Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Empowering Smallholder Farmers in Markets
Giel Ton
AGRINATURA – LEI Wageningen UR
ESFIM Research Coordinator
27 September 2011
PAEPARD-CSA - Brussels
ESFIM History
• Start-up of IFAP-AGRINATURA partnership: 2006 • Inception Phase: 2007 • Comparative Research (10% of budget)
– From January 2009 to December 2011 o Risk insurance, financial innovations, incentive structures in
collective marketing, market information systems
• Collaborative Research (90% of budget) – Phase I from December 2008 to July 2009
o Country workshops for country-specific research priorities
– Phase II from July 2009 to June 2012 o Most budget for workshops and local research was delayed till
October 2010
Collaborative Research in eleven countries
ESFIM Collaborative Research
• Goal: establishing a research-advocacy interface with national farmer organisations (NFOs) – Research priorities in ESFIM Country Plans
– Embedding each research in on-going advocacy efforts of NFOs
– Focusing research assignments to get useful outputs
– Backstopping local research capacity for quality
– Seeking synergy with other similar global research projects
– ‘Bridging’ and linking NFOs to new research partners in their country
Collaborative Highlights
ESFIM – the Philippines • Baseline survey to provide benchmark
information and indicators on how the system reaches poor farmers and to generate ideas for improving its empowerment capacities.
• Training tools for enhancing farmers’ and small scale rural traders’ capacities in benefiting from the ACES.
Collaborative Highlights
• ESFIM – Kenya – Input Voucher Programme
– Contract farming
– WRS
Collaborative Highlights
• ESFIM – Peru – Government procurement
• Re-open a preferential market
– Advocacy: • A pro-active market oriented
lobby agenda of CONVEAGRO
TEMAS COMUNES A LOS GREMIOS
ACTIVIDADES
Compras Estatales
Articulación de Gremios con Programas Sociales estatales. Impulso de ferias y mercados regionales agrarios.
Promoción de la Agricultura Familiar
Desarrollo Rural Seguridad y soberanía Alimentaria
Fondos y Financiamiento
Creación de fondos intangibles en Agroperú. Desembolso inmediato de créditos de Agrobanco
Competitividad e Innovación
Constitución de CITE Papa, Alpaca, Café, Arroz, entre otras.
Estándares de calidad de productos agropecuarios
Reglamento de producción y comercialización de alimentos (caso leche) INDECOPI, DIGESA
Sanidad agropecuaria Roles del SENASA.
Agricultura Orgánica Actualización Reglamento Técnico de Agricultura Orgánica Modificación de la Ley 29196 (promoción orgánica)
Collaborative Highlights
• ESFIM – Uganda • National Agricultural Advisory Services
“The NAADS That Farmers Want”
workshopsfact-
finding
policiesintitutional
arrangements
external research support
internal research staff
centralized policy
development
broad consultations
workshopsfact-
finding
policiesintitutional
arrangements
external research support
internal research staff
centralized policy
development
broad consultations
Some challenges
• Workshops versus fact-finding: the mix varies per NFO but in most countries it tends too much towards workshops mainly
– budget constraints
– legitimacy needs
• Preference for ‘internal’ staff as consultants instead of contracting established researchers
– Causing delays in reporting deadlines (many other tasks)
– ‘Loose’ interpretation of ‘strict’ Terms of Reference
– Poor quality of writing-up
Lessons learnt for PAEPARD
• Context
– Research community is more interested in methods than in the findings of research
– Farmers organisations might be interested in findings, when linked to their short-term (advocacy) interests
– Farmer organisations have problems in paying their own staff and therefore without capacity and priority to use budget for external researchers
Need for incentives to support the ‘willing’ and enlarge their room of manoeuvre: for both NFOs and researchers
Finance researchers separately (high staff rates) and communicate their available time-input (not budgets)
Competitive research grants, available for FOs only
Not a ‘right’ to be funded
Only for FOs with proven capacity to manage similar projects
Fund co-managed by NFO and ‘friends’ from research and/or donor community
Shared vision
Require submission of quality proposals
Seed money to NFO to facilitate this, incl. workshops
Transparent conditioning, e.g. including an advocacy strategy on the issue or a complete business plan
Clearly define the ToRs and expected research outputs (briefs, reports, etc.)
Define a process of peer-review
Ways out
Thanks!
www.esfim.org
donors: IFAD, AGRITERRA, Dutch Government (EL&I), CTA,
AGRINATURA
http://www.esfim.org/
Comparative Highlights • Incentive Structures
– Bolivia, Peru, Ghana, Uganda, Uruguay
Context:
• Problem that occured
• Time /place when it occured
• Involved stakeholders
Organisational-behavioural mechanisms:
• Different options to solve the problem
• Internal decision making process
• External influence
Results at the time:
• Solution or arrangement reached: what did they decide/do and
how was it expected to be effective
• What was the way to formalize and communicate it to the
membership
Evaluation afterwards:
• How did it work out in practice
• What effects did it have: organisational, economic, social
• Do they recommend the solution to other organisations, and if
not, what alternative solution would they suggest
Question 1 Question 2
INHERENT TENSIONS IN COLLECTIVE MARKETING THAT NEED ORGANISATIONAL MECHANISMS TO RESOLVE THEM
This tension is present in the activities we realize
Hardly present
Never present
We have managed to resolve it with organisational agreements / internal regulations
We are looking for ways to resolve it
We don’t need to resolve it
1- “Regulating member supply” Members sometimes protest that the organisation does not buy all their produce?
2- “Quality assurance systems” Are there members that try to deliver lower quality products than is required?
3- “Reduce the need for working capital”
Members demand cash payment instead of waiting until the organisations has sold the product?
4- “Prevention of disloyal behaviour” Are there members that sell part of their produce to other buyers though they promised to sell to the organisation?
5- “Ways to differentiate between members and non-members”
Do members accept that the organisations does not distribute all the its profits?
6- “Differ benefits and services to members and non-members”
Is there preferential treatment (e.g. price) when buying from members compared with non-members?
7- “Decide on investments and activities that do not benefit all”
Did the organisation projects or investments that are only to the benefit of a sub-group of members of the group?
8- “Delegating and supervising marketing tasks”
Do members accept that others in the organisation take decisions on prices of products sold without prior consult to the assembly?
9- “Legal responsibility in contracts and loans”
Do members take responsibility for eventual fines and sanctions related with sale contracts or loans that the board negotiates?
10- “Manage political aspirations” Do members accept that board members or team staff take party political responsibilities?
Comparative Highlights
• Risk Insurance – Linked to EU-FSTP
research programme on “Risk Management”
– Partnership with Regional Farmers Organisations in Africa
Total duration of the action
Objectives of the action
Overall objective(s): To improve household food security and livelihoods of the rural poor in Africa through better access to farm risk management tools.
Specific objective: Enhance access to and use of effective farm risk management tools by smallholder farmers and other players in agricultural value chains in Africa.
Partner(s) AGRINATURA-EEIG
International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP)
Target group(s) National farmers’ organisations: MVIWATA (Tanzania), Zambia National Farmers Union (ZNFU) of Zambia, and Conféderation Paysanne du Faso (Burkina Faso).
African Regional farmers’ organisations: Reseaux des Organisations Paysannes et Professionalles Agricoles (ROPPA), East African Farmers’ Federation (EAFF), Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions (SACAU), and Plateforme sous-régionale des organisations paysannes d’Afrique Centrale (PROPAC).
Final beneficiaries Smallholder farmers, larger-scale farmers, traders in agricultural inputs and outputs, banks, insurance companies.
Comparative Challenges
• Low budget for each assignment: – Difficult to structurally involve expert researchers in AGRINATURA
– Regional / local research budget not released by IFAP and not available anymore
• Insufficiently farmer-managed – Organisational problems limited effective governance by IFAP thematic policy
groups
– IFAP bankrupted in October 2009
► ESFIM Phase 3 proposal: – Link-up with thematic regional study tours and thematic conferences