Farming Matters | 29.2 | June 2013

The United Nations declared 2014 as the International Year of Family Farming. This is a very important recognition of the multiple social, economic, environmental and cultural functions of family farming. For example, family farmers produce more than 50% of the world’s food, and are important guardians of biodiversity. Creating the conditions for family farming to thrive is essential for a sustainable future.

The threats to family farming are multidimensional. Climate change, land grabbing, land degradation, the aggressive promotion of industrial farming and dependence on large agribusiness chains are some of the most pressing challenges. Many family farmers have proven to be innovative and resilient under the right socio-political framework and conditions – especially when supported by public and institutional policies.

Family farmers can exert a large degree of autonomy through the use of agro-ecological practices and the creation of markets that are based on more direct relationships with consumers. They pool their labour and resources, and increase their yields. They organise themselves and make their voices heard. They build their own educational spaces where they learn from each other and teach others. Women play a key role in these strategies, which are often carried out in close collaboration with local decision makers, researchers, and consumer platforms.

For the December 2013 issue, Farming Matters is looking for the most groundbreaking experiences and visionary ideas on how to strengthen family farming. What are family farmers and their organisations doing to advocate for and enhance their rights and livelihoods? How are governments incorporating agro-ecology into their public policies? What other support mechanisms are needed to valorise and promote sustainable family farming? How can agro-ecological family farming become an attractive proposition for future generations? What can we learn from existing and emerging practices?

Please send us your contributions. Articles for the December issue of Farming Matters should be sent to the editor, Jorge Chavez-Tafur, before October 1st, 2013. E-mail: j.chavez-tafur@ileia.org
Related content

• Guide for authors

The post Call for articles: Strengthening family farming appeared first on Ileia.

The main staple crop in this region is rice, but farmers prefer not to grow it themselves as the potential for irrigation is limited. Instead they grow a variety of crops such as maize, finger millets, potato, sweet-potato, colocasia and ginger, which provide them with a much higher overall output. However, while they have high yields, they face the problem of finding a market for their crops.

The middleman who comes to Dhaubadi to buy their crops offers a very low price. So farmers, such as Gajbir Baraghare, are actively developing an alternative: exchanging their crops for rice produced in other areas in the Terai, the high-yielding lowland plains at the foothills of the Himalayas. This approach is proving to be effective: farmers in the Terai are pleased to exchange their rice for crops that they don’t grow themselves, and are happy to have organic potatoes and other crops delivered to their doors, and “paying” for them with rice.

In February 2013 Mr Baraghare went to Kawasoti with a pick-up truck full of potatoes and ginger. He exchanged all the potatoes for rice and sold the ginger in the local market town, thus also generating the money he needed to meet his family’s essential needs.

Text and photo: Sandesh Timilsina
IAAS, Rampur, Nepal

The post Farmers in Focus: An efficient system appeared first on Ileia.

Globalisation has had far-reaching consequences for these relations, with products travelling long distances and with many new stakeholders getting involved. It has deeply influenced the way we produce and what we eat. At the same time, domestic markets in developing countries are changing drastically due to rapid urbanisation, the emerging retail sector, and vastly improved communication facilities.

Arguing that producers benefit from these changes, the idea of using value chains to connect small-scale farmers to global markets has become hugely popular. Yet, as a recent study by IIED and Hivos shows, an apparent consensus about the benefits of “inclusive businesses” has been reached without a strong body of evidence about the number of smallholders that might be involved, or the impact this will have on reducing poverty and food security.

This issue of Farming Matters presents a small sample of the many experiences in (re)creating and (re)vitalising local markets. These experiences generate substantial employment, and also build local food security and food sovereignty. Yet, they are often overlooked by policymakers and mainstream development experts who view them as “niche” initiatives, supposedly irrelevant for larger development processes. There is work for researchers here: by analysing, aggregating and systematising this variety of experiences and quantifying their impact, they would help policymakers to see the real strengths and weaknesses of localisation.

These new ways of connecting farmers and consumers are neither about (inclusive) global value chains, or traditional local markets. They are about a new business model which is local in focus but global as a phenomenon. Producers, middlemen and consumers build new arrangements through farmers’ markets, vegetable boxes, meat contracts, or by cleverly using the available ICTs to benefit local producers and local consumers. Many of these are small initiatives, but they have a snowball effect. Supporting such initiatives may be one of the best ways to invest in the future of family farming and in the future of the planet.

Edith van Walsum
director ILEIA

The post Editorial: New markets, new values appeared first on Ileia.

By efficiently articulating new developments in information technology, infrastructures and facilities for the long distance transportation of goods, and by exploiting changes in the institutional frameworks that regulate the domestic and international markets, transnational corporations have come to exert an unprecedented level of control on the configuration of agri-food systems – or on the flows that link the production, processing, distribution and consumption of food.

Philip McMichael refers to this as the corporate food regime, and points out that this has further promoted and intensified the scientific and technological paradigm of the Green Revolution, with the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the rapid and uncontrolled expansion of monocultures and the subsequent standardisation of agricultural landscapes.

An equally massive standardisation process has been experienced on the consumer’s side. The political and economic power accumulated by major players in food retailing has led to the imposition of industrialised junk food, the homogenisation of diets and, by the same token, the destruction of local markets through which family farmers have traditionally sold their produce.

The growing homogenisation of production and consumption practices is both a cause and a consequence of the emergence of what Jan Douwe van der Ploeg calls the “food empires”, the governance mechanisms for food and agriculture at a global scale. Truly international, their power increasingly extends to the economic and political arenas, and they now capture an ever larger share of the value added along the food chain.

Local alternatives for global challenges

The global dissemination of “nowhere food” (or food whose origins can hardly be traced) is not the only visible trend. In parallel, and developing as a form of resistance to this dominant trend and its negative effects, creative strategies to relocalise and recontextualise agri-food systems are emerging all around the world. In this sense, markets are the arena where power struggles are taking place between the contrasting and coexisting structures and mechanisms that shape the production and consumption of food.

On the one hand, there is the political and ideological influence of agri-businesses on national states and multilateral organisations. On the other hand, there are emerging social processes that seek to rebuild, revitalise and diversify market circuits that promote a more equitable distribution of the wealth generated through agriculture, and to simultaneously alter the metabolism of agri-food systems so that the flows of matter and energy are more sustainable. Whether in Brazil (p. 10) or the Netherlands (p. 18), these examples are becoming more widespread and visible, with producers, consumers and their organisations playing an important role.

In this sense, the development of local markets (or short chains) should be understood as an active social process that aims to increase people’s autonomy and independence from the “very visible hands” of multinational agri-food businesses on the global market. The political dimension of this emerging process construct is increasingly expressed by the concept of “food sovereignty”, a concept that is rooted in the understanding that the access to food of one’s choice is a basic human right.

Beyond monetary value

Achieving increasing levels of governance over markets is one of the main tenets of the movements, organisations and individuals who promote agro-ecology around the world. Without a doubt, the ability to scale up agro-ecological experiences, both socially and geographically, directly depends on the construction and defence of viable marketing channels that link production and consumption together, and establish stable and transparent relationships between these two economic spheres.

The advancement of an agro-ecological perspective for rural development does not follow conventional economic logic, defined in terms of competitiveness and vertical social relationships, but crucially depends on regulated markets that stimulate horizontal relations and co-operation among social actors. In this sense, these markets are reproduced and (re)structured around social values that go beyond the monetary dimension.

This edition of Farming Matters presents some of the meaningful experiences that are taking place in different countries and in so doing furthers the debate around markets and rural development. What strategies are farmers and their organisations implementing as alternatives to the dominance of large agribusiness corporations? How do farmers articulate strategies that enable them to become more resilient in the face of the uncertainties and threats arising from the volatility of agricultural prices, food crises and global climate change? How do local markets and shortcuts to commercialisation and marketing contribute to generating more sustainable livelihoods for family farmers? How are family farmers’ innovations in organisational models shaping new economies? How can farmers strengthen autonomy within markets? And what is the role of states in interacting with these emerging issues?

Paulo Petersen

Based in Rio de Janeiro, Paulo Petersen works as Executive Director of AS-PTA. He is vice-president of the Brazilian Agro-ecology Association, and is also the editor of Agriculturas, our sister publication in Brazil.
E-mail: paulo@aspta.org.br

References
McMichael, P., 2009. A food regime genealogy. Journal of Peasant Studies, no 36(1).

Van der Ploeg, J.D., 2008. The new peasantries: Struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an era of empire and globalization. London, Earthscan.

The post Theme overview – Building markets: A challenge for family farming appeared first on Ileia.

As part of the democratisation process in Brazil at the end of the 1980s, many protests and movements were organised around the problems that existed in the rural areas, promoting the rights of small-scale farmers and seeking alternatives to the mainstream production model.

In the Zona da Mata, many of these efforts were driven by the farmers themselves, founding various farmers’ unions (“Sindicatos de Trabalhadores Rurais”) and other rural organisations.

They worked together with a group of students and lecturers from the Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV), and also with technicians and extension agents sensitive to the environmental and social degradation in the region, to create an NGO to promote an alternative ecological approach. This was named CTA-ZM, or the Centre for Alternative Technologies in Zona da Mata.

Twenty-five years later, a visitor to the region can see many positive results, ranging from the ecological management of soils to the emergence of a strong organisation of women farmers. Throughout this period, the region has seen a drastic change in agricultural production and the way that farmers reach consumers with their products, which now include not only coffee but also dairy products, honey, vegetables, fruits, grains, amongst others.

A study conducted by CTA in 2009 identified several marketing possibilities in Zona da Mata, including street markets, farmers’ associations and co-operative sales points, door-to-door selling and the interest of different government agencies for locally-sourced products.

However, the commercialisation of agro-ecological products remained, and still remains, a great challenge. A lot of products are seasonal, and increasing the total output is difficult, as most farmers grow many different products simultaneously and experience limitations in terms of land and labour.

The existence of sanitary regulations which do not match the reality that family farmers face is also a big obstacle. The study mentioned that many of the difficulties faced by farmers could be reduced through an educational process based on the exchange of experiences and knowledge, developing farmers’ capacities to enhance already existing initiatives and raising their awareness of the mechanisms for achieving certain required market standards. The recommended strategies also included enhancing the value of products through, for example, the use of specific labels and logos and better packaging.

Rede Raízes da Mata

After many small-scale attempts, the accumulated lessons learned led to the foundation of Rede Raízes da Mata (or the “Forest Roots Network”) in 2011 in a joint effort between producers, consumers, the university and CTA. The main goal of the network is to improve the commercialisation of local agro-ecological produce by establishing stronger links between producers and consumers.

During the past two years it has worked on a co-operative basis, with farmers playing an active role in deciding what products will be provided, and determining the quantities and prices for each product. Consumers help to run the network as volunteers and active supporters, gaining both access to healthy, local and diverse food, and the opportunity to share their comments and suggestions.

Work is organised on a weekly basis and facilitated by a team of students from the university. A spreadsheet is made after consulting the farmers about the availability of products: every Monday, a new spreadsheet with the week’s offers is sent to all registered customers. They have until Wednesday to return their order by e-mail. All the producers are contacted every Wednesday with the order for their produce, specifying the amount to be delivered.

Friday is the delivery day, when the producers bring their products before 3 p.m. to the network’s office, which is located inside the university campus (in a space where workshops, debates and several other activities also take place). Here all the produce is put together as individual packages for the customers by 6:30 p.m., when the office is open for people to collect their orders.

There are over three hundred consumers registered in the network today, most of whom pick up a personal package every week. The list from which they can choose currently contains more than two hundred products, including fruits and vegetables as well as fresh teas, coffee, beans, corn flour, artisanal breads and even natural cosmetics. This diverse range of products changes seasonally. The supply of products comes from seven individual farmers and nine different groups of family farmers in the region, including associations, co-operatives and production groups.

One of many efforts

While family farmers are working to improve access to markets, they are also benefitting from an increasing demand from an urban population interested in consuming healthier, good quality, food that is not contaminated by pesticides and is free from GMOs. The Forest Roots Network is a small initiative that is very modest in terms of coverage when compared to most agribusinesses, but it is not the only one. Members of the network see themselves as a “complementary tool”.

As Edilei Cirilo da Silva, a farmer and member, says, “the network is an alternative that is helping to overcome the difficulty that farmers have in accessing the market. Of course, it’s not the only solution, but this kind of initiative can reach large numbers and play an important role encouraging and supporting farmers to produce food for the market, and also to feed themselves! The role of the network is also to strengthen the dialogue within society about the problems caused by modern agriculture. We need to work together with others and reach a wide variety of audiences, including workers, employees and civil servants, in order to break the myth that our products, because they are organic, are much more expensive than conventional ones.”

Such efforts are benefitting from innovative governmental policies. A good example is the PAA programme, established in 2003 by the national government to promote food security and strengthen family farming through the acquisition and distribution of food products. Family farmers can sell their products directly to the government for a fair price without going through a difficult and bureaucratic process. Some of the products are donated to public organisations such as popular restaurants, or to food banks from where they are distributed to vulnerable social groups. The other part is acquired by family farmers’ organisations in other regions.

Another interesting measure was taken in 2009, with changes made to the implementation of the National Programme for School Nutrition. This has been running since 1955, supporting students enrolled in the public basic educational system. The law passed in 2009 stipulated that at least 30% of the programme’s resources (990 million reais, or 370 million euros, in 2012) must be used for purchasing products from family farmers.

A win-win model

The Forest Roots Network serves as a bridge between local production and consumption, and strengthens the links between farmers and consumers. Through the network, farmers are able to sell small quantities of many different products for a fair price. This turns their production on small plots of land into a viable and profitable enterprise, resulting in higher biodiversity levels.

Although small, the Forest Roots Network represents a significant movement towards reorganising the agri-food systems, helping to reshape social relations and creating new market structures. The initiative contributes to raising consumer awareness about agro-ecology and local food, and has already inspired the creation of new consumer networks in two other municipalities in the region.

Nina Abigail Caligiorne Cruz, Fabricio Vassalli Zanelli, Heitor Mancini Teixeira and Irene Maria Cardoso

Nina Abigail Caligiorne Cruz, Fabricio Vassalli Zanelli and Heitor Mancini Teixeira are students and graduates of the Universidade Federal de Viçosa. Irene Maria Cardoso works as lecturer at the same university.
E-mail: heitorteixeira_5@hotmail.com

References

Cardoso, I. M. and E. A. Ferrari, 2006. Construindo o conhecimento agroecológico: trajetória de interação entre ONG, universidade e organizações de agricultores. Revista Agriculturas, v. 3-4.

Grisa, C.; C.J. Schmitt, L. Mattei, R. Maluf and S. Leite, 2011. Contribuições do Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos à segurança alimentar e nutricional e à criação de mercados para a agricultura familiar. Revista Agriculturas, v. 8-3.

The post Rede Raízes da Mata: Strengthening links between producers and consumers appeared first on Ileia.

KRC carries out market studies and shares the results with farmers. As part of its efforts, it brings the farmers and traders who are involved in a particular value chain together, especially those working with coffee, banana, maize and cocoa, and analyses the results and possibilities.

“I learnt a lot about ‘economic agency’ from the Hivos/ IIED Knowledge Network: the level of power that people have because they understand their position in the value chain and are able to make informed choices and decisions about which kind of markets to access. If you only focus on the classical value chains, you may fail to understand the other dynamics that small producers in rural Uganda need to deal with.”

Does the value chain approach work?

I find that this is a good approach, because it looks at the different segments of the chain, helps us connect them and improve efficiency. But pro-poor value chains are not always well developed. If I make a value chain analysis, I need to be very critical: does the smallholder farmer really benefit from being part of it? You often find that other stakeholders, like traders, input dealers, processors or retailers, are well organised.
In reality, the majority of smallholder farmers are not well organised: only about 10 or 20 percent of the farmers around the world jointly market their products. And then we need to contextualise the sophisticated value chains that are the focus of international debates. Do farmers really need to supply supermarkets?
In many countries in Africa the majority of consumers are not supermarket-goers. They buy from informal markets. As development actors and promoters of the value chain approach we don’t always take the time to understand the realities of the smallholder farmers, and to understand the different ways in which they are trying to connect to different markets on their own, within their own means, using their own knowledge

“Does the farmer really benefit from being part of a value chain?”
How do farmers do this?

For example here, in Kabarole, banana farmers from Kasenda market their products in an informal way. Using mobile phones, they contact relatives in different towns, such as Fort Portal and Kampala, to find out the selling price in different regions. This information is then disseminated through their own networks.
When traders come to their village, they already know the prices and have the capacity to negotiate. The farmers cut the bananas on the agreed date and the traders come to collect them. The cycle ends there. There are no rules, it is an informal way of doing things.
Development workers often think that these farmers will be cheated. But when we did an in-depth analysis of these arrangements, we found that there are very high levels of trust. Their group ties are very strong, even without a formal organisation. Using their kinship ties to connect to the market, they are able to beat the formal arrangements that are there. These are pertinent issues that development workers need to think through.

Is there any way to support these farmers?

At KRC we focus on the power of information. For the banana farmers in Kabarole, we have been able to build on their existing internal arrangements. We do market analyses with our partners at a national level and have a toll-free line whereby farmers can call for information. Farmers then make the decision to sell in a specific place on the basis of information that is well researched, in addition to what they find out through their own network.
The liberalisation of trade has encouraged traders to go as far as the farmers’ gardens, which makes it even more important that farmers have the right information.

With more than 10 million Ugandan citizens using mobile phones, over 5 million browsing the internet daily and millions tuning into more than 200 FM radio stations broadcasting in local languages, should we only focus on the co-operatives that used to connect farmers and small businesses to markets in the 1970s and 1980s?

In Kenya, a study reported that 42% of the milk is sold directly from farmers to consumers and usually delivered to their doorsteps. Another 17% is sold to mobile traders on bicycles, and 15% to small shops, kiosks or milk bars that are mostly unlicensed. In comparison, registered dairy co-operatives purchase just 24% of all dairy farmers’ milk.

Similarly, only 2% of the milk produced in Ethiopia reaches the market through the formal dairy chain. The debate therefore needs to shift to understanding how the majority of small-scale farmers are making markets work for them. We need to strengthen these “alternative” ways if we are to support the majority of small-scale farmers.

Without organisations?

Working together with farmers in order to understand the different market dynamics and then making a betterdecision. Photos: KRC
Working together with farmers in order to understand the different market dynamics and then making a better
decision. Photos: KRC

For me it makes little sense to keep stressing the importance of formal arrangements. I’m not saying that we should do away with them, but attention also needs to be given to the informal arrangements that exist alongside them. Only a small percentage of farmers belong to these organisations, despite their benefits.

Most development policies and programmes focus on farmers as part of formal organisations, so these support mechanisms exclude the majority. The problem is that the majority of non-organised farmers are not willing, for one reason or the other, to go into these formal arrangements.

They have examined for themselves the opportunities and constraints of joining a group and have also analysed their own situation at home. They choose to do their business in their own way, based on their own analysis of the situation and the resources that they have available. In general, the political will needs to be there to protect smallholders in markets and support what farmers are already doing.

Do you only focus on local markets?

We work together with farmers in order to understand the different market dynamics at a local, national and an East African level, and then the farmers use their own analysis to make their own choices. Their interest in working at these different levels depends on their capacities and the degree to which they are organised.

Usually, it is only after they understand the dynamics of the local and national markets that they get interested and willing to move towards international value chains. It is also clear that many farmers choose to stay at a local level.

Why do farmers prefer to sell at local markets?

In certain periods local markets give farmers better options. One of the benefits is that they can get quick cash. Many financial responsibilities, such as household needs or paying school fees, cannot wait. For smallholder farmers to sell large quantities, they often have to bulk their produce with other farmers, sometimes for a minimum period of one month, which delays payment.

A coffee farmer revealed to us that, in the three years that he has been a member of his village producers group, he has never sold through this group. He needs to pay his children’s school fees, and the group has to wait to sell, especially if it aims at international markets. So he sells to traders who will give him cash.

Also, the type of product farmers grow determines the market they focus on. For instance, bananas are very perishable and require a quick sale the moment they are ripe, or you lose your product. With no refrigeration or little infrastructure, perishable products cannot be preserved for long. We need to see how much would farmers gain, but also how much they can lose when bringing their banana from their garden to the market, also including the costs of transport. We advise the farmers on these costs and benefits, enabling them to make the best decision for them.

Does it help to focus on regional markets?

In East Africa in general, as in many other places, there is a growing demand for food products. Neighbouring countries buy a lot of foodstuffs from Uganda. When farmers sell to traders from Kenya or from South Sudan they receive a higher price, especially when compared to what the Ugandan middlemen pay.

And in addition to higher prices, these markets give farmers a guarantee. But the biggest problem is the capacity and limited resources of smallholders to access these international markets, even at a regional level. International value chains are long and complex, so we try to reduce the number of middle traders and let farmers sell directly. Our objective is that they are able to join the international markets directly.

Can a certification process contribute?

A certification process can certainly play a role. But the most important thing is that certification standards need to be contextualised. I think that the standards set for the European market cannot be the same standards that the East African farmers should follow. There are already East African organic standards, which makes the certification process a bit easier for smallholders.
Nonetheless, only a very small percentage of farmers in my country can be certified. These farmers know that they can add value to their product, but they are limited by their immediate financial constraints. I think that the agricultural financing mechanisms need to be strengthened first.

A certification process can then help and encourage farmers to produce in a certain way, for example, organically. But then again, we have to consider that the majority of Ugandan smallholders are already producing naturally, even though they are not certified. They are not adding anything artificial to their soils or crops. Their use of mulching comes from their desire to maintain the soil, not because there is a need to produce for a certified market.

Are farmers encouraged in other ways?

Looking at the market before one looks at the production process is a very important contribution of the value chain approach, but this perspective should not be limited to the international arena. For instance, the majority of smallholder farmers in my country produce without really knowing what the market wants. They just push their produce into the local market when it is ready. When we understand what the market wants, we can help develop farmers’ capacities to meet these specific demands. When they produce for a particular market, they must meet particular quality standards. With the right information, they decide on their own if they want to produce for this market.

If the local context is so important, why join an international knowledge network?

Being part of it has widened my knowledge on how small producers try to deal with markets in different contexts. I have seen how Bolivian farmers use their kinship ties for marketing meat and other products, realising that this is happening in my own country as well with different products. I was impressed by the strength of small producers’ organisations in Latin America, seeing that they have been able to change national policies. These are all important lessons which have helped me understand our situation better.
Before, I was fixated on uniting small producers in organisations, considering this as the only way for farmers to access better markets. But the cases we studied with all other members of the Knowledge Network helped me get a clearer picture. As I said, I realised that we were leaving out a large majority of farmers because they do not belong to an organisation. This is something that we are internally reflecting on in my organisation. While the value chain approach has its advantages, it is important to be critical, and look at the constraints that are there, and the opportunities. One of our main conclusions is that, by stimulating and strengthening farmers’ “economic agency”, they are empowered to make an even better decision.

For more information, visit the KRC website (www.krcuganda.org) or write to Medius Bihunirwa directly.

E- mail: bmedius@krcug.org ; bmedius20@gmail.com

Interview: Laura Eggens

The post “We need to support what farmers are already doing” appeared first on Ileia.

Most family farmers produce both for their own consumption and for local and regional markets. However, in today’s globalised world it is often hard for small-scale producers to access such markets on equitable terms.
Many development organisations are involved in looking for ways to increase agricultural production and improve the food security of small-scale farmers. But, to what extent do these agencies and political leaders take into account the need to create conditions under which small-scale producers receive a fair share of the benefits of this increase? How can they help strengthen the capacity of small-scale producers to access local markets and to sell their products and make a profit? It is becoming increasingly important to explore the opportunities for farmers to increase their productivity and generate an income while also still feeding their families.

The eastern region of my country, Burkina Faso, suffers from recurrent food insecurity, and poverty levels are among the highest in the country. Yet, this region has a significant economic potential. Population growth and the expansion of the urban areas mean an increase in demand for food. Furthermore, people in urban areas are adopting eating habits that provide exciting new market opportunities for producers and processors.

Farmers are starting to develop networking strategies to create better market conditions for their products, and sell them at profitable prices. One example is the women farmers’ group in the town of Gayéri. Realising that to improve their livelihoods they needed to win a share of the newly emerging but highly competitive markets, they established a communication network to share information about the availability and prices of products in different parts of the country. Through cell phones, they communicate with women’s groups in other parts of the country.

This initiative has reduced the influence of middlemen, who often have more resources and negotiation capacity than the producers. The women report that this innovative networking system allows them to sell their products at reasonable prices, which was not previously the case.

The agility and strategic insight of these women are striking. But at the same time, organisations and networks of small-scale farmers still face significant challenges. It is important that development agencies engage in advocacy to ensure that the concerns of such farmers are taken into account in national policies.

Local, national and regional markets need to be properly regulated, and the related value chains must be well managed if producers are to receive better prices for their products and ensure the well-being of their families. If we are seeking to encourage production and achieve food security, this is where the emphasis must lie.

Fatou Batta

The post Opinion: Getting a fair share appeared first on Ileia.

Only 60 years ago, the agricultural landscape in the Netherlands was quite similar to what exists today in many countries: large numbers of small family farms that combine various crops with different species of livestock for milk, meat, manure, traction or transport, and also serving as cultural manifestations.

Marketing was done directly at the farm gate or through small shops. But today, over 90% of the Dutch citizens go to the supermarket for their basic needs in terms of food. What happened in the meantime?

Since the 1960s Dutch agriculture has gone through a complete metamorphosis. After suffering a severe lack of food during the Second World War (1940-1945), agricultural policies in Europe were designed to prevent any possibility of a similar situation happening in the future. Major government support was used to protect internal markets, providing easy access to credit and subsidies for the use of chemical inputs.

The aim was to maximise food production: obtaining the highest possible yields per hectare or litres of milk per cow per year. The implementation of these policies led to a period of phenomenal growth: in nearly 50 years, the milk production of an average dairy farm increased 14-fold: from 37,000 litres per year in 1960 to more than 500,000 litres in 2007.

In the process, farms have become bigger, specialised in either crops or livestock, with high levels of mechanisation, and the country is famous for its yields, exports and “efficiency”. Together with this, the social effects have been equally phenomenal: employment in the agricultural sector has seen an 18-fold reduction: only one person was needed in 2007 to produce the same amount of milk that had required 18 people in 1960. Moreover, over 90% of the farms have had to close down – a process that is still going on today. This process not only influenced farming and rural development, but also implied a change from local marketing to the dominance of the few major retailers and supermarkets that we have today.

Scandals and blurred chains

But another tendency is gradually gaining ground. Since the turn of the century, a growing number of Dutch citizens – the vast majority of them living in urban areas – wants closer links with those who produce their food. Parents want to show their children that milk comes from a cow and not from a supermarket container.

Buying “anonymous food” in the supermarkets is no longer the only option and direct linkages between farmers and consumers are growing, in both numbers and in forms. Today, an urban citizen can, for example, choose to “adopt a cow”, enjoy a camping site on a farm, or engage in one of the numerous other activities that provide an extra income for farmers.

During the past few years, different factors have fed consumer interest in knowing about the source or the origins of their food. These include a growing movement against so-called “mega-stables” – the large-scale industrial animal production units that increasingly dominate the Dutch countryside. This has received extensive media coverage, focusing especially on the animals’ wellbeing and also on environmental issues. More recently, the growing threat of multi-resistant microbes, for example in poultry meat, has been documented by the media. People are becoming more aware that food safety cannot be taken for granted.

A more recent scandal was the presence of horse-meat in ready-made meals labelled as “beef”. Suddenly people realised that dozens of manufacturing companies, all over Europe, are involved in producing their food, with ingredients travelling thousands of kilometres and going through different hands and multiple transformations. Not surprisingly, growing vegetables in one’s own garden is increasingly popular; forging direct linkages with farmers is another expression of that concern. Words like “local” and “sustainable” trigger consumers to buy their products directly from farmers, instead of through supermarkets. “Local for local” is a new trend – still small, but gaining ground. This is all about consuming products from your own region.

A recent report estimated that today 40% of the Dutch farmers have diversified their income with secondary activities. But farmers are also trying out different initiatives to market their products, and are being followed by a growing number of consumers.

Farmers’ initiatives

Some farmers have been quick to pick up the opportunity and are developing innovative ways to engage directly with consumers. Often special quality products – such as organic products or “forgotten vegetable varieties” are offered, and in this way farmers attract special client groups. Other marketing initiatives include:

• Farmers’ shops at the farm. Around 5% of all farmers have a small shop on their farm, where they sell their produce as well as other locally produced items that are often not available in supermarkets. This number is growing and since 2006 such farms work together under the name landwinkels (or “country shops”). Social media play an important role in this new development: it is estimated that farmers with a website sell twice as much in their shop as those without;
• Direct delivery systems run by farmer co-operatives, such as the farmer’s co-operative in Altena Biesbosch, where farmers are selling their potatoes, cheese, vegetables and fruits directly to consumer groups or restaurants. This co-operative has a membership of 100 farmers and 160 consumers – and this number is growing;
• Direct delivery systems run by individual farmers. This is becoming especially popular in the case of beef: individual farmers have developed a client group to which they deliver directly on a regular basis. Often local dual-purpose breeds – such as the Brandrode Rund – are used, and in this way animal diversity is promoted. Some of the marketing examples include Natuurboer uit de Buurt (or “Nature Farmer in your Neighborhood”) and Hemels Vlees (or “Meat from Heaven”).

Generally speaking, farmers get a better price for the products sold directly to consumers – sometimes up to 200%. But this is not the only advantage. Farmer Berrie Klein Swormink, who delivers beef directly to his clients, emphasises how “I get more feedback and acknowledgement for what I produce. It requires more effort and that does not always pay out, but you are directly engaged with your clients. It is important for me, not only for the money, but also for the appreciation.”

Consumer power

At the same time, throughout the country, consumers and their organisations are taking the initiative. More and more consumers are not going to the supermarkets but elsewhere to get their food, and are putting their ideas for a better world into practice. As a result, a wide array of initiatives has developed over recent years, involving various kinds of groups, at a local and at a national level.

• The Week of the Taste is a yearly event that takes place throughout the country, where producers and consumers meet around “good food” and new products are presented. As part of this series of events, “the heroes of the taste” are selected through a contest: to find out for instance who produces the best local cheese or beer;
• Versvokos are consumer co-operatives run on a non-for-profit basis that buy their vegetables and fruits directly from a nearby farmer. Consumer groups place orders and the fresh food is then distributed directly to them;
• Webshops: many different websites present an overview of all farmers’ shops in the Netherlands. Some of these, such as www.thegreenbee.nl, are visited by thousands of people every day. Consumers can place orders and the food-packages are delivered to their homes. This service also includes updates via Twitter about new products.

Consumers are supporting farmers by buying their products. Yet they also play a larger role. In many cases they provide money in advance, helping farmers cover part of their production costs. In some cases they also invest in new technologies, for example there is one programme that helps farmers install solar panels. Just as importantly, consumers provide valuable information.

Participants in the “adopt a cow” scheme are invited to the farm twice a year, and also to become “friends” through social media. In this way farmers are informed about citizen’s ideas and priorities and sometimes adapt their management practices. Koos and Monique van der Laan of the Beekhoeve organic farm, for example, started keeping calves with the cow, because they found out that that was actually one of the issues that their “friends” were concerned about.

The most important power which consumers have, however, is their capacity to influence policies – those at a national level, and even those which shape the actions of supermarkets. This was clear in September 2012, when Holland’s largest supermarket chain, Albert Heijn, unilaterally decided to pay farmers 2% less for their produce, in spite of earlier agreements. The Youth Food Movement – the Dutch branch of the youth section of the Slow Food network – made thousands of “2% discount” stickers and distributed them in front of the shops so that people would stick them on fresh products and then try to pay 2% less. This created a lot of media attention.

The number of marketing initiatives mentioned above is growing by the day. Many of them include traditional ways that seemed forgotten but are proving their value once more. They install a feeling of pride and innovation rather than dependency, both amongst farmers and citizens. Consumer preferences and the changes in marketing patterns linked to these preferences are proving to be a viable path towards a truly sustainable agricultural system.

Katrien van’t Hooft

Katrien van’t Hooft (katrienvanthooft@gmail.com) is a veterinarian working with Dutch Farm Experience, a company specialised in linking sustainable farming initiatives between the Netherlands and developing countries.
For more information, please visit the website www.dutchfarmexperience.com

The post Old traditions, new practices appeared first on Ileia.

Article sponsored by the Oxfam Novib / Hivos Knowledge Programme

Most economic activities in the rural areas are related to the region’s biodiversity and to the services this biodiversity provides. Although many of these activities contribute to the loss of this biodiversity, a number of them have a positive effect, while at the same time providing for higher incomes or economic profit.

The generation of incomes or profits, at the same time, can have a large influence in the development of new initiatives that contribute to the conservation of a region’s biodiversity.

The PESA model

PELUM, or Participatory Ecological Land Use Management, is a network of more than 230 civil society organisations, representing ten countries in East, Central and Southern Africa. Since it was founded in 1995, it has worked with small-scale farmers in the promotion of ecological land use practices as a way of empowering communities and simultaneously reducing the loss of the region’s biodiversity. Working together with the East and Southern African Farmers Forum (ESAFF), we developed the PESA Agro Enterprise Marketing Model (while the word “pesa” means money in Kiswahili, the title takes the “P” from PELUM and “ESA” from ESAFF).

Various marketing models were selected and looked at in detail in a consultative process involving the ESAFF farmers and the PELUM extension staff, comparing them with the “theory” as presented in, for example, the FAO Farmer Business Schools model.

Participants in four different countries (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda) carried out a study of these different marketing models, paying attention to the role played by different stakeholders and carefully taking into account how each case succeeded in helping farmers market their products. Results were shared in a meeting in 2012 in Kigali, from where a task force took the assignment of developing a proposal. The group came up with the “PESA marketing model”.

The model embraces a 6-stage process that encourages farmers to interact with the market through a “learning by doing” approach, engaging with the different stakeholders and developing skills in a step-by-step way. In short, these steps include (a) the formation or strengthening of a group, (b) the introduction of marketing and business concepts, (c) the identification and prioritisation of market opportunities, (d) the identification of potential investors, (e) the development of a business plan, and (f) the provision of (and access to) specific services.

Following the same “learning by doing” approach, we started a pilot project to try this model in the field – and learn from its implementation. This was planned for two years, after which all the PELUM member organisations will introduce it in order to facilitate the commercialization processes of their members. The lessons will be applied depending on the product and context of marketing.

Trying it out

Beekeeping is as a good example of an economic activity that, while resulting in high-profits, also contributes positively in terms of a region’s biodiversity. Farmers in Kenya, for example, prefer to let the bees feed from natural sources and not from sugar syrup. Farmers also prefer their bees not to travel long distances to look for food, since they easily get tired or lost after travelling far. So they have deliberately planted a diverse selection of trees, shrubs and flowers in the areas where the bee hives are kept. Some prominent varieties of bee forage trees, shrubs fruits and flowers that have been propagated include Croton spp., Acacia spp., mathenge, neem, sisal, Aloe vera, citrus trees, mangoes and bananas, and also crops such as millets or sorghum.

Most of the shrubs or trees would have otherwise been cut down to make charcoal – especially the Acacia trees which can be sold for a good price. The community is also keen on adding more tree and shrub species that are found to be of medicinal or therapeutic value in their natural state so that they serve a double role – for the bees and the community members.

Located in the district of Baringo, in the Rift Valley province in western Kenya, the Kapkuikui Livestock Self Help Group (KLSHG) focuses on bee keeping and the production of honey in an ecological friendly way, maintaining a rich crop and tree diversity as a source of food for the bees (see box).

Every year, the group produces an average of 2.5 tons of honey; half during the main harvest season (November to January) and half during the minor season (June and July).

Trying out our PESA model, we started by identifying the market opportunities for this honey in the area. A smaller team of six members conducted a market chain assessment, trying to assess and understand the purchasing practices, the terms and conditions followed, and the main demands or interests of consumers.

A “business market facilitator” from the Baraka Agricultural College helped making the initial contacts. After visiting and interacting with 4 supermarkets, 4 pharmacy shops and 3 hotels, the group secured many new orders to supply buyers with honey.

Even more important, the process helped the group learn about the need of a stronger “business relationship” between producers and consumers, and the minimum conditions and requirements. Group members discovered the advantages of preparing a detailed business plan which includes adding value to their products, and thus expanding their market options. Furthermore, they saw the need to invest money in machinery or equipment, and the importance of their organisation to implement their plans.

Looking into the future

The PESA model has been tried for 12 months, and will continue for another 12 months. Although the pilot project is not yet finished, the initial results are very promising. The knowledge and skills acquired by the KLSHG members through the 6-stage approach have empowered the group. During this period, KLSHG has shown that higher incomes and the conservation of an area’s biodiversity can be mutually supporting efforts. If these initial results prove to be indicative of the success of the approach, all 230 PELUM members will introduce and implement the model in their own specific context. In the meantime, the participatory process of learning by doing is already helping other organisations. The PELUM experience demonstrates that the participatory process of analysis, development and implementation of an innovative marketing approach is a powerful tool for positive change.

Maryleen Micheni

Maryleen Micheni works as Senior Programme Officer at PELUM, Kenya. The “markets and trade” thematic group of the Agrobiodiversity@knowledged programme would like to invite readers to send case studies describing other marketing process. Focusing on agrobiodiversity products, these case studies should consider the financial returns, the commercial viability of the enterprise, or the emergence of public-private partnerships. These case studies need not only be success stories. Please send them to Maryleen Micheni (maryleen@pelum.net) and Willy Douma (wdouma@hivos.nl).

The post Markets: Learning by doing appeared first on Ileia.

Analog Forestry (AF) is a silviculture method that mimics the natural structure and function of a particular seral stage of an ecosystem. Its main objective is to restore the natural ecosystems, and to implement modified ecosystems with the same ecological functions as the natural ones.

By re-creating a forest system’s composition, structure and function, AF systems can help to increase food security and resilience to climate change – while also creating income-generating opportunities.

Products such as plant fibres, medicinal herbs, spices, wild fruits, honey and many others, are known as Non-Timber Forest Products, or NTFPs. Analog Forestry methods aim at obtaining these products through a design system (see box) that helps farmers to manage the land where they work, using the available resources while preventing degradation. Most NTFPs are harvested in a traditional way, so it is generally thought that only small quantities are involved. Yet the income-generating potential of NTFPs should not be underestimated: in India, for example, the majority of forest revenues come from NTFPs.

It is estimated that 60% of honey in the Indian market is harvested from the wild. There is also a widespread misperception that the price for such products should be low – despite the traditional knowledge involved and the risks communities undergo in order to harvest the produce – because they were not planted and taken care of in a conventional production system.

There is an even larger challenge from logging, mining or other extractive industries which decrease the areas available for wild harvesting and make sustainable management and natural regeneration more difficult. However, different examples show that the commercialisation of these products can not only help improve the incomes and opportunities of the rural population, but can also help preserve forest resources.

Certification for marketing

Third party certification, using the Forest Garden Products (FGP) label, is an emerging possibility for NTFPs in different parts of the world. An FGP label reflects a set of production standards which are currently under revision in the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) family of standards.

FGP certification is carried out by inspectors authorised by the International Analog Forestry Network (IAFN). This type of certification is primarily designed for high value export products, because of the costs of involving a third party. Experience shows that a Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) is more suited for products that are sold in local markets. This is a less expensive method and the process also helps strengthen communities.

In general, a PGS is based on a peer review system, whereby farmers, consumers and other stakeholders verify compliance with a set of standards defining the production methods and product quality. These standards are decided upon internally by the group, and can contain any pertinent criteria ranging from organic methods to sustainable wild harvesting.

The method of inspection is agreed collectively, and is usually done by a selected group that takes turns to make the visits and exchange and share information about products and the production process. Often this task is done on a voluntary basis.

The benefits of a PGS include creating a brand name and community building. The brand name is based on the standards employed by the group (which often focus on organic agriculture). Products with a known or recognised brand can be sold at a premium as they can show that, having followed a given process, they are of a better quality than conventional products. When interested producers join a PGS, they are also joining a community that can support them and share information. Thus, a PGS can raise production standards not only through compliance to criteria, but also through peer education.

Products such as spices, tea and guarana are being certified as Forest Garden Products and as a result are reaching some European markets. At the same time, different PGS are being developed for smallscale producers in local markets where exports are not a priority. These local markets are helping farmers and producers, as well as supporting the development of Analog Forestry.

In Sri Lanka, Rainforest Rescue International (RRI) has helped farmers’ cooperatives with the production and commercialisation of their tea and spices. These co-operatives market their certified products using Analog Forestry as their production method. This enables them to address the challenges of environmental conservation and restoration of the forested area around their communities whilst also meeting their financial needs. RRI trains these communities in environmentally- friendly low-input production systems, encouraging farmers and communities to engage in forest restoration and seed saving programmes in the country’s arid northern region.

Similar results have emerged from the work of the Centre for Nursery Development and Eru Propagation (CENDEP) in Cameroon. As partners of IAFN, they promote Analog Forestry in all their projects and are currently supporting the commercialisation of eru (Gnetum spp.) and other products such as honey through a participatory certification process.

Adding value

Analog Forestry differs from other silviculture practices in that, in the long term, it seeks to reach the same level of maturity as an original forest. In the short and mid term, the objectives will vary according to the producers’ needs. These are based on an assessment of the ecosystem structure, comparing a given area with a healthy ecosystem. A roadmap towards the regeneration of the soil and the forest is then established to help practitioners restore the landscape and biodiversity while producing consumable and/or marketable products. The benefits of AF systems include enhancing the carbon cycle, providing pollinators with new niches and contributing to the formation of condensation cloud nuclei, which help with water conservation and stabilise precipitation patterns. The IAFN is still at the beginning of what may be a long, but worthwhile, process of engaging communities in new ways of connecting with their ecosystems.

Value can be added by using a label or brand associated with a set of production standards, such as third-party or participatory guarantee systems, but it also involves processing or transformation. This can vary from packaging wholesale quantities of honey into retail-sized jars with information labels, to drying leaves and other plant parts to create special blends (i.e. curries or teas). The benefits for consumers are obvious: better access to products and, just as importantly, higher quality products.

Farmers see also many advantages. Processed eru attracts a price that is five times higher than the unprocessed product. CENDEP is showing how the involvement of farming groups in a PGS can lead to considerably higher income levels.

A PGS can cover several different food (and non-food) crops, such as cereals, beans and vegetables, as long as the best practices associated with the PGS are ascertained and communicated to consumers. Further market studies still need to be undertaken in order to determine the revenue streams associated with the PGS process; however, CENDEP’s experience with two NTFPs (eru and honey) show the potential of a steady increase in incomes. At the moment, the group of participants has grown to more than 300 families, representing 6 communities.

The benefits can be even broader, as the “added value” is also seen in the forest ecosystems. This is very clear in Cameroon, with the (re-)introduction of native species such as eru, or trees like Anarcadium occidentalis, red mahogany or Ilex metis.

Local forests, local markets

The inherent species richness in AF systems promotes diversified income streams by providing multiple products that offer a variety of processing and marketing opportunities. For example, systems that produce spices, such as vanilla, nutmeg, cinnamon and black pepper, also produce cut flowers, animal fodder, rice, beans, bamboo, and plants for essential oils such as patchouli and orange leaves. While much effort is required to get these and other NTFPs into high-end markets in northern countries, it should be remembered that most of these products are consumed in their countries and regions of origin. This suggests that more attention needs be paid to developing new market opportunities at the local level.

So instead of focusing on one or a few products, we feel that it is better to promote the sustainable management of the forests, increase biodiversity, restore landscapes and provide a wider array of products to be consumed locally. Analog Forestry can be used as a tool to produce commercial products while preserving the structure and function of ecosystems, and a PGS process can help develop local markets for these products.

Eduardo Aguilar and Cavan Gates

Eduardo Aguilar (eduardo@analogforestrynetwork.org) and Cavan Gates work at the Secretariat of the International Analog Forestry Network (IAFN).
For more information, visit their websites: www.foresteriaanaloga.org ; www.analogforestrynetwork.org

The post Creating better opportunities: PGS and Analog Forestry appeared first on Ileia.