridge. “Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy 2008-2012.” MINAGRI 2008. “Agricultural Innovation and Technology in Africa. 2006 <http://www.rwandagateway. Rukazambuga Ntirushwa. Muliisa. EADD. Murekezi. 2006 <http://www. 2007.php3?id_article=3141>. Anastase. Alastair Orr and Abdoul Murekezi. “Trimester Report July-September 2007.REFERENCES Daniel. Ministry for Agriculture and Animal Resources.” MINAGRI.” MINAGRI 2007. National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISAR).” 2008. Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning.” MinFEP 2007.rw/article. “Milk.php3?id_article=23>. “2007 Annual Report.” Commodity market review 2007-2008: 5-31. “Agricultural Sector Performance First Semester 2008. et al. Richard.gov. Christopher. Scott.” Gilbert. “EADD Grant Proposal – Summary Information for Submission of August 30. PADEBL. “Rwanda Agricultural Survey 2006. “Value Chain Analysis and Market Power in Commodity Processing with Application to the Cocoa and Coffee sectors. 2007. Rwanda’s ‘Unexploited’ Resource.minagri.” MINAGRI 2007. 2007.” The New Times 2 Oct.” NISAR MINFEP 2007. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 49 .org/article. “Agriculture and Poverty in Rwanda.” Natural Resources Institute. Ministry for Agriculture and Animal Resources. “Medium Term Plans for Agriculture and Growth. Ministry for Agriculture and Animal Resources.

World Bank.. Rutamu. M.00. “Investment Opportunities in the Dairy sub-sector of Rwanda” Aug. World Development Indicators 2008 <http://web.Porter.E.menuPK:368741~pagePK:141132~piPK:141109~theS itePK:368651. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program 50 . 2008. Innocent. “What is Strategy?” Harvard Business Review Nov-Dec 1996: 61-78.html>.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEX T/RWANDAEXTN/0.