|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
Dear Duncan, I've been reading the comments with much interest and felt I should respond on your request for examples. I work in Eastern Africa, on a Marketing and Agro-enterprise project called FOODNET, www.foodnet.cgiar.org <http://www.foodnet.cgiar.org/> . FOODNET is one of the 18 ASARECA[1] networks, that were established by a consortium of 10 national research organisations. Based on the previous contributions my feeling is that whilst the macro trade ideas were well identified the meso (national to regional) and micro level (community - district level) work was less well represented. Although macro level interventions have potential for greatest change, these changes take considerable time to come to fruition (10-15 years). I also have the view that unless there are skills, processes and infrastructure in place at the national and regional levels, lack of synchronisation with international policy changes, often means that most poor people do not benefit, as shown by liberalisation, privatisation, debt relief, EBA, AGOA etc. Rather the opposite can occur, which is why globalisation may look polished from Pennsylvania Avenue but has many problems in this region. I would like to follow Andy Parnell's lead and provide some examples from the work we have been doing at the micro, meso and macro levels. I can send case studies, but will do that later if needed. I would also like to highlight some areas that we, collectively, do not do well, or partially cover and by doing so often make the situation worse. FOODNET Our approach has been to identify and develop strategies that assist in linking farmers with markets. As part of this endeavour, we work with farmer groups, NGOs, research groups, development agencies and Government policy groups. Our perspective is that given the range in markets from local - national - regional - global levels, that Research and development agencies such as FOODNET and its partners need to devise and provide clients at each of these levels with market-led options, that can be adapted to local conditions, take on board local skills and most importantly be introduced in a sequenced manner that fits into a realistic timeframe. Micro (Community to district level) 1. Aim to enhance the ability of farmers to make the paradigm shift from subsistence to more commercial farming. Approach - Establishing strategies for agro-enterprise development at a defined territorial level. This method developed by the CIAT Agro-enterprise team, works with a community in a defined area. The process is livelihoods based in that it set out by analysing the community assets, their skills, crop options, market linkages and their access to partners and service providers. After this socio-economic profile, the community work are linked with a local service provider and this team enters a process that initially identifies market opportunities before designing and implementing new agricultural enterprises that will enable them to increase their incomes. See http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/agroempresas/ingles/index.htm This method is being used in Latin America, Asia and more recently in Africa as a means of developing skills within the local communities so that they can engage in markets more effectively. This work is funded by DFID, CGIAR, IDRC, and USAID. 2. Strengthening Local Business Support Services: As part of the Agro-enterprise approach, the process leads towards identifying useful services and building their capacity such that they can support the ongoing development of agro-enterprises in the designated territory. An example of this is the development of localised market information services, in Uganda. This strengthening of the local information services focuses on local markets and local opportunities. The information officer is linked to an FM station to broadcast market information in a local language and provide training in collective action to emerging farmers groups. The field work is being supported with radio programmes in local languages, as an educational support process. This work has been funded by USAID, DFID and CTA and implemented through FOODNET, NRI, CMIS, the BBC and more recently by the (National Agricultural Advisory Development Service) NAADS program. 3. Learning Alliance: Scaling up the agro-enterprise approach. One of the most frustrating aspects of development is that of building on the successes of pilot projects. In many ways a lot of development is "proof of concept", getting beyond this is difficult and many donors loose interest at the first post. Expanding ideas, with the private sector is a process that takes time, needs careful guidance and long term support. To address this issue, FOODNET and CIAT have been working with the Catholic Relief Services in Eastern Africa, to link 10 countries in a 2 year capacity building exercise. The aim being to assist the NGO in making the transition from an input supplier and production based machine, (remember Peter's question) into a market focussed organisation, that is aiming to support farmers in linking to markets. This approach, entitled the "Learning Alliance" was first developed by CIAT in Latin America, it came to Eastern Africa, via a project entitled "Beyond Agricultural Production Production" funded by DFID. Contact persons, Rupert Best <address removed> , and Tom Remington <mailto:<address removed>> <address removed> 4. Enhanced capacity of National extension services to undertake market analyses, and link their research to the needs of the private sector. The World Bank and DFID have been active in pressing for privatisation in the agricultural extension sector. The national agricultural advisory service in Uganda is a test bed for this approach in Africa. The timeframe is unrealistic, but in our view the service was not assisted in the sense that it has fairly weak processes of intervention. We are working with the NAADS team to address this issue in terms of devising rapid methods for local market appraisal and linking this information within a national system such that the management group can have information to assist them in making decisions on what types of service provision would be most suitable in particular locations. NAADS is funded by WB. Meso (National to regional) 5. National and regional market studies: These studies, focussed on major staple foods, are being undertaken to give a better understanding of the market opportunities with a country and across the production region. The aim is to analyse where best to make investments, spatially, at which level in the market chain and in some cases with which types of partners. This addresses Peter's question, as no advice to invest will be given if there is no market opportunities. IFPRI is also working on this via Stan Woods Spatial analysis group. As resources for Ag research and Dev become scarcer there has been additional interest in defining best marketing options and areas where value can be added at the national and regional level. To support this work at the regional level, USAID is working with EU to develop the Global Forum for Agricultural research, (GFAR), and in Eastern Africa, this is manifest through ASARECA, a consortium of 10 regional National Agricultural Research Organisations. The aim of ASARECA is to assist in the commercialisation of agriculture in the region. The first question is therefore what are the market opportunities for key commodities and where should investments in R&D be made for best returns. FOODNET is working with partners from NARS, Universities and private sector to undertake these marketing studies. 6. Provision of market information at the national and regional levels. This process aims to reduce information asymmetry in the marketplace and to provide better market signals to actors in the marketing chain. FOODNET has implemented the national Ugandan MIS in collaboration with the Min of Trade for the past 5 years. FOODNET also supports national market information services in Eastern Africa. FOODNET has also recently established a partnership with FEWSNET and RATES to develop a regional market intelligence network, see www.ratin.net <http://www.ratin.net/> This network is focussing on enhancing the regional trade of the two main food staples, maize and beans. The network is running real time price, volume, crop performance and policy dialogue. 7. Agro-enterprise development. FOODNET is working with partners to support medium scale agro-enterprises through joint ventures and start up grants. This is an area that FOODNET has only initiated and at present there are very limited access to risk funds for this type of venture. DFID has set up a risk fund for enterprise in the recent past, but we were unable to access this pot. Andy Parnell's comments on Fruits of Nile, was interesting to me, because, whilst DFID / NRI, did well to initiate this group, I feel that they needed to follow on with this support so that Adam Brett and the group could get beyond micro sales. Macro (long term international) 8. Enhanced capacity to make informed decisions on trade policy for the domestic, regional and international markets: FOODNET has undertaken one study on the effect of Globalisation in Eastern Africa. This study tried to ascertain how prepared Governments in the region are to tackle the challenges of the liberalisation process and how well Ministries communicate information within the country and with counterparts in Geneva. The analysis shows that many Governments officials beyond the Ministry of Finance have a good understanding of the WTO processes and that delegates in Geneva have virtually no support, for their decision making. The commodity crisis is very much a part of problems associated with developing countries not having the staff, capacity or co-ordination to debate many of the issues being voted on in Geneva and the ensuing WTO rounds. As such DFID could build upon its existing work to support both the regional bodies and Geneva based groups in having the basic information from which to make informed decisions. 9. Collaboration within international agencies: A real problem with working in more remote areas such as Uganda, is access to information, new ideas and being able to mobilise skilled partners, particularly from more than one dev agency. To address this situation, at a meeting in NRI, 5 agencies joined a new global postharvest forum that was officially launched on 25th June, 1999, at the NRI headquarters, Chatham, UK. The postharvest forum was developed through discussions between five leading research agencies, NRI, FAO, CIRAD, GTZ, ACIAR and four International research centres, CIAT, IFPRI, CIP and IITA. IITA being represented by FOODNET. The forum aims to achieve greater impact in the food research sector through the development and delivery of sustainable post-harvest technologies in collaboration with a range of partners in developing countries. By linking farmers with markets and finding innovative means to support trade links for partners in developing countries PhAction will enhance rural development and secure urban food security. This forum has now increased to 16 members including ACIAR, CIRAD, FAO, GTZ, NRI, NZ Crop and Food Research, JIRCAS CIAT, CIP, IFPRI, IITA, IRRI, ICRISAT, MSU, World Bank and UNIDO. The group has recently held a global conference in collaboration with FAO and GFAR, to review strategies for development in the postharvest area under four main themes:- * Improve the identification and assessment of market opportunities. Become more competitive in a market-oriented environment and able to make sound business decisions in identifying, assessing and developing market opportunities for agri-produce (but not at the expense of environmental or social sustainability). * Improve market access. Link with agri-produce supply chains that go beyond the local economy, under terms that are equitable as well as competitive, supported by affordable, sustainable and effective local business development services. * Foster technology innovation. Become more innovative in accessing, developing and applying appropriate post-harvest technologies to produce the products demanded by the market. * Enhance product quality. Consistently meet regulatory standards and consumer demands for high quality, safe food products in their target markets (with corresponding implications at policy level). Issues that we do not do well Land Reform: Land is an emotional issue for good reason, its valuable. In Africa, 100 years ago land ownership was not a concern with low population levels and extensive farming. In many countries population pressure is now an impediment issue that needs to be addressed, especially in the more productive areas. If farmers are to be in a position to borrow from the financial sector for inputs to improve their productivity they need collateral. In Vietnam, the Government has realised this and is offering farmers long term leases. In Uganda, DFID, opened the debate on land reform, the reformers moved on, the issue was then deemed too sensitive and was dropped. Uganda has the lowest levels of input use in the World, farmers have no collateral to support inputs. This is a national issue that has a major effect on farmer's ability to become more competitive, it should be a leading debate. Land Size: One problem that is often debated within the research group is the issue of land size and efficiency. Is it possible to compete in regional / international markets if farmers work on rainfed plots of 2 acres. One of our regional DFID reps told me that small farm size was good, he quoted Zimbabwe three years ago as an example of an efficient small-scale farming sector. The tragedy in Zimbabwe tells a different story and many analysts, here are highly frustrated by donors who want to focus on and invest in the most marginalised areas with farmers who cannot take on new ideas risk. So are we helping African farmers into a middle class or simply painting marginalised farmers into a corner with a focus on supporting small farmer approaches ? I don't know the answer, but would like to have more clarity on this. Over sophistication and short termism: Many donors are dazzled by the "new" no matter how cosmetic the reality. One seemingly ever attractive idea is the "commodity exchange". Although this is a highly effective marketing instrument, it requires many steps and conditions to be put in place before it can be effective. No matter about conditions, there are many projects being funded in this region to set up exchanges. I think this underlines a key problem that development repeats, confusion between the ends and the means and a lack of understanding of how components should be sequenced. I think this type of problem is exacerbated by DFID's current policy of placing non specialists in countries and then moving them every 3 years. What can these people know and how can they provide anymore than cursory advice? The lesson for me is that development agencies are often times trying to work at a very different timeframe to that of local capacity to take on ideas and process them to a localised version. Interestingly, in a report I was reading for Southern Sudan, the British Government set up a project in Equatoria region, which had a 30 year timeframe. Recent articles from experienced scientists, working in Africa, also come to the conclusion that if agencies are to invest in Agriculture, with a realistic view of production to trade, then projects should be well analysed, and then be long-term. I think that projects only really start to work after 5-6 years, they probably have best impact from 10-20 years. This is a generational approach, I think if DFID has conviction, it should abandon short termism and take on real development projects around trade and specific commodities. But build on local capacity over a couple of decades. _____ [1] ASARECA - Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa ============================================================= To send a reply to this message that goes to all list members, make sure that you send your reply to <address removed> To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to "<address removed>", with the message body: unsubscribe global-trade <your-email-address>
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.