Agroecological green leafy vegetable business models in Kenya: A Report of the assessment of the green leafy vegetable business models in Kiambu Agroecological Living Landscapes (ALL), Kenya

Green leafy vegetables (GLVs) significantly contribute to the livelihoods of households in Kiambu County. The County’s close proximity to Kenya’s capital, Nairobi, provides an opportunity for farming households to access different markets for their produce within the populous city. Moreso, the increasing consumer demand for traditional African vegetables like amaranth and the African nightshade creates an opportunity for households to make additional income and provides job opportunities for both skilled and unskilled women and youth. In the recent past, production of vegetables in Kiambu County has been fluctuating considerably. This is attributed to unfavourable weather conditions coupled with diminishing land area under production among other factors. Despite this, in 2023, Kiambu County still ranked second after Homabay County in production of Kale, and seventh in terms of cabbage production. This implies that opportunities still exist for the County to fully exploit the potential of vegetables. Adoption of sustainable food systems approaches, like agroecology, may help actors in the value chain overcome multiple challenges associated with production, supply, marketing, and even consumption.
The objective this study was therefore to; a) assess the challenges and opportunities of integrating agroecological principles (AEPs) in existing business models for GLV value chains, b) diagnose the current agroecological performance for models with potential for upgrading, develop a business model upgrading strategy for the GLV value chain, c) co-create upgraded agroecological business models, and d) conduct a cost benefit assessment of the agroecological transition. To achieve these objectives, a rapid assessment of the GLV value chain was conducted to better understand the existing business models and the actors involved. Results from this study showed that four business models exist in Kiambu County; i) an organic input-based business model where a private company produces organic inputs and sells to farmers, ii) an specialized markets business model where farmers who produce organic vegetables access designated organic food markets through an intermediary, iii) a private processor model where a private processing company buys vegetables from farmers and processes into different products including dried vegetables, and iv) a conventional business model where farmers produce and sell to different markets directly or through middlemen. The first three models were selected for further diagnosis given their potential for agroecological transition.
Diagnosis of the selected business models was done using the Business Model Canvas (BMC) and the Business Agroecology Criteria Tool (B-ACT). The BMC was used to understand the business relationship between actors including the customer segments, value propositions, channels and customer relations, income streams, key resources, key activities, as well as key partners and cost structures. The B-ACT was used to assess how the operations and structure of the business models were aligned or misaligned with the agroecological principles. Prior to the implementation of the BMC and B-ACT tools, each model was assessed to understand their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.

The B-ACT assessment shows that the specialized markets business model has the highest degree of integration of AEPs while the private processor has the lowest score. Nevertheless, there was variation across the three domains of AE. For instance, the operations of the off-taker aligned well with principles that strengthen resilience, secure social equity and improve resource efficiency, with each overarching theme scoring over 80%. This outcome is somewhat expected as the off-taker has heavily invested in promoting agroecology in the community. As a result, farmers linked to this off-taker scored over 80% for principles that strengthen resilience and secure social equity. Principles improving resource use efficiency scored high (65.0%), but relatively lower than the other two categories.
The organic input-based model was the second in terms of performance. The supplier had an overall score of 63.5% while the farmers affiliated to them scored 59.7%. The activities of both actors are well best aligned with principles that improve resource efficiency as shown by the high scores (87.5% for the supplier and 85% for the farmers). Principles that strengthen resilience scored 58.9% and 62.3% for the input supplier and the farmers respectively. Although the least scores were reported under principles that secure social equity, the input supplier still scored high (58.3) compared to farmers (45.83%). The private processor business model performed the least both at business and farm level.
The processor had an average score of 33.09% while farmers linked to the enterprise scored 41.33%. Looking at the specific categories, the processing company scored high on principles that secure social equity while principles that strengthen resilience (11.59%) and improved resource efficiency (40%) scored relatively low. Farmers linked to the private processor scored high for principles that improve resource efficiency (50%) and low for principles that strengthen resilience (43.84%) and secure social justice (33.3%). The low performance of the private processor could be attributed to the fact that during the company was under renovation during most part of the assessment period. For instance, the company had stalled its operations temporarily to install a modern drying equipment in order to expand its processing capacity. Although the private processor model had the least performance overall, the model had a better integration of AEPs that promote social equity when compared to the organic input supplier business model. A set of action points were identified by actors in each model that when implemented can lead to AE transition, and thus promoting sustainability of the food systems.
A cost benefit analysis (CBA) indicators show that investment in agroecological interventions is profitable and cost-effective at both firm and business level. Farming households would take about 2-3 years to breakeven while businesses would require 3-5 years to break even.