12.1.09.51968.Why is 2% of the billions pledged · le réseau des agri-agences the alliance of agri-agencies la alianza de agri-agencias ... aggregators are marketing interfaces to

Why is 2‰ of the billions

pledged for agriculture in

developing countries not

spent on farmers'

organisations?

AgriCord in collaboration with IFAP

Arnhem, The Netherlands, October 2009 © Agriterra

Project number 07ag-4926

Data AgriStudies™ Author : AgriCord in collaboration with IFAP Title : Why is 2‰ of the billions pledged for agriculture in developing

countries not spent on farmers' organisations? Publisher : Agriterra Number AgriStudies : 12.1.09.51968 Country : The Netherlands Category : Increasing the support base

AgriCord Minderbroedersstraat 8 3000 Leuven, Belgium [email protected] phone +32 (0)16 242750 fax +32 (0)16 242755 le réseau des agri-agences the alliance of agri-agencies la alianza de agri-agencias Member agri-agencies: AFDI (France) Agriterra (Netherlands) CSA (Belgium) FERT (France) SCC (Sweden) Trias (Belgium) UPA DI (Canada) Associated members: CIA (Italy) MTK (Finland) UPA (Spain) AgriCord (www.agricord.org) is a partner of the Development Cooperation Committee (DCC) of IFAP (International Federation of Agricultural Producers)

CONTENTS

SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 1

1. RATIONALE .................................................................................. 3

2. AGRI-AGENCIES ............................................................................ 5

3. FARMERS FIGHTING POVERTY............................................................. 7

4. FUNDING APPLICATION TO GOVERNMENTS ............................................... 9

ANNEXES ...................................................................................... 11

1

Summary

AgriCord is an alliance of agri-agencies, development cooperation organisations founded by civil society and private sector farmers’ organisations in OECD countries. It supports farmer and rural organisations in developing countries. The agri-agencies have joined forces in AgriCord to improve coordination of their work with producer organisations in developing countries. Agri-agencies promote farmer to farmer development co-operation, through projects formulated in response to requests from producer and cooperative organisations in developing countries. Producer organisations and agri-agencies are able to manage considerable and fast growing amounts of money. They use modern banking and communications technologies to reach local producers through the producer federations and to manage development activities. The agri-agencies jointly implement the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme. The programme is operational since 2007 and already supports 145 farmers’ organisations in 59 countries. Past evidence shows that agri-agencies and farmers’ organisations have so far done exactly what they promised to do in the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme. Project management is professional and transparent. They are ready to upscale their operations and make their obvious contribution to reduce hunger and poverty. More than € 25 million of funding is now urgently being sought for projects in various continents in 2010. Up to 2015 a total investment through agri-agencies of € 339 million is programmed. The quest for funds is a joint effort of IFAP and AgriCord.

3 Rationale

1. Rationale

Why is part of the billions pledged for agricultural development in the developing countries not spent on farmers' organizations? Don't you think we find ourselves in an odd situation? Every summit meeting of heads of state announces billions of dollars for agricultural development in the developing world. Yet, the central figures in reducing hunger and poverty, the farmers and farmers’ organizations see very little of these funds trickle down to their level. In the fight against hunger and poverty, farmers are crucial because they produce food and wealth in rural areas. It is a simple, but often forgotten truth: they establish new enterprises that create employment opportunities for their children, who can also go to school because of their parents’ entrepreneurship. The structural transformation of economies in developing countries starts with farmer creativity and hard work. AgriCord has been funding many farmers’ organizations, strengthening them with measurable results. Their numbers are growing rapidly, along with strong growth in membership at more than ten percent a year. More than 1.5 million farm leaders and staff of farmers’ organizations are involved in AgriCord projects, people who will be left out because of a € 25 million budget gap for 2010. AgriCord in Niger contributes 23% of the donor budgets of farmers’ organizations, yet this represents 75% of the staff costs, people that can work as counterparts in all projects of donors and governments. Consequently, AgriCord enables other donors to work with farmers’ organizations. Farmers’ organizations are vital in creating rural economies that are economically, socially and economically sustainable. Farmers’ organizations operate on the principle of subsidiarity, with real farmers representing their interests at the bottom of the pyramid, feeding their views into local associations, provincial, national, regional and even worldwide federations. As such, farmers’ organizations are powerful machines to disseminate new ideas, new technologies and knowledge over vast areas. These social aggregators are marketing interfaces to reach the bottom of the pyramid, the people who have to live on less than two dollars a day; they reach them because of their layered structure. At the same time, they are the social media transmitting the voice of the poor on a large scale. Why are those billions at least not in part dedicated to support these organizations to become stronger? This money can help farmers’ organizations to better serve their members, both with new services, products and connections, and with advocacy on their behalf. Rural democracy, economic growth and income distribution benefit from the determined action of organized farmers. Shouldn't they be the most obvious collateral in any development effort? This rationale was the declaration that emerged in the joint meeting of the IFAP Executive and AgriCord board on October 23, 2009 in Niagara, as a follow up to the World Food Day declaration “Look again at how to tackle poverty” (Annex 3) signed by farm leaders, like: • Albert Jan Maat, président du LTO (Pays-Bas) • Piet Vanthemsche, président du Boerenbond (Belgique) • Laurent Pellerin, président FCA Fédération Canadienne de l'Agriculture, président

AgriCord (Canada) • Jean Michel Lemétayer, président FNSEA (France) • René Ladouce, président de la FWA, Fédération Wallonne d'Agriculture (Belgique) • Philippe Pinta, président d’ORAMA (France).

4 Why is 2‰ of the billions pledged for agriculture in developing countries not spent on farmers' organisations?

Members of the IFAP Executive, headed by the president of the Development Cooperation Committee, Elisabeth Gauffin (SCC/LRF), will alert their respective government and call upon them for joint action.

5 Agri-Agencies

2. Agri-Agencies

• AgriCord

AgriCord is an alliance of agri-agencies and development cooperation organisations founded by rural organisations in OECD countries. It works with partner rural organisations in developing countries.

• Mandate from producers in OECD countries

Agricord has a mandate from its founders, who are agricultural producers, cooperatives, rural women and women farmers, and private agricultural companies. Representatives from these organisations form the boards of directors of agri-agencies in each country. AgriCord brings together seven agri-agencies: Trias/Belgium (Flanders); CSA/Belgium (Wallonia), UPADI/Canada-Quebec; FERT and AFDI/France; Agriterra/Netherlands; SCC/Sweden. It also has three associate members (UPA/Spain; CIA/Italy; MTK/Finland), which are producer organisations that all have plans to create an agri-agency.

• Administration and policy "directed by producers of OECD countries, according to

guidelines agreed by producers at the international level".

The AgriCord General Assembly is composed of one elected delegate (a farmer leader) from all members (associated) in addition to the executive directors of the agri-agencies and the AgriCord Executive Director. The Board of Directors comprises the executive directors of the agri-agencies. Organisations in OECD countries are responsible for the decision to organise development co-operation with their colleagues in the South in this way. Regional organisations (e.g. ROPPA in West Africa and COMPROFAM in Latin America) and global organisations (International Federation of Agricultural Producers – IFAP and the International Cooperative Alliance – ICA) advise AgriCord on how to implement its programmes.

• "Agri-agencies respond to requests for support from organisations in the South".

The requests come from national agricultural producer organisations, cooperatives and rural women. Demand has grown enormously because of the increase in social organisation in rural areas (see World Bank Annual Report 2008 on Agriculture). Currently, 90% of rural producers in the world are organised. The number of new organisations working with agri-agencies is growing at an annual rate of 11%. The projects presented to AgriCord as part of the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme for 2010 have a total budget of € 36 million.

• Volume and growth: "agri-agencies are able to handle considerable volumes and

rapid growth".

Agri-agency programmes managed a total of €70 million in 2008, of which €24 million were used for the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme. Agri-agencies work in 59 countries. Funds managed by agri-agencies involved in the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme more than tripled between 2007 and 2008.


The Farmers Fighting Poverty1 programme will provide a framework for all agri-agency work. Agri-agency programmes are increasingly being incorporated into the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme, subject to negotiation with donors. Steps are being taken to ensure continuity in the second phase starting in 2010. The Farmers Fighting Poverty programme was expected to grow by 62% in 2009 and 39% in 2010. Funds from the DGIS-Netherlands increased by 30% between 2007 and 2008. AgriCord is supporting the establishment of new agri-agencies in Spain and Italy and the Dutch agri-agency has already set aside €105,000 for this purpose.

• Work organisation

AgriCord has a minimum central bureaucracy, which deals with general coordination, monitoring and evaluation.

The provision of advice and support to organisations and projects and the mobilisation of such support is delegated to the agri-agencies. Producer organisations and cooperatives in the South implement the projects. Some agri-agencies have staff and/or offices in the countries concerned. Most of the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme is managed by producer organisations in the South, with the federations providing support for local associations.

1 Farmers Fighting Poverty – Producer organisations support programme DGIS- Agriterra,

Agriterra, Arnhem, 2006 (document 12.1.06.4854). A new framework is currently being

developed.

7 Farmers Fighting Poverty

3. Farmers Fighting Poverty

• Entry point

National and provincial/state producer organisations act as points of contact with the agri-agencies. Farmer organisations refer requests from local organisations to their federations in order to respect the structures established in each country. National leaders have the capacity to negotiate and look after the interests of their organisation.

• Organisation of producers in developing countries

A typical client of the agri-agencies is a union of local associations within a particular zone or province. These have sometimes created federations at the state or regional level and national confederations that may in turn be affiliated to an international federation.

• Why do the agri-agencies support these structures?

They want to strengthen farmer organisations and cooperatives and their federations at the provincial and national levels. The existence of farmer associations and their activities promotes quicker and more egalitarian economic development and economic and political democratisation. Social organisations disseminate new ideas, technologies and knowledge over vast areas. They are powerful marketing instruments that can use their structures to reach the poorer sectors of society, where people may be living on less than two dollars a day. Similarly, these social organisations act as a channel for poor people to express themselves.

• What do the producer organisations expect from the agri-agencies?

They expect support for the creation of new services for their members. Support for creating links with specialist organisations that are able to provide the services requested by their members. Support for influencing the policies and work of the specialist organisations in such a way that they are able to respond to requests from farmers. Support for dealing with various organisational weaknesses: financial administration, management of human resources, information and communications technologies, participation in consultations, promotion of economic activities etc. N.B. Only 20% of support goes directly into primary production as such. The rest goes into services to primary production, including processing, commerce, financing, insurance, etc.

• Two services: finance and support

Agri-agencies provide advice and support and specialise in mobilising the expertise of the leaders, members and employees of farmer movements, cooperatives and women's organisations (see eg. www.agripool.org). A second service is to channel development funds into projects. We specialise in providing support where the work is being done. Projects therefore tend to become smaller as they become more local. Note that such micro-projects are still part of the general plan agreed with the relevant federation, which also provides advice and support to activities at the village and local level. For more detail on all the projects, see www.agro-info.net.


This same website carries information on the projects supported by agri-agencies. This is public money and all operations must therefore be 100% transparent. Projects are approved in accordance with the level of demand from producer organisations and cooperatives for support with the various agricultural activities.

• Results 2007-2008

During its first two years, the programme achieved its main goals in almost all work areas. A detailed report is available at www.agriterra.org/activityreport2008/ Participation of producers at all levels of the projects in the programme has been almost twice as much as expected and has already involved 2 million so far (2007- 2008), with the overall target for the whole period being 2.7 million. Women's participation was expected to be more than 30% in 2010. Yet, in 2008 41% of all participants in projects were females. Africa has accounted for almost 60% of advice and support. The programme formulated 32 plans for negotiations with governments; improved the financial administration of 26 national organisations; 153 organisations at different levels conducted a SWOT analysis; 27 analysed their environments with a view to defining their relations with third parties – seven organisations subsequently improved their relations with suppliers, 11 with storage facilities and 16 with government agencies. More than 5000 new local organisations were created; many training courses were delivered; 62 organisations developed instruments to improve the management of their farms; four new insurance organisations were created; 27 organisations improved their sustainability, productivity or income of their producers through the promotion of many different new grassroots initiatives; 11 organisations organised farmer field schools; 39 organisations formulated innovative projects in their sector; research work was carried out in cooperation with research centres on HIV/AIDS, information and communications technologies, agri-tourism; and 24 new cooperatives were created. Operations have increased in weak states such as Palestine, Afghanistan, Congo and Colombia and have begun in China and Arab countries.

During the first three years of the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme, funds were used as set out in the table below.

Farmers Fighting Poverty funds (€ millions) Total 2007 12.2 2008 24.0 2009 (plan) 34.0 Source: www.agriterra.org/activityreport2008

9 Funding application to governments

4. Funding application to governments

• Needs 2009-2015

Below we present budget projections for the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme, including the contribution requested from the different governments. The urgency is obvious from when looking at the 2010 situation.

For 2010, for a total demand of € 36 million in projects ready to approve, we secured € 11 million. We are now requesting an additional €25 million for 2010. Normally, the funds will be used partly for the advisory function (to provide expert advice to colleagues in developing countries) and partly (70%) to fund projects directly in the South. However, the lacking € 25 million for 2010 are almost entirely for projects in developing countries. They can pass through the accounts of AgriCord, an individual agri-agency or be disbursed directly to the farmers’ organizations in annex 1B.

Projections of programme needs (€ millions) Total 2009 34 2010 36 2011 45 2012 47 2013 50 2014 59 2015 68 Total 339 Source: AgriCord

• The rationale

The international community calculates that up to € 100 billion is needed for an impacting investment in agriculture in developing countries up to 2015. For direct investment in farmers’ organizations the IFAP- AgriCord programmes an investment of €339 million up to 2015.

For the short term, the G-8 leaders of state gathered in L’Alquila pledged € 15 million. The farmers’ organizations need for 2010 2‰ of the pledged amount to be able and play their role in the implementation of the development activities. In 2008, the projects involved 1,5 million persons (41% females) being farmers and farm leaders at all levels of the organizations. Their work enables other stakeholders, governments and international organizations, to work with farmers’ organisations. Shouldn’t at least a minor part of the billions pledged for agriculture in developing countries be spent on farmers’ organisations?

11

Annexes

1.A Projects 2010 – Funding through AgriCord 1.B Projects 2010 – Requested Funding 2 How to find details of a project in www.agro-info.net ? 3 Look again at how to tackle poverty – a joint statement of farm leaders on World Food Day, 2009

13

Annex 1.A Projects 2010 – Funding through AgriCord

(Projects with financing already assured via AgriCord)


15


17


19

Annex 1.B Projects 2010 – requested Funding (Projects in 2010 that still require funding)


21


23


25


27


29

31

Annex 2 How to find project details in www.agro-info.net?

The project of your organisation was introduced into Agriterra’s project management system Agro-Info.net. In this system you can view on-line the status of your organisations proposal/ project (including payments etc.). The following prints were derived from Agro-Info.net. Annex 2A: Logical framework Annex 2B: Budget

How to follow your project on www.agro-info.net Your project has been added to the online database agro-info.net. You can now view the progress and activities on this project online.

1. Go to www.agro-info.net

2. Go to the module Projects in the main menu

3. Enter your unique project number in the search field ‘text’ on the left side of the page. You can find your project number in the contract. e.g. 08aa-1234-08bb-567 1234 = unique project number 567 = unique contract number

4. Click on find

5. Your project will appear in the middle part of the screen

6. Click on the title of the project

7. Your project will appear. Here you can see in which phase the project is.

APPLICATION > the project idea has been entered in agro-info. Within a short time span we will decide on the future status of the project (either definition or rejection).

DEFINITION > the project has been approved for further elaboration. The participants of the project will be registered [Participants] and the budget is entered [Budget]. The logical framework is developed and can be found on the Participants-tab, click view next to the main executor.


EXECUTION > the project has been approved by the Project Committee of AgriCord and the implementation can start. Project contracts will be sent to your organisation.

� [Contracts] The status of payments can be followed on the tab: [Contracts] The following is an example contract:

Here you can see what the planned dates are for the payments (installments) on the contract. Once Agriterra receives a request for payment from your organisation (this can be either the signed contract, a mid-term or final report), this will be entered on agro-info as ‘request’ Once Agriterra has transferred a payment, the amount and date of the payments will be registered on agro-info. As you see below, the ‘paid’ amount can be viewed in the right column. The amount in light-grey is the amount that was planned.

� [Missions] On the missions tab you can view any missions that (will) take or took place in relation to your project. By clicking on the title, you can view the details of the mission.

RESULTS > here you can view the summaries of results per year. A narrative summary of activities and results [Reporting] as well as expenditures [Expenditures], the number of people directly reached [Outreach] and the number of work area targets the project contributes to [Project targets].

33

Annex 3 Look again at how to tackle poverty Farmer-to-farmer cooperation works. Farmer organisations from OECD countries, involved in the work of AgriCord, call upon governments for a major and increased effort to invest in farmer organisations in developing countries. Putting farmers in the driver’s seat is the best guarantee to turn agricultural development into poverty reduction. We regret to observe that farmer organisations are still neglected in terms of aid volumes, despite publicly and widely voiced commitments to increase support to agriculture and despite renewed interest in the role of farmer organisations in development. We are concerned that governments and donors miss their best chance to support poverty reduction.

• Together with us, many field practitioners, academics and donors have learned that farmer organisations can be crucial institutions to boost pro-poor development. Their organisations prove to be of vital importance in development, as they are powerful machines to disseminate new ideas, new technologies and knowledge over vast areas. These social aggregators are marketing interfaces to reach the bottom of the pyramid, all because of their layered structure. At the same time, they are the social media transmitting the voice of the poor. Rural democracy, economic growth and income distribution benefit from the determined action of organised farmers.

• Our colleague farmer organisations in developing countries confirm that the support to farmer organisations has indeed slightly increased, but we learn from them that the quality of aid and cooperation does not yet meet their expectations. Donors fail to learn from experience.

• We note the commitments of bilateral and institutional donors and of governments in developing countries to increase the aid to agriculture. It remains doubtful that these will compensate for the drop in support to agricultural development since the eighties. It is unlikely that the expected rise in external support will be sufficient for the increased number of poor in the African continent in particular. Above all, we regret that many African governments themselves are still not committed to invest in their smallholder agricultural development. We have to conclude in any case that the aid volume to farmer organisations still remains limited.

• Bilateral and multilateral aid for agriculture is channelled through governments. Farmers are rarely directly targeted. We believe that “public” should meet “private”. Agriculture is primarily a private sector activity. Agricultural entrepreneurs, including smallholders, meet in cooperatives and associations to promote their production, their marketing and their business cases. They have an important role to play in poverty reduction and agricultural development. We regret that donors do not pay more attention to other than the official, governmental channels of development cooperation.

• Why not also use this very obvious channel - the own organisations established by the rural entrepreneurs? Donors need to find genuine trust in farmer organisations and federative bodies that aggregate many cooperatives and associations that can reach the individual smallholders. We start to realise that many donors are reluctant and not equipped to operate in the more risky private sector environment in which farmer organisations move.

We insist on the following five principles for agricultural development and poverty reduction:

1. Donors should further raise their aid to agriculture, above the original level of the early eighties and in line with the poverty level of their partner countries.


2. Donors need to look again at the relative importance of aid recipients in agriculture. In the light of the challenges in agricultural development and in the light of market failures in developing countries, donor actions could become more effective by investing directly in the strengthening of farmer organisations along with their support to governments.

3. The aid flows towards farmer organisations need to be coordinated by the farmer organisations themselves, and the overall aid to and its use by farmer organisations should be transparent for all stakeholders.

4. Donors should accept that investing in agricultural development, including public-private linkages and private sector development via farmer organisations, implies risks. Donors should consequently adapt their practices of cooperation to diversify their investments through multiple channels.

5. Blue print approaches to support farmer organisations do not exist and should be replaced by tailored strategies and capacity building of the farmer organisations. Joined learning processes by farmer organisations and donors should be explicitly supported.

Signed � Albert Jan Maat, président du LTO (Pays-Bas) � Piet Vanthemsche, président du Boerenbond (Belgique) � Laurent Pellerin, président FCA Fédération Canadienne de l'Agriculture, président AgriCord (Canada) � Jean Michel Lemétayer, président FNSEA (France) � René Ladouce, président de la FWA, Fédération Wallonne d'Agriculture (Belgique) � Philippe Pinta, président d’ORAMA (France).

35

Look again at how to tackle poverty -

Discussion Promoting Aid Effectiveness from the Bottom Up › We want the donors to look again at their support for agriculture and we insist that

donors further increase their support up to levels that are higher than in the early eighties and in line with the poverty levels of the concerned countries.

› Only governments that are committed to invest in agriculture themselves should

be rewarded by important aid envelopes for agricultural development. When not, donors should explore alternative ways to invest in agriculture. The organized farming sector offers such an alternative.

We are convinced that support to agriculture remains necessary to reduce poverty. 75% of world’s poor work and live in rural areas and, according to estimate, 60% will continue to do so by 2025. Moreover, analysis and facts from the field prove that agricultural development demonstrates the most powerful multiplier effects on poverty reduction in early stages of development. At the same time, we have learned that pro-poor agricultural development cannot take place when policies and institutions are not supportive. Unfortunately, we find this still confirmed by recent trends. The upward trend of the rice price for example, has not translated in an increased rice production by small scale farmers in poorer developing countries. We appreciate the general conviction that agriculture has a crucial role to play for poverty reduction and needs support. However, we are bluntly surprised that donors and governments in developing countries continue to neglect agriculture. We applaud the recent widely voiced commitments of donors to invest in agriculture, which have been stimulated by the 2007-2008 food price crisis. However, at the same time, we have to conclude that the downward trend in aid for agriculture since the eighties with a decrease of nearly two thirds, will not be compensated and certainly not in the light of the increased number of poor and hungry in Africa in particular. We are afraid that the sense of urgency is lacking: instead of halving the number of hungry people, last year another 100 million were added to the statistics. We regret that donors’ commitment to agriculture remains generally low, but we are even more worried about the commitment by governments in developing countries to invest in agriculture, especially in Sub Saharan Africa. The Maputo declaration of African heads of states renewed in 2005, commits to invest 10% of national budget in agriculture by 2010. Out of Africa’s 53 nations, only 6 reached the 10% target, 13 spent between 5 and 10%. 15 spend less than 5%. 18 did not report any data to NEPAD secretariat. We want to address the donors and ask them: Why do you continue supporting these governments if they are not investing in agriculture for poverty reduction themselves? Diversify Aid Recipients › We strongly suggest that donors consider a more balanced distribution of aid to

agricultural development and provide direct support to farmer organisations as an additional channel next to the governmental one. Strong farmer organisations can advocate farmer interests with their governments and can by their own actions correct market failures for the benefit of pro-poor agricultural development.

After fifty years of experience, most donors remain confused about how to package, coordinate and deliver aid to accelerate agricultural and rural development. We observe that they continue to use only the governmental channel while our colleagues in developing countries inform us about the complexity of the governments’ sector support for agriculture. Despite the good intentions of some of these strategies, they


are implemented by several ministries, interfering with decentralisation and without sufficient tailoring to specific natural and vulnerability characteristics of specific areas and groups of farmers. The fact that countries with better sector strategies and better coordinated donor support for agriculture do not have higher agricultural growth rates than those lacking strategies and coordination, rather on the contrary, can demonstrate this complexity. We also all know that the pro-poor focus of some of the state’s agricultural strategies in developing countries is not guaranteed. These strategies are shaped by political considerations and we regret as many others do that the voice of farmers is not effectively taken into account. Finally, we are moving in an era where agriculture is primarily a private sector activity, which we know that governments cannot and should not want to control. The best they can do is to create an enabling environment and encourage entrepreneurship and investment and provide the required public goods. Of course, in very poor areas, where agriculture mainly functions as a safety net, balanced public subsidies for the poor can be more relevant. Fortunately the donor scene is more and more convinced that governments’ role is to facilitate, coordinate and promote farmers, businesses and civil organisations to put their energy and resources into this development. Part of this involves programming significant spending on public goods – for example rural roads and research but also includes fostering institutions that will remedy market failures and encourage collective actions wherever individual efforts are insufficient. Strong farmer organisations in developing countries can advocate and promote pro-poor investments and policies for agricultural development. They have also demonstrated that they can serve as key institutions to correct market failures whether the organisations seek vertical integration by taking on supply chain functions or whether the aim is horizontal coordination of farmers and joint negotiations to influence the provision of these essential factors. Make Aid Flows Tailored and Transparent. Learn from Experiences. › We plead for tailored support to farmer organisations according to their initial

capacity, policies, strategies and dynamics in the context. We insist that blue print approaches be avoided but that the complexity of institutional development of farmer organisations is acknowledged.

› We also advocate better coordination and more transparency of aid flows to farmer organisations.

› We are convinced that coordinated learning as a shared initiative between farmer organisations and donors can be intensified.

We applaud donor initiatives that support farmer organisations directly. Yet, we feel it necessary to address the quality aspects. The current aid to farmer organisations is scattered, generally not yet of adequate quality and weakly coordinated. Handling the scattered aid envelope and adapting to strategies of different donors, leaves farmer organisations unfortunately limited space to develop their own strategies, plans and identity. We also regret to see that donors, who support local or provincial farmer groups, do not always involve the national levels of farmer organisations. Additionally, we feel that too many donors are convinced of blue print approaches for institutional development, while clearly they do not apply. Second best institutions are in reality often the outcome. Donors also tend to have a too loose attitude towards the accountability of farmer organisations. We are afraid that these practices may undermine their development, rather than strengthen farmer organisations in developing countries.

37

Finally, as a blue print approaches cannot be applied, farmer organisations, together with donors need to experiment to a certain degree. Experimentation is positive, but we regret that the lessons learnt from these experiments are seldom captured jointly by farmer organisations and donors. Include Fragile Farmer Organisations and Accept Risk › We plead, similarly to what is stated in the Paris Declaration for fragile states, not

to leave out farmer organisations systematically referring to their variable and fragile organisational strength, but rather to find adapted ways to build gradually their capacity while preserving their identity.

› We are convinced that donors should act in a less risk averse way and should accept that poverty reduction via agriculture will go via rocky institutional paths and via private sector development. Long-term commitment is required for success.

› We want to see increased investments in public-private linkages, with the initiative coming from farmer organisations.

We regret to observe that even where donors consider the role of farmer organisations and direct investments in farmer organisations relevant, that still some factors keep them from effectively investing in these farmer organisations. Firstly farmer organisations are considered as fragile, lacking sometimes capacity to absorb support, with incipient financial accountability and not yet strong enough to function as market institutions or to influence policy. Donors need to find genuine trust in farmer organisations and adapt their support to the capacity of the organisations, rather than turning away. In a similar vein, the reality forces us to conclude that after years of development cooperation, donors are still very risk averse and reluctant to invest in agricultural private sector development and in farmer organisations as market institutions. The success of the investments is partly dependent on private sector development in agriculture, which sector is exposed to volatile climate and markets. We consider it wrong for donors to ‘put all their eggs in one basket’ and to centre all aid in public channels, especially in this private enterprise driven sector.

(c) AgriCord, October 2009


Sources

Cabral L . and I . Scoones, Donor Policy Narratives: What Role for Agriculture, 2008, the Future Agricultures Consortium, Briefing.

DFID, Growth and Poverty Reduction, the Role of Agriculture, 2005, DFID, UK.

DGIS, Agriculture, rural economic development and food security, 2008, SED Department, The Hague, NL.

Kariuki N. E. , Harnessing Farmers Efforts to Food Security in Africa, 2009, IFAP Regional Committee Meeting, Nairobi, April 2009.

NEPAD, CAADP Annual Report 2008, 2009, South Africa.

OECD, Paris Declaration, 2005 and Accra Agenda for Action, 2008.

OECD and FAO, Agricultural Outlook 2009, 2009, OECD.

Pellerin L., Building a Stronger International Alliance for Strengthening Producer Organisations in Developing Countries, 2009, AgriCord Annual Report, AgriCord.

Rodrik, D., Second-best Institutions, 2008, NBER working Paper no 14050, Harvard University.

Tollens, E., Reinvesting in Agriculture, Current Challenges, 2009, K.U.Leuven, Belgium

Vashee A., Food Price Volatility – How to Help Smallholder Farmers Manage Risk and Uncertainty, 2009, IFAD Governing Council 18 February, Rome.

Wiggins S. and F. Shenggen, The Future of Smallholder Agriculture, Platform Policy Brief, 2008, Global Donor Platform for Rural Development, ODI and IFPRI.

Wilkinson, J., Producer Organisations and the Food Crisis, Capacity.Org, Issue 34, August 2008.

Worldbank, World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development, 2008, Washington DC.

Documents

12.1.09.51968.Why is 2% of the billions pledged · le réseau des agri-agences the alliance of agri-agencies la alianza de agri-agencias ... aggregators are marketing interfaces to