Project number 06at-4719
Farmers Fighting
Poverty
Conference & Seminar
Proceedings
31 May & 1 June 2006, Arnhem - City Hall, The Netherlands
Kees Blokland Jim Woodhill
Arnhem, The Netherlands, August, 2006 © Agriterra
Agriterra
P.O. Box 158
6800 AD Arnhem Willemsplein 43-II
The Netherlands
T +31 26 44 55 445
F +31 26 44 55 978
[email protected] www.agriterra.org http://www.farmersfightingpoverty.org/ Postbank: 42214
Rabobank Arnhem: 16 21 46 280
Foundation Agriterra Chamber of Commerce 41 048542
Member of AgriCord
Data AgriStudies™
Author : Kees Blokland Jim Woodhill Title : Farmers Fighting Poverty Publisher : Agriterra Number AgriStudies : 12.1.06.51291 Country : The Netherlands Category : Development cooperation
CONTENTS
1. BACKGROUND ...... 1
2. SPEECHES...... 3
HOMEGROWN DEVELOPMENT, SPEECH BY AGNES VAN ARDENNE-VAN DER HOEVEN, MINISTER FOR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION OF THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS...... 3 PRESENTATION OF THE CALEIDOSCOOP OF AGRI-PROFOCUS TO HON. AGNES VAN ARDENNE ...... 6 CONTRIBUTION MR. CYRIL ENWEZE, VICE PRESIDENT OF IFAD...... 7 STRUCTURE, POSITIONS AND PROGRAMME FARMERS’ DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION, PRESENTATION BY KEES BLOKLAND, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF AGRITERRA...... 14
3. CASE STUDIES...... 17
CASE STUDY 1: PO TWINNING FOR PINEAPPLE EXPORT FROM BENIN BY MRS. LAURENCE BRIAND OF AFDI ...... 17 CASE STUDY 2: COTTON IN WEST AFRICA BY MR. JOOST NELEN OF SNV...... 19 CASE STUDY 3: AWARENESS RAISING CAMPAIGNS BY MR. GÖRAN JOHANSSON SWEDISH COOPERATIVE CENTRE ...... 23
4. SEMINAR PROGRAMME - SESSION ONE...... 25
WELCOME...... 25 SUMMARY FROM “FARMERS FIGHTING POVERTY” CONFERENCE (MAY 31, 2006)...... 25
5. SESSION TWO ...... 27
INTRODUCTION...... 27 THE PERSPECTIVE FROM AGRI-AGENCIES ...... 28 THE DONOR PERSPECTIVE ...... 29 THE DONOR PERSPECTIVE (CONTINUATION) ...... 32 GENERAL DISCUSSION ...... 34 FINALISATION OF PRE LUNCH SESSION ...... 35
6. SESSION THREE - PLANNING FOR ACTION ...... 37
7. SESSION FOUR ...... 41
CONCLUSIONS...... 41 CLOSING REMARKS ...... 42
ANNEXES ...... 43
ANNEX 1 PROGRAMME ...... 45 ANNEX 2 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ...... 49 ANNEX 3 STRUCTURE OF THE FARMERS’ DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION & OFFICE HOLDERS...... 51 ANNEX 4 PROCEEDINGS FROM IFAP WORLD FARMERS CONGRESS IN SEOUL, KOREA ...... 55 ANNEX 5 CONTRIBUTIONS OF DONORS: ...... 67 • SIDA • SNV • Inter-réseaux • National Resources Institute • Ministère des Affaires Etrangères • FAO (1) • FAO (2)
1. Background
The role of farmers’ organisations in development cooperation has become an increasingly important issue and a significant focus for the Dutch Ministry for Development Cooperation.
Consequently the Ministry and Agriterra hosted a Conference and Seminar which took place in Arnhem on 31 May and 1 June 2006, with the objective of sharing experiences and seeing how progress can be furthered in this area in coordination with others.
This document reports on the first day highlights and the seminar’s proceedings. At the seminar approximately 50 people out of the 100 Conference participants were present representing a diverse range of donors, agri-agencies and other development organisations (complete list of participants in annex 2). They formulated the answer of the donor community to farmer recommendations and demands.
The Arnhem conference “Farmers Fighting Poverty” is special in the sense that the target group was not invited, albeit that IFAP delegates represented their opinions. The farmer demand was however considered to be known and the conference, and especially the seminar tried to get and know the volume and content of projects and programmes of the donors present that are meant to be implemented by farmers’ organisations. In what areas or thematic issues do they intend to involve farmers organisations? How they intend to involve farmers' organisations in the policy debate? What other forms of collaboration with producer organisations, cooperatives and farmers' unions they foresee?
The conference was an initiative of Hon. Agnes van Ardenne, minister for Development Cooperation. She wanted to highlight this farmers’ development cooperation, but at the same time honour Gerard Doornbos for his contributions in this field. Her speech dedicates considerable attention to his departure. May 31, 2006 happened to be indeed his very last day in office as president of Agriterra and shortly before in Seoul he had stepped down as president of AgriCord.
Gerard chaired the conference and after closure, Kees Blokland, managing director of Agriterra, remembered how the world had changed with Gerard as a farm leader who took his responsibility: “15 years ago, the Netherlands was plagued by environmental and manure problems in agriculture. IFAP was considered a rich farmer social club supportive of big landowners in the Third World. Export farming was restricting the possibilities for the third world and nobody in the Netherlands seemed to fully understand the GATT regulations. The Dutch farmers submerged in their problems seemed to turn their backs on the call for dialogue from the Third World,” he recalled. But after Gerard took the presidency of LTO, he actively tried to change things. The Dutch farmers in LTO established cooperation with their Third World colleagues. Doornbos created the DCC and many relevant farmers’ organizations from developing countries joined IFAP, changing this organization thoroughly. With AgriCord and Agri-ProFocus he completed the support structure for effective farmer-to-farmer development cooperation. Meanwhile, the European Common Agricultural Policy was changed, and Gerard became an expert in the WTO dossier in order to pursuit liberalization, but still taking care of Third World interest as was shown in his article ‘Look again at how to help the poor’ in the International Herald Tribune. “Being a farm leader of the Netherlands, nobody asked him to do this, but he did it, taking up a responsibility that shows the true farm leader he is.”
Background 1
2. Speeches
Homegrown development, Speech by Agnes van Ardenne-van der Hoeven, Minister for Development Cooperation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Introduction I would like to extend a warm welcome to all of you at the start of this seminar. A special welcome goes to our foreign guests, who include Cyril Enweze from IFAD, Jack Wilkinson from IFAP and Noel Devisch from the Belgian Farmers’ Organisation. It is a pleasure to have you here.
“Optimal Allocation of Multi-Purpose Reservoir Water: A Dynamic Programming Model”. That makes a good sound bite, don’t you think? This was the title of a doctoral thesis written in 1971 by a Bengali postgraduate scholar by the name of Mohammad Yunus. The thesis reflected what he had learned at American universities about fighting poverty. Yunus thought that better farming technologies, in particular for irrigation, would eradicate poverty in his home country Bangladesh. But when he returned home to put his theories into practice, when he traded Vanderbilt University in the U.S. for villages in Bangladesh, he found another way to help. He found that by providing poor farmers and other entrepreneurs with credit, they were capable of helping themselves. These farmers knew better than anyone else what they needed: some bought irrigation pipes or fertilisers, others an extra piece of land. Ironically, the first farmers to receive a loan from Yunus out of his own pocket did not pay him back in full. But he carried on anyway. And that is how the Grameen Bank for micro-credit was created. Today the repayment rate is around 98%. And so we see that with the right resources the poor are better at fighting poverty than we are. Homegrown development is the answer, not academic solutions.
Middelburg Mohammad Yunus once said: “I wanted to learn economics from the poor in the village next door to the university campus.”. You can say that he more than earned his degree by reducing poverty. His bank for the poor also earned him the Freedom From Want Award this year. Three weeks ago, I was present at the ceremony in the Dutch town of Middelburg, where Princess Máxima presented the award to Professor Yunus. The Princess is currently in the forefront of the micro-credit movement. In her speech she spoke of combining the creative energy of capitalism with the moral obligations of social responsibility.
Seoul Let me now take you from Middelburg to the other side of the world, to South Korea. Five days after the award ceremony, I boarded a plane to Seoul, still very much inspired by Professor Yunus and his micro-credit scheme. But I felt that we should provide the poor not only with credit, but also with a voice. If the poor could make their voices heard in the world’s capitals, where policy is made, government priorities would more often reflect their priorities. Professor Yunus discovered that we could learn economics from the poor. I think that we can also learn politics from them. That was why I was flying to Seoul that day. I was to be the first Minister for Development Cooperation to address the World Farmers’ Congress. In my keynote speech to the members of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers, I
Speeches 3 announced an innovative and ambitious programme to foster homegrown development by giving farmers a voice. In what way is the programme innovative and ambitious? Let me tell you. I am not paying the governments of poor countries to consult with farmers, nor am I funding NGOs that claim to speak for them. Instead of asking others to speak to them or for them, I am supporting the farmers themselves. Farmers’ organisations can hold governments to account. They can demand roads without potholes, property laws without loopholes, markets with flexible prices and government action with inflexible integrity. Supporting the farmers themselves is such an obvious idea that you wonder why it hasn’t been tried before. But it hasn’t. A few years ago, the Netherlands was the first country to start giving direct support to farmers’ organisations in poor countries – through IFAP, AgriCord and Agriterra. Up to now, the Dutch government has earmarked 3.5 million euros a year for this purpose. In Seoul I added ambition to innovation by increasing that figure to a total of 50 million euros for a period of four years.
Details of this Producer Organisations Programme will be provided later in the afternoon, but I can already tell you that capacity building is at its core. A strong network of agricultural organisations, including IFAP, AgriCord, Agriterra and the Dutch platform Agri-ProFocus will be entrusted with its implementation. This means that farmers’ organisations from rich countries will support their peers in poor countries. We are talking about international cooperation in the truest sense of the word. Colleagues, fellow-entrepreneurs, working together across borders, sharing past experience and present knowledge. Farmer to farmer.
By building the capacity of their emerging organisations, farmers at home will help farmers abroad to stand up for themselves. For example, financial management will be strengthened in fifty of these organisations, twenty-five will develop practical proposals for new government policies benefiting farmers; women’s participation in all related agricultural projects will be raised above thirty percent; and twenty organisations will receive help in founding farmer field schools.
Wageningen From the farmer field schools in the developing world to Wageningen Agricultural University may seem like a big step. So I am happy to announce a partnership today aimed at shortening that distance. Wageningen University and my ministry will work together for synergy between research in the North and the reality in the South – as Professor Yunus did. Over the next four years, the two partners will each invest around 5 million euros in this demand-driven research agenda. This Partnership for Globalisation and Sustainable Rural Development can be seen as an addition to our Producer Organisations Programme, the POP. As one of its main tasks, Wageningen will investigate how to improve the position of small farmers in the production chain and pass on this knowledge to farmers’ organisations. A few decades into globalisation, the position of small farmers has become weaker and weaker as power in the production chain has shifted upwards – towards multinationals, import agencies, wholesale and retail. And as power has shifted up, cost and risk have shifted downwards, leaving small farmers to bear the triple burden of quality, sustainability and food safety. Relieving that burden in a sustainable way for a Malinese farmer who wants to export mangoes to the Netherlands or his Vietnamese counterpart selling vegetables at the local market. That is the main aim of this partnership for research and capacity building.
Arnhem Starting in Middelburg, and then passing through Seoul and Wageningen, we now find ourselves in Arnhem. Looking around the room today, I see many people who are deeply committed to improving the lives of poor farmers. Many of us, in one way or another, are already helping these farmers make a decent living. Through private
4 Farmers Fighting Poverty
sector development, for instance. In all its 36 partner countries, the Netherlands support national governments in their efforts to improve the business climate. And through trade liberalisation. The Doha round has currently reached deadlock, but we still have a small window of opportunity to open the markets of rich and emerging countries for poor farmers. Or through partnerships, like the Wageningen partnership I announced today. But even though all these measures are needed to improve the environment farmers live and work in, they are not enough. There is still a missing link: feedback from the farmers themselves. No need for desktop studies or theoretical discussion on this missing link: we have a Producer Organisations Programme ready to go. I advise anyone interested in contributing to homegrown development to get on board, because it’s about to start. Let’s give farmers a voice, so that they can have a say in their own future.
Conclusion Let me conclude. Looking around the room one last time, I cannot help noticing that there is a very special person in our audience today. A wonderful man who has dedicated his working life to farmers at home and abroad. Yes, I am talking about you, Gerard.
Throughout my speech, I have spoken of homegrown development, of farmers as self- made women and men. If ever there was a self-made man, it is Gerard Doornbos. As a teenager, he was asked to leave agricultural school after three months. The principal felt that he wasn’t up to it. But you know what? He didn’t give up. Gerard, you chose your own path, which in time led you back to that same school, but then in a different capacity. I will only say that the principal must have been unpleasantly surprised when he met the new chairman of the school board. Of course, this is only a footnote in your long record of service in the agricultural community in particular. In the Netherlands, you presided over the national agricultural organisation and were a member of the Social and Economic Council, one of the Dutch government’s main advisory bodies. But your commitment to farmers was not confined to the Netherlands: from 1998 to 2002 you were president of IFAP. Nor was it confined to farmers from rich countries. On the contrary. Within IFAP, you spearheaded the membership of farmers’ organisations from poor countries. And you did not hesitate to put the issue of land reform on the agenda – a controversial issue, but of crucial importance to millions of poor farmers. The farmers that brought us all here in the first place.
Gerard, for you this is the time for goodbyes and so, for us, it is the time to thank you. When I saw you in Seoul, you were taking your leave as president of AgriCord, and you had already presided over the last Agriterra meeting as chairman of the board. But fortunately for all of us, you will stay on as president of the Dutch public- private partnership, Agri-ProFocus, which today welcomes its twentieth member: HIVOS. We will need your homegrown leadership, as the farmers’ movement for homegrown development gathers momentum. I want to conclude by thanking all of you for giving me the opportunity to talk to you and I would like to request a big round of applause for Gerard Doornbos.
Speeches 5
Presentation of the Caleidoscoop of Agri-ProFocus to Hon. Agnes van Ardenne
By Hedwig Bruggeman, manager of Agri-ProFocus
The kaleidoscope is a metaphor for Agri-ProFocus “The Dutch partnership for support to Agricultural Producer Organisations in Developing Countries”. In the inner circle are all the core tasks that producer organisations undertake, activities that support its members to increase and diversify production, and processing and of course lobbying and advocacy to represent farmer’s interests.
The outer circle are the supportive actions of Agri-ProFocus members. They provide expertise in finance, provision of credit, research, training, fair trade, lobby, consulting and advisory services. Right in the middle of the picture is the ultimate goal: a lively and fair national and international market with farmers and their organisations as entrepreneurs. The 20 members of Agri-ProFocus will deliver more and better support for producer organisations. They realise that this is only possible through more coordination, cooperation and exchange of knowledge and expertise.
In this Caleidoscoop the members explain what their vision is when it comes to supporting producer organisations. These Agri-ProFocus members’ organisations have a total of 250 professionals with worldwide expertise in the field of supporting producer organisations. They will become the Agri-ProFocus “community of Practice”. A group of professionals that combine their strengths, and who are not afraid to extend their boarders when it comes to establishing effective partnerships for the support of producer organisations.
The Caleidoscoop is now only available in Dutch, but will soon be available on our website in English and Dutch and of course continuous updated. Today and tomorrow, there will be more information on Agri-ProFocus presented to the workshop participants.
Hedwig Bruggeman concluded: “I hope minister that you will enjoy reading the Agri- ProFocus latest news as much as we enjoyed meeting the members and compiling the compendium. We realised that there is so much vision, expertise and commitment amongst the Agri-ProFocus members to support producer organisations in fighting poverty.”
6 Farmers Fighting Poverty
Contribution Mr. Cyril Enweze, Vice president of IFAD
Due to unforeseen circumstances, it was not possible to publish the contribution of Mr. Enweze in this document. Since Mr. Enweze referred several times to the speech of Mr. Lennart Bage, President of IFAD to the 37th World Farmers’ congress in Seoul, you will find his speech hereunder.
Address of Lennart Bage, President of IFAD to the 37th World Farmers Congress of IFAP It is a great honour and privilege for me to address the 37th World Farmers Congress of IFAP and to be part of celebrating your 60th anniversary.
Let me first congratulate you for these 60 years of empowering farmers of the world. I wish you a very happy celebration of this anniversary and all success in your deliberations and future initiatives.
IFAP was created and developed almost in parallel with the United Nations system which I represent here. IFAP shares with the United Nations the values of progress, social justice, peace and human rights.
How could it be different since "Agriculture is the great foundation of human welfare" as the Korean proverb says.
How could it be different for a constituency that feeds humankind; that manages the land, water and biodiversity of our planet.
I also want to thank the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation of Korea for the warm welcome. I wish I could stay longer in your country to learn more from Korean farmers’ innovations, successes and progress.
Rural women and men, food producers of developing countries, and particularly the hundreds of millions of them who still fight to overcome poverty and hunger are the very reason for IFAD to exist and they are a large part of your membership. I congratulate you on the increase over recent years in IFAP membership from developing countries, in particular through your Development Cooperation Committee. By the way let me congratulate Ms Elisabet Gauffin for her election as the new Chairperson of the DCC.
We see the growing number and the strength of Farmers’ Organisations in almost all regions of the developing world. More and more we hear their voice in international negotiations and policy fora, be it at the WTO, at the Johanesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development or more recently at the conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development in Porto Alegre. We see Farmers Organisations proactively engaged in processes of sub-regional integration such as ECOWAS, MERCOSUR, or the ASEAN. These are all very positive signs of farmers’ growing influence and empowerment.
Speeches 7 As a world federation, IFAP has a very diverse membership. From the South and from the North, from rich farm lands and from marginal areas, from farmers using modern technology and others - the vast majority - working with simple hand tools and traditional knowledge.
In this context global dialogue is needed more than ever, to search for common interests and to be energized by a sense solidarity that can overcome threats of fierce competition among very unequal players. Your diverse membership is also a powerful instrument for peer learning and support for coordinated advocacy and lobbying for both increased public investment in agricultural development in developing countries and increased ODA to agriculture from industrialized countries.
These are some of the very unique features and great values of IFAP.
The world economy is growing fast. Here in Asia we see impressive progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Unfortunately this is not the case everywhere and if current trends continue, the first MDG of halving poverty and hunger by 2015 will not be achieved in many countries, particularly - but not only - in sub Saharan Africa.
The vast majority of poor and hungry people in this world are small-scale family farmers and landless rural workers. The problem they are facing is that of improving their livelihoods in the context of rapidly changing global market and new forms of competition for influence and resources. Until the rural poor are in a position to better address these challenges, the risk is that what brings prosperity to others will bring continued and deeper poverty to them.
While material investment is essential, we know that most of the key issues confronting small scale family farmers are mediated by relations with others. Consequently a critical element for development is institutional and organizational capacity-building among the poor themselves. Resource poor farmers must be empowered to respond to the challenges they face.
This is fundamental for us. We do not see the smallholder farmers as beneficiaries of international assistance but as citizens, small scale entrepreneurs, wealth producers. In fact the backbone in the quest for economic and social growth in most developing countries where agriculture is the major economic sector, the main employer and the main export earner. The rural poor must be subjects in their own life and not objects of someone else’ s welfare scheme. And you, Farmers Organisations and the Agri- Agencies you created for your cooperation, have a key role in their empowerment.
IFAD and IFAP share many perspectives and objectives. On my way to Seoul I was reading again your 2004 policy statement on "recommendations for eliminating rural poverty and achieving food security". And I was once again struck to see so many similarities in the analysis and priority objectives presented in this document and in IFAD Strategic Framework. Let me just mention few of them: • Reengage public resources in agriculture • Focus development efforts on people and their organisations, • Involve farmers in decision making processes, • Empower women farmers, • Ensure secure access to natural, economic and productive resources on a long term basis; • Increase market power for farmers, • Establish fair and equitable trade rules This common understanding and shared objectives between IFAD and Farmers Organisations were clearly stated at the first workshop we had with farmer leaders in February 2005 in Rome. At your 35th Congress in Cairo, in 2002, I said and I quote: "Our institutions have had a long and mutually beneficial association. I look forward
8 Farmers Fighting Poverty
very much to today being the start of an even stronger collaboration between us"
Looking back at these last four years, I believe we can be proud of our progress in working together - and I would like to pay tribute to the leadership of IFAP and President Jack Wilkinson for these achievements. His drive for results is an example for all of us. We now have the means to go much further. Let me focus on this recent progress in partnership between IFAD and Farmers Organisations.
I just referred to the workshop we had in February 2005 at the initiative of ROPPA, IFAP and Via Campesina, to discuss the project of a Farmers Forum in Conjunction with IFAD Governing Council. This was an ambitious project. But what came out of this workshop is even more ambitious and promising. Not merely a periodic event but an ongoing bottom up process of consultation spanning operations on the ground and policy dialogue.
Within the same year, this process started to gain momentum here in Asia with the first national and regional consultations, in Sri Lanka and in the Philippines. National consultations also took place in five countries in Africa. IFAD participated in IFAP Regional Committee meetings in Africa and in the Mediterranean. We received in Rome an important delegation of Agricord and started working on concrete collaboration.
With the Farmers Forum process we are building a common and inclusive framework for regular interaction between IFAD, Farmers Organisations and our member Governments, from the country level to the global level. And we are now institutionalizing engagement with Farmers Organisations in some of our key operational processes. This is not only about dialogue and exchange of experience. This is about working together in the field, in development programmes and in shaping pro-poor policy frameworks.
I said an inclusive framework because we recognize the diversity and the diverse stage of development of the organisations that farmers and rural producers set up to represent their interests. This is about IFAP and other global networks of rural producers. It is also about sub-regional organisations such as ROPPA, SACAU or COPROFAM. And it is about the many national or local organisations that are not yet affiliated to any network and with whom we work through our field projects. We want the Farmers Forum process to be open to all of them.
Three months ago, in February 2006, the Farmers Forum met for the first time in conjunction with IFAD Governing Council. I met many of you on this occasion and we listened carefully to the statement you delivered at the plenary of the Governing Council.
Let me take this opportunity to respond here to the main requests and recommendations the Farmers Forum made to IFAD.
You called on IFAD to support your own capacity building efforts in the domain of policies.You called for direct support so that you empower your members to interact with the market in a more equitable and profitable way and you recommended direct financing for capacity building of farmers’ organizations according to their own priorities.
As you know IFAD invests most of its resources as loans to member countries’ governments for rural development projects. Many of these projects have entire components for capacity building of grassroots farmers’ groups, water users associations, small cooperatives and rural finance institutions. As national Farmers’ Organisations grow in membership and in capacity, an increasing part of these development projects can and should be designed together with them and
Speeches 9 implemented directly by them in agreement with governments. This is already occurring in a number of countries, including Mali, India, Romania and Senegal and it will increase. IFAD also has a Grant facility. This is the instrument we can use for direct financing to FOs. We have already approved some regional programmes in this direction, particularly in Africa, including a joint programme with AgriCord and we are currently preparing others in south-east Asia and Latin America. The number of our small grants directed to national FOs is also increasing. In this regard we commit to: First, closely monitor progress in this area of direct financing to Farmers’ organisations; Second, at least double the number and volume of capacity building grants to FOs in 2006-2007, compared to the last two years. Areas of collaborations will be identified through national and regional consultations within the Farmers’ Forum process. We also have a lot of expectations from our new partnership with Agricord.
Increasing direct grant financing to national FOs would be facilitated by the discussion of project proposals at an early stage in the development of our country strategies and country programme cycle and by an improvement of the quality of project proposals submitted to IFAD by national Farmers Organisations.
You recommended that farmers’ organizations participate - and in all cases, be at least consulted - in the development of IFAD’ s strategies at both the national and regional levels.
We agree with the principle of systematic consultation with FOs in the preparation of our country strategy papers. We will do this in countries where appropriate national organisations exist. This is already occurring in Syria to Nicaragua, Madagascar, Egypt and Senegal and will be part of the forthcoming policy on IFAD partnership with Farmers’ organisations. We will also go from consultation to active participation where capacity exists and in agreement with governments. .
You recommended that FOs be systematically involved in the design, implementation and evaluation of IFAD funded projects.
IFAD will seek increased Farmers Organisations involvement in project/programmes design and implementation in consultation with governments. The level and frequency of national farmers’ organisations involvement in project design and implementation will be closely monitored by IFAD and reported to the Farmers’ Forum.
You recommended that the first cycle of the Farmers’ Forum (2006-2008) will comprise a significant number of national consultations in each region, to be fed-into regional or sub-regional fora, before the 2008 Governing Council
We commit ourselves to organise 20 national level consultations by the end of 2007 and four regional or sub-regional consultations before the 2008 Governing Council. The quality of these consultations and of their outcomes depends very much upon Farmers’ Organisations. We know you need time to prepare yourselves and consult your members. Accordingly these consultations will be planned ahead of time.
You recommended institutionalization of the interface between the Farmers’ Forum and IFAD’ s Governing Council.
The initiative of the Farmers Forum in conjunction with the Governing Council has been well received by the Governors of IFAD and is de facto institutionalized. I said it very clearly in my concluding statement to the GC plenary in February. This will be further formalized.
10 Farmers Fighting Poverty
You proposed the development of agreed-upon principles of engagement or code of conduct to guide interactions and partnerships between farmers’ organizations and IFAD
We are working on that and these principles of engagement will, after consultation with IFAP and the other international and regional networks, be attached to our policy on partnership with farmers organisations. We see these principles of engagement as a joint commitment to transparency and effectiveness in the use of resources and accountability to our respective constituencies. This point is essential for us. Aid creates donor dependency and too often affects accountability to the people institutions are meant to serve.
The farmers’ forum recommended to put access to natural resources, land and water, on the agendas at all levels, and facilitate dialogue between governments and representatives of small farmers, rural women, indigenous peoples, coastal communities, and other marginalized groups. You call on IFAD to provide support services to beneficiaries of agrarian reform and in certain countries, to help regularise user and/or ownership rights.
IFAD is already engaged in this area, including with IFAP as co-founding members of the International Land Coalition. We will further increase our efforts in this area and this is why we are currently developing our own policy on support to equitable access to land and natural resources. IFAD supported the recent ICARRD conference in Porto Alegre and we are working on its follow up together with FAO and the International Planning Commission (IPC) in which IFAP and other farmers organisations are represented.
You recommended that IFAD should support the undertaking of an evaluation of the impact of regional market integration policies and market liberalization on family agriculture and the livelihoods of the rural poor.
We recognise the importance and usefulness of such an initiative. This is beyond the sole capacity of IFAD, but we will develop partnership with other international or regional institutions in this area. We are undertaking with IFPRI a study on the impact of trade liberalization on smallholders in the Near East and North Africa region. We are currently working on a joint initiative with FAO to support the ACP secretariat and sub- regional Farmers’ networks in ACP regions for the mid term review of the Economic Partnership Agreements process with EU.
You call on IFAD to continue and broaden its support to the set-up of regional platforms of dialogue and negotiations between farmers’ organizations and governments within sub-regional and regional institutions.
IFAD is supporting family Farmers’ Organisations engagement in the MERCOSUR commission on family agriculture (REAF). In West and Central Africa we work in partnership with other donors and Farmers Organisations in the sub-regional rural development "Hub". We are currently discussing partnership with Producers’ Organisations in the ASEAN areas and in the Central American CAFTA.
Finally, during the Farmers Forum, we discussed with you, Mr Wilkinson, the idea of working together with IFAP and the European Consortium for Agricultural Research in the Tropics (ECART), on successful models for empowering producers in markets and for managing risks in family agriculture.
We received recently from you two research proposals, both of great relevance and interest given the rapid and worrying concentration of agrifood supply chains and evolution of markets. We appreciate very much this idea of tripartite partnership between IFAD, Farmers Organisations and Research Institutions. Our staff is currently reviewing these proposals and should, as soon as possible, meet with IFAP and ECART
Speeches 11 in order to reach an agreement on at least one project to start before the end of this year.
Now why all these actions, all these commitments? Not only because we recognize that agricultural development is crucial for poverty reduction. More than that, the quality of life of the entire humanity is in no small measure linked to a vision of agriculture and food production, a vision that respects people and nature and recognises their needs and limits.
Only when we place the family farmer and the rural communities, in the centre of our concerns, when we recognise the multiple and vital role they fulfil, when we ensure their access to all that the modern world has to offer, will we be, indeed, working for an equitable and sustainable progress of all nations.
In conclusion let me very briefly elaborate on the theme of your 60th anniversary celebration that strongly reaffirm the multiple roles and functions of agriculture: Empowering farmers for diversity, for sustainability, for health, for peace.
There is no human industry that is as diverse as agriculture; diverse in its products, in its way of producing, in its way of managing and combining land, water, biodiversity and human labour. And over the world rural people are also the custodians of the extraordinary diversity of human cultures, languages and traditional knowledge. We in IFAD give great value to this diversity of cultures and agricultures, including through a particular attention to the special challenges that face ethnic minorities and indigenous people.
Diversity of agricultural models is threatened by an increasing competition among increasingly unequal forces, by less supportive public policies and by the rising power of a highly concentrated supermarket industry. Under these conditions how can diversity be maintained and promoted in this rapidly globalizing world?
There is no other answer than investing in agriculture development in these countries, regions and rural communities that are threatened by marginalization and exclusion. To enable them to modernize, diversify and develop in their own ways. To fully recognize, everywhere, the multiple and vital roles of family farmers, including their rights and duties as the stewards of our natural resource heritage.
This cannot be done without much more public resources to agriculture in developing countries, without enabling policies and without an adequate level of protection of their national or regional markets. On this later point the Doha Development Round as well as the regional Free Trade Agreement negotiations must leave sufficient policy space to developing countries and must listen to the voices of the poor.
Peace is the first condition for equitable development and eradication of hunger. But poverty is itself strongly associated with the outbreak of war and conflict. This was clearly recognised two years ago by the UN High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. Any progress in poverty reduction, in people empowerment, in development of accountable public institutions and in cooperation among nations is progress towards peace. And I am glad that IFAP shares with the United Nations this very fundamental concern.
As you all know poverty is much more than low income. It is deprivation of basic capabilities. As the Nobel Prize winner Professor Amartya Sen says, let’ s see "development as the process of expanding the real freedom that people enjoy". Let us see expansion of freedom and people capabilities as both the "primary end and the principal means of development". This is much more than GDP growth: "Development has to be more concerned with enhancing the lives we lead and the freedom we enjoy. Expanding the freedoms that we have reason to value not only makes our lives richer
12 Farmers Fighting Poverty
and more unfettered, but also allows us to be fuller social persons, exercising our own volitions and interacting with - and influencing - the world in which we live."
I am sure that you, who collectively work for the empowerment and development of hundreds of million of farmers, for a world of dignity, security and prosperity for all, will appreciate as much as I do these words of Amartya Sen.
May I wish you all success in your deliberations, in your future initiatives and in our future collaboration. Seoul, 17 May 2006
Speeches 13 Structure, positions and programme farmers’ development cooperation, Presentation by Kees Blokland, Managing director of Agriterra
Created in the image of the governmental cooperation In his presentation Blokland highlighted the origin and structure of the farmers development cooperation structure that has emerged over the last decennia. Many parts of it though are still very young. This structure is created in the image of the governmental development cooperation. Farmers organizations from the northern and Southern countries meet in the International Federation of Producer Organizations (IFAP) like governments meet in the United Nations. “They find there a common platform to exchange ideas and opinions, to develop a common understanding of the world problems and take coordinated action to overcome such problems,” stated David King, secretary general of IFAP, in a short intervention during the presentation. Poverty is not the least of these problems to tackle.
Farmers’ organizations in the rich countries like their governments created agencies for development cooperation. To distinguish them from the governmental ones, they called them agri-agencies. They are structurally linked to or steered by the farmers’ organisations, cooperatives and organizations of rural women and young agrarians in the different countries. For that reason they maintain an independent profile in each country. This is more important because they also cater for the relevant relations and alignment with the corresponding bilateral governmental development cooperation.
AgriCord Yet, internationally in their relation with farmers organizations and cooperatives in the developing world much is to be gained from unification of procedures, working methods, specialisation of tasks and working areas. Therefore, AgriCord was created. It should become the one stop shop for farmers’ organization from the developing world. For the implementation of AgriCord coordinated activities, this alliance fully relies on the individual agri-agencies. “I can assure you that AgriCord is aware of its responsibility, and is committed to deliver the right answer to farmers in developing countries,” promised the newly elected president of AgriCord and president of UPA Quebec, Laurent Pellerin, in a written statement for the Arnhem Conference. For that matter, they are in a re-structuring process to go and work as if it was one international organisation.
AgriCord became the implementing agency for IFAP after a memorandum of understanding was signed between the two presidents. At the same time, IFAP created a Development Cooperation Committee as part of its structure involving all IFAP members and members from developing countries on initially privileged fees. The agri-agencies are partners of this committee and hold one of the two the vice- presidencies. These changes provoked the inclusion of many new members from the developing countries into the federation. “DCC is the platform where farmers give guidance and indicate priorities for the work of AgriCord…” stressed Elisabeth Gauffin in her written contribution. Elisabeth was elected chair of the DCC in Seoul. She holds the vice-presidency of the Swedish farmers’ union LRF.
14 Farmers Fighting Poverty
Agriterra To present more details on the structure of the agri-agencies and their activities in their home countries, Blokland presented the case of Agriterra. In this agri-agency farmers, cooperatives and rural women’s organizations participate. They represent a considerable social and economic force, and to illustrate the latter he recalled that the cooperatives have a Euro 30 billion yearly turnover. From the organizations and companies, Agriterra recruits directors, staff and rank and file for advisory services in the developing countries. This is done in short missions, arranged for by AgriPool.
Bart-Jan Constandse, president of the Dutch Framers Union LTO who was to assume the next day the presidency of Agriterra, substituting Gerard Doornbos, stressed that the general policies of Agriterra would remain in place, yet there was room for improvement of the cooperative involvement in Agriterra, an issue that considering his background in the cooperative industry he would like to promote.
Agri-ProFocus To broaden the support in the Netherlands and in order to link up with special services for producer organizations, Agriterra supported the establishment of Agri-ProFocus. In this public private partnership 20 institutions and development agencies, and two ministries work together pooling resources in support of farmers organizations. All have other areas of interest and activities, but dedicate part of their work to farmers’ organizations. Research, vocational training, chain development, financial services (loans, guarantees) is catered for by the participants of Agri-ProFocus. The partnership itself again coordinates these contributions.
Blokland mixed his presentation with the presentation of new office holders in the different gremia and institutions. Some of them issued special votes for the meeting that are included in the annex three, as are the most relevant new names related to farmer development cooperation.
Programme After explaining the structure he stressed some aspects of the Farmers Fighting Poverty Programme, that had to be subject of deliberations on the second day. The project document was circulated in hard and electronic copy1 and the conference brochure explained the background and rationale for the programme.
The Programme works through national farmers organizations. They have nationwide influence. The kind of organizations that are taken into account are illustrated in the conference brochure’s first chapter ‘What is a farmers’ organization?’ The agri- agencies work demand driven and respond to the request with direct funding to farmers’ organizations and cooperatives; and with advisory services mainly the peer- to-peer kind provided from constituents of the agri-agencies or sister organizations in the region.
With the growing budgets, agri-agencies will increase their outreach downwards in the national organizations, trying to increase impact of local associations and farmers in the villages. This will increase the service rendering capacity of the upper layers of the organizations and the opinion and policy generating power of the lower.
In the process, the integration and specialisation within AgriCord continues. And, for the implementation of this programme many co-financing arrangements and collaboration agreements are envisaged with alike international organizations, notably IFAD, FAO, IFDC and ICA. In a similar vein, the alignment and cooperation with
1 http://uploads.agro-info.net/uploads/13/73/90fab47ef3994073095c3837c21ae743/DeelIIIBoerente.pdf
Speeches 15 bilateral donors, like the ones present in Arnhem will prove to be of determinant importance for the mission of our development cooperation.
“In the end, by working through national farmers organisations and catering for their strengthening and economic ventures, we expect to have an impact on their countries’ democratic relations and economic development. We even expect growth and wealth to be more equally distributed. At this point we live in a hungry planet, but we hope in ten years to look back and be able to say that the world has changed and that farmers have contributed to this change by their organized power.”
16 Farmers Fighting Poverty
3. Case studies
Case study 1: PO twinning for pineapple export from Benin By Mrs. Laurence Briand of Afdi
Union des Producteurs du The Union des Producteurs du Sud Sud Bénin – UPS Bénin (UPS) provides services to their members: Small pineapple producers from BENIN have direct ¾ Technical advises (training, field visits, links to access to the European market through their research) organisation: ¾ Credits for purchasing inputs ¾ 200 T/ year in 2005 ¾ Marketing of their products: ¾ More than 300 producers export (0.6 Ha each) ¾ Quality management ¾ French Importers’ Demand increases : they expect weekly supply from UPS ¾ Commercial negotiation with French importers ¾ Logistic support for exportation ¾ A commercial brand
To secure the income of its members: UPS provides complementary services Afdi established cooperation between a fruit & vegetable cooperative from France & UPS ¾ Access to markets in Benin and West Africa ¾ French farmers & technicians share their skills & experience in managing a cooperative ¾ Support to income generating activities managed by women ¾ French Cooperative supports UPS in negotiating with private commercial societies ¾ Advises in Family Farming Management ¾ Afdi & Agriterra provide complementary consultancies & financial support to UPS ¾ Defense of the interest of their members directly or through FUPRO (Access to appropriate inputs, export facilities, etc…)
Cases 17
Case study 2: Cotton in West Africa By Mr. Joost Nelen of SNV
Introduction Cotton is a classic symbol for development – and ‘under-development’ – in semi-arid rural areas in West Africa. It’s a major source of revenues for several states (Mali, Burkina, Benin) and main source of income for more than 10 million people, living in a huge area going from East of Senegal as far as South of Chad. French speaking West Africa is responsible for 2 to 4% of world production (lying above 20 Million Tonnes fibre), but is second exporter after the US. WA-countries are ‘price takers’. Since the 1990’s the World Bank & most donors have put a lot of pressure for reforms of national cotton sectors, in order to tackle weak performances and monopolies of parastatal companies. In the same period there were important farmers’ movements, claiming a more determinant role in the chain. However, the international crisis, under which the cotton sector is moaning since the end of the 1990’s, makes the reforms a delicate operation. Farmers’ organisations slowly have taken their place in the cotton scene and have to find their answers for a number of issues, which will be treated below. Several Dutch development organizations support them. In order to stimulate exchange and more unity in interventions they created the AgriProFocus platform in 2004.
International tendencies Domestic support and subsidies from USA, EU and China keep down the world price of cotton fibre. The world price would be between 5 and 15% higher (Gillson et al, 2004, Baffes/World Bank, 2004) and thus should provide +/- 30 million $/year/country extra. Farmers would get 30% of this (Goreux, 2005). Brasil as well as Chad, Benin, Mali, Burkina challenge subsidies within WTO. They have a strong case, but see themselves confronted by reluctance of USA and EU to really reduce the subsidies. Highly valued Franc CFA (linked to the Euro) and high petrol prices contribute to further weakening of the market position of cotton producing West Africa.
Liberalisation and privatisation The aforementioned reforms aim at more performing sectors and higher share of revenues for farmers by free entry in all stages of the chain and privatisation of companies. Farmers take part in the chain as shareholders in companies (see Burkina) and/or in inter-professional associations (see Benin). Mali is reluctant, but is feeling enormous pressure to privatise the sector before 2009. The reforms are backed by agricultural sector programs and legislation, emphasizing stronger, competitive agriculture. Several cases: swift liberalization in Benin, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Tanzania and Zimbabwe versus more prudent reforms in Cameroon, Burkina and Mali. In the Franc CFA zone production has more increased in countries with prudent reforms than in countries with rapid privatisation schemes (Goreux, World Bank, 2005).
Price setting Price setting is one of the classical battlefields between state, companies, farmer unions and banks & donors and a major “stake” in privatisation negotiations. Cotton price for farmers has been too low for too long, getting less than 45% of world price for fibre, also during high conjuncture 1994/98, but the actual situation is better (>60%). The rest goes to subsidies to processing industry, taxes and ‘stability funds’, exploitation costs, overhead – and mismanagement – of some parastatal cotton companies. Farmers in CFA countries like Mali, Burkina, are accustomed – and very attached – to minimum prices, announced in beginning of growing season. With regards to current fluctuations, the selling cotton ginners take a risk. On the other hand, farmers are not protected from yearly fluctuations, for which stability funds existed – only Burkina and Cameroon have managed them properly, but actually face problems.
Cases 19 Further on, price-setting mechanisms only work if all parties are at same level of information access and analysis, which is often not the case (think of Mali or Benin). One could put into perspective the liberal argument to link the farmer price to the world price in a context, where the latter itself is the outcome of imperfect functioning of the international market.
CompetitivenessQuestions rise on the competitiveness of cotton sectors. By tradition the quality of the fibre is excellent – far better than American f. i. – but transfer of a number of functions (storage of products, transport, extension services) to private actors has put this at stake in some countries. Further on, production costs have risen. West African countries would be less vulnerable if they had a flourishing transformation industry. Until end of 1980’s Benin, Burkina, Ivory Coast and Mali transformed 22% of their raw fibres, now it’s 5%. The Sahel has few advantages: labour is cheap, but one needs more expensive specialised labour; electricity is very expensive. Besides this, we can’t have too many illusions: even American industry is declining and Asian countries (China, India, and Pakistan) are setting the rules.
Sustainability and inclusiveness Municipalities (“collectivités territoriales”) are relatively new actors but will have their say. They are responsible for maintenance of socio-economic infrastructures and for regulations for proper natural resources management; think of granting security of land tenure, also for ‘secondary rights holders’ (women, cattle herders), of protection of common property resources (see 3). Economic growth brings along the risk of degradation of natural resources. Higher production has mainly come from extension of cotton areas, to the detriment of forests, pastures, as well as fallow land, thus putting in danger the ancient method for soil regeneration. High pesticides’ use has resulted in water pollution and poisoning of people (see f. i. the deadly “Endosulfan case” in Benin in 1998/99). Phytosanitary treatment stays problematic. Introduction or not of genetically manipulated varieties is object of debates (p. ex. tests in Burkina with Bt-cotton vs. a moratorium in Benin).
On the other hand, sustainability of production systems is high on the farmers’ agenda and they take numerous initiatives in this perspective. One could say that farming systems in the cotton areas are at the brink of an agricultural revolution: farmers are intensifying and searching for new sources for soil fertility – which makes the actual low cotton price even more problematic, since it prevents farmers to invest in land management and in equipment. Other factors keeping them from investing are lack of appropriate credits (hardly available outside the cotton chain and no long term credits), limited access to information systems and lack of secure property rights (land, water).
Empowerment of farmers organisations A more “vibrant” sector requires good performance and collaboration between several stakeholders. Farmers’ organisations (FO) play a key role in all aforementioned issues and have to position themselves strongly in different processes; some examples: • International lobbying for abolition of subsidies, for better prices and/or against unfavourable Economic Partnership Agreements, done by international platforms: “Association des Producteurs de Coton Africain” (AProCA), “Réseau des Organisations Paysannes et des Producteurs Agricoles” (ROPPA); • Participation in cotton reforms, price negotiation and co-management by national unions as f. i. UNPCB-Burkina, FUPRO-Benin, ‘Group of 38’ and AOPP-Mali: price setting for cotton, inputs; stability funds management; influencing of agricultural and land legislation; • Service delivery by these unions for their members: f. i. input delivery, information delivery, agricultural extension and innovation.
20 Farmers Fighting Poverty
• Finally, “territorial positioning” of local FO wherein they tackle issues as collaboration with municipalities (investments with ‘cotton money’), income diversification for households, regulations for sustainable land management and – transactions.
Support in the Netherlands Within the divers spectrum, wherein they have to operate at several levels, FO have hardly got time to prepare themselves for the new roles, bringing along risks of polarisation and cooptation by state or companies, as well risks of weak communication to members by umbrella organisations. It’s important to pay attention to professionalisation and to articulation between different levels of FO. Finally, we shouldn’t forget issues of sustainability and social inclusion. Strong farmers’ organisations are crucial for poverty reduction in cotton areas. Several Dutch development organisations have taken their empowerment as entry point for support; Agriterra, SNV, ICCO, KIT have partnerships with farmers’ organisations. They are also member of the AgriProFocus platform (see www.agri-profocus.nl). Some examples of capacity building activities by Dutch partners: • Preparation and participation of AProCA, ROPPA and national farmers’ organisations to the World Trade Organisation meeting in Hong Kong 2005 (supported by f. i. ICCO). • Influencing of new agricultural legislation, the “loi d’orientation agricole”, in Mali by national farmers’ platform CNOP (supported by SNV & NOVIB). • Development and application by local FO of planning tools, as the “conseil de gestion de l’exploitation”, for farmers’ households (support by KIT & SNV). • Self-assessment, strategic planning and better structuring of FO (support by Agriterra, KIT, SNV). • Leadership trainings, as well as exchanges and forums between farmers’ organisations within West-Africa, between Europe and Africa or on global level (support by all quoted Agri-Pro-Focus partners).
(Netherlands Development Organisation SNV/ 12/2005)
Cases 21
Case study 3: Awareness Raising Campaigns by Mr. Göran Johansson Swedish Cooperative Centre
Our strategy is based on our Member Organisations We collaborate with our member organisations like: - Federation of Swedish Farmers - Consumer Coops - Housing Coops reaching out to millions of members
LRF’s Vision is: Making the countryside grow… By 2010, the green industry will have a prime position in terms of growth, earnings and career choice for young people. The green industry offers unique potential for sustainable growth and can create new business and attractive social values.
Food Campaigns •”Justice in your coffee cup” •Supermarket expansion - impact on small scale farmers
Housing Campaigns •”Home sweet home” •Academy of Global Justice
Swedish Cooperative Centre Fundraising Methods & income • KF donates € 5 cents for each of its 3 million members (€ 150 000) • Collection boxes at COOP supermarkets and OK petrol stations (€ 200,000) • Donating deposits when recycling cans and bottles by pushing the Dev Aid button (€250,000) • Donations through auto-rounding-off when paying with COOP card (€ 200,000) • OK members donate when they pay their monthly card bill (€25,000) • € 0,3 cents for each sold shopping bag at Coop supermarkets and at OK petrol stations (€ 450,000) • Individual donors register to donate monthly through autogiro system (€ 300,000) • € 20 cents for each member in HSB housing coop federation (€ 100,000) • Employees at OK Folksam, COOP and other member organisations donate monthly from their salaries (€ 100,000) • UTSIKTEN newsletter + postal payment form distributed 5 times/year to all SCC donors (€ 150,000)
• Raffles during member organisations AGMs
Cases 23 • € 0,50 cents contribution from each sold cheese product from Kavli Ltd (€ 35,000) • LRF – The Federation of Swedish Farmers general contribution (€ 350,000) • LRF also includes part of the profit from a calendar with Swedish farmers as ”calendar boys”
24 Farmers Fighting Poverty
4. Seminar Programme - Session One
Welcome
The President of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP), Jack Wilkinson, opened the seminar and welcomed all the participants. He introduced the programme for the day and stressed the important and valuable relationship between AgriCord and Farmer Organisations. The focus for the day he emphasised was to better understand the development programmes of Northern Farmer organisations and how to support and align this with the official governmental and intergovernmental input to achieve maximum effect.
Summary from “Farmers Fighting Poverty” Conference (May 31, 2006)
Mrs Mercy Karanja of IFAP provided a summary of the previous day’s Conference on Farmers Fighting Poverty. She noted: “Farmers speaking for themselves” was, to sum it up, the key message from the previous day. This message was central to the presentation given by the Minister for Development Cooperation who also emphasized the importance of ‘home grown’ farmer solutions and the need to bring farmers into the mainstream of developing such solutions. The Ministers message, combined with the programme of support she announced adds life to our convictions about the importance of farmer organisations in contributing to overcoming rural poverty.
The overview given regarding the new partnership initiatives linked with the Farmers Fighting Poverty Proposal.
The presentation given by the Vice President of IFAD with his commitment to bring farmers voices more centrally into the work of IFAD.
The good discussion regarding the structures for farmers fighting poverty and the role of NGO’s, farmer organisations and others, with the conclusion that bringing farmers more into the mainstream does not mean that nobody else has a role, but that there must be a balance in the voices.
Seminar Programme - Session One 25
5. Session Two
Introduction
The objective of this session is twofold: a presentation on relevance and importance that aid modalities are more inclusive and gearing more towards membership organisations; and an inventory of development cooperation for farmers’ organisations, including those from previous events (Contributions on policies projects and actions are expected from all participants)
IFAP – Jack Wilkinson IFAP is trying to change substantially the way farmer organisations influence policy at sub, national and international levels. This requires that farmer organisations are strengthened so that they have sound policy process and capacity. As a federation of farmer organisation we are critically looking at ourselves to be more and more democratic and inclusive. Our interest is in working to constructively influence the types of development programmes of others. Hence, our desire work in partnership with all other international development agencies. Development programmes are not just about buildings and 4x4 vehicles it is about the human capacity to make a difference. It is important that there are checks and balances in the systems to monitor progress. We want ensure that the role of farmers and farmer organisations is explicitly included in key policies and strategies such as the World Bank Water Challenge Programme and Poverty Reduction Strategies.
IFAP with its small secretariat has no intention to speak on all issues. Many things are a responsibility for national farmer organisations. Therefore it is very critical that they have a sound policy system for giving advice to their own governments. Our desire is to connect the dots so that an overall strategy makes sense. This require both bottom up and top down efforts. We need to insist that national farmer organisations reach downward , this will lead to a coherent system from top to bottom. For example, in Canada we have farm organisations at every level where there is a level of government, this is at local, provincial and federal. It is important that the right issues are dealt with at the right levels.
We want to grow our programmes in a way that does connect all the dots. This is not just about giving money to people to fly to meetings. We want to see farm organisation with the capacity to run without donor funding and have commercial operations for marketing etc. IFAP is about improving the income and quality of livelihoods to make agriculture an attractive sector to be in. This is critical to slow out- migration from rural areas to urban slums that in sum cities are reaching 30 to 50 million people. We want people to see a future in the rural areas and this makes economic sense for everyone.
AgriCord – Mr Ignace Coussement The introduction from yesterday gave the best picture of how things fit together and the efforts by the OECD farmer organisations to support development. AgriCord was initiated six years ago by the agri-agencies of eight countries and this was formalised 4 years ago. This initiative aligns closely with the directions of IFAP as outlined by Jack Wilkinson. AgriCord plays a major role in supporting the work of the Development Cooperation Committee of IFAP.
Each of the member agri-agencies have between 10 to 30 years of experience of strengthening farmer organisations in developing countries. There has been a very comfortable feeling of coming together to work in a coordinated way with partners while recognising that the different agri-agencies have different traditions from their
Session Two 27 own different countries and partners. The challenge is how to match this work to get the best out of these different approaches without trying to create one simple model.
Currently there is a core group of five agri-agencies: • IvA (Belgium): network organisation in Belgium • Agriterra: Mr Blokland explains the cooperation concept in the programme document (Farmers Fighting Poverty) • UPADI (Quebec) • AFDI (France) • SCC (Sweden) The Japanese agency IDACA is not present today but is also involved, the distance creates some difficulty however there is interaction at every IFAP Farmers Conference. Norges Vel from Norway is undergoing some internal restructuring so at present is less active but has indicated that there is the full support of Norway cooperatives and farmer organisations. FERT from France has a clear focus on economic activities, and links up to different commodity organisations in France. There is ongoing work to mobilising the interest of other OECD countries and currently there is discussion with Finland and Australia.
It is important that in the OECD, with well established farmer organisations, resources are mobilised for the cause we are speaking about today. But it is not just about resources, but also about getting the maximum added value from the experiences of OECD with cooperatives and farmer organisations. It is clear that these organisations are ready to engage in issues not immediately on their agenda but which are critical for helping colleagues in developing countries.
We try to capitalize on these experiences in agri-agencies in order to support the plans of farmer organisations in developing countries. Our agenda is to meet their needs rather than to dictate from our own framework. Our business as agri-agencies is to meet the challenge of having resources available to respond to requests from farmer organisations.
Jack Wilkinson noted discussions just held in Seoul at the IFAP Farmers Conference (see annex 4) where it was agreed to give greater focus to the linkages between AgriCord and the Development Cooperation Committee (DCC). Further changes have been made to the DCC to work with AgriCord through a smaller steering committee with a representative from each regional committee. This will help to get programming right. He also emphasized the importance of working towards self financing by farmer organisations and that it is the farmers from donor countries that may often be best experts in working with farmers in developing countries to support new marketing and cooperative strategies. There is a need to be clear about the problem we are trying to solve and what institutions we need to cope with this problem.
The Perspective from Agri-agencies
IvA (Belgium) – IvA is a long established organisation given the nature of the challenges we see no option but to work together and to strengthen networking. Working together is the key strategy to be more efficient and effective. Our objective in participating in AgriCord is to streamline and ensure more expertise getting results at grass roots.
Agriterra (Netherlands): Farmers realise that cooperation is the only way out otherwise competition will kill opportunities for them. The whole Farmers Fighting Poverty Programme is built on cooperation. Our cooperation with bilateral and multilateral donors and with NGO’s aims to achieve that the major actors will understand that the organised farming sector can make a considerable contribution to
28 Farmers Fighting Poverty
the reduction of hunger and poverty. And that on the basis of that understanding they should enable farmers’ organisations at all levels to participate actively in the final sprint towards the Millennium Development Goals The bottom line that organised farmers have a significant contribution to make to economic development, democratic relations and equal distribution of wealth and income; and by doing so, to the reduction of poverty, hunger and the MDGs. Our ‘Farmers Fighting Poverty’ programme investments will go directly to farmer organisations at grass roots level, but this will be done in a strategic and coordinated manner with the national organisations and certainly not by-passing them. The objective is to work with others around the table to make concrete agreements on how to work with and support farmer organisations at different level and reinforce the relations between those levels. The Programme is heavily betting on cooperation. We also need to put the Programme into perspective with 1.2 billion farmers and in comparison to other investments 50 million Euros is not a large amount given the challenge.
UPADI (Quebec): Why we joined AgriCord – We saw that so much was being offered to farmer organisations in developing countries from different donors that the farmer organisations just become lost in trying to respond to all the different agendas. Often the result being that the farmer organisation was to responding to agenda of the donor instead of the opposite and being able to meet their own needs and those of their farmer members. We see it as important to make the approach of our support coherent. Now we have to look carefully at our collective efforts in how to be coherent together so that farmer organisations have a field of action that is straight and clear.
AFDI (France): We share the experiences and difficulties that farmer organisations in developing countries have. Engaging with different Northern farmer initiatives at different levels enables us to better connect North North and North South agendas recognising the different cultures. Farmer organisations benefit significantly from international sharing and exchanges where they can analyse their own experiences and share these. It is important to recognise that it not one way, French farmers also have much to learn from their southern colleagues.
SCC (Sweden): SCC which has itself existed for 50 years, is a newcomer to AgriCord. We see AgriCord as a very interesting and relevant initiative and strongly subscribe to mobilising resource and support for small scale farmers and farmer organisations. The opportunity for sharing lessons between agri-agencies is very important. We see that it is necessary to cut down on overheads and to make sure that the Euro’s raised actually reach the farmer organisations we are supporting. We see the opportunity to learn together via AgriCord and to become more coherent in our working methods.
The Donor Perspective
Introduction – (Mr. Jack Wilkinson) – He invited the donors to offer their perspective. He noted that more donor support will be required and that it was wonderful that the Dutch and Canadians had already “stepped up to the plate”. An issue is that donors have target countries groups, themes and priority issues and these can change over time, but what is needed for farmer organisations is continuity. Part of the role of AgriCord is to help to fit the needs of farmer organisations into various donors strategies (plans).
DGIS - Netherlands (Mrs Aaltje de Roos) – The DGIS perspective was of course made clear in yesterdays speech by the Minister. There have been questions about DGIS’s lack of attention to agriculture. However in our present bilateral policies private sector development is a centrale theme. Given that within the private sector in developing countries at least 60% is agriculture focused, the emphasis on agriculture is
Session Two 29 substantial, be it from a different angle than before. We are considering farmers as a key player in the private sector and from this perspective we do then work quite a lot on agriculture. In the past it has often been difficult to cooperate with and enter into private sector organizations. There were no or very few strong organisations to work in partnership with. Moreover it has been difficult as well to work directly with private sector organizations in developing countries as a bilateral donor. With the IFAP-DCC and AgriCord we have found a institutional base through which we can support this type of work.
CIDA - Canada (Mrs Doriane Prevost) – Canada tries to do much with too little on the development front, consequently CIDA will focus 2/3 of its development budget on Africa with 25 key development partners. The main themes are good governance, basic education, environment, private sector develop and gender. Agriculture falls within private sector development. CIDA’s support for agriculture is focused on productive income, gender sustainability. The policy for business development has lead to an increase in the agricultural investment programme form 75 to 213 million Canadian Dollars with 36 million going to research. The role of non-state actors is important to CIDA strategy. Normally, proposals for funding should be submitted by Canadian organizations.
French Cooperation - (Mr. Sebastien Subsol) – The food strategy 2004 focused on family farming and sub-Saharan Africa. A focus is on entrepreneurial activity with agriculture which requires countries to have good agricultural policies. This includes attention for rebuilding agricultural extension service systems, credit access to information and professional training. These systems have to have coherence at national level. Capacities of two key stakeholders states and farmer organisations are seen as critical. Programmes are trying to strengthen capacities of both actors and to promote dialogue between them. A critical point is that NEPAD proposes that 10% of national budgets should go to the agricultural sector. However, with highly indebted countries this is a challenge. It is important that is invested not just in education but also to productive sectors such as agriculture. At this moment farmer organisations have to be strengthened to have voice in order to be part of the dialogue about effective policies for agriculture. Policies and services systems is the focus for us. At a regional level (Western Africa) we support networks such as cotton growers and ROPPA so that they can be part of international dialogue on policy. Our view of technical assistance in favours the role of farmer organisations .
IFAD – (Mr Jean Phillippe Audinet) – Noted that he would not repeat the message of the Vice President from the previous day where the position of IFAD had been presented. However a short story was given to illustrated how IFAD has looked at moving to strategic partnerships.
In Mali in 1985 there was a typical rural development project trying to work through government initiated village organisations who were dealing with everything. The village organisations were completely dependant on aid. After 10-15 years when the project finished and disengaged the village associations went into crisis. They either disappeared, become cooperatives and federated or created a local farmer organisations. Later these joined the national farmer organisation in Mali, which is now a key actor in developing new agricultural law. Ultimately these small associations, coming out of a classic development programme became members of a national association which is now managing the largest IFAD supported project in Mali.
This story is given because IFAD has always been focused on crass roots but in this story we are now understanding that the future has to be different from bilateral loans to government. Over the last 5-10 years there has been increasing understanding that relationship must be a tripartite one between IFAD, Governments and civil society
30 Farmers Fighting Poverty
(organisations of producers, fisheries and non-agricultural small business). In India for example some loans are now being managed by women’s organisations.
Linked with the consciousness within IFAD of listening to farmers in order to mainstream this understanding of working in tripartite came the idea of formalising this in the IFAD farmers forum. The Process started one year ago with consultation at local and national level followed by the Farmer Forum which will occur every two years. This creates an important link to policy dialogue at the international level. Ambitions and innovative ideas can open up roads to partnerships with farmer organisations with enormous potential. It is not just a question of funding but more important the role of groups like AgriCord in strengthening the capacity of farmer organisation so that they can to influence over national policy and programming.
While we need to the keep focus on the poor at local level, if the balance of power and policy doesn’t change we will never reach the MDGs or any other goals.
Irish Aid (Mr. Earnán O Cléirìgh) – The Irish bilateral aid programme is small and focused on least developed countries in sub-Saharan Africa. There is no separate involvement with farmer organisations and the engagement is with governments through sector wide programmes, including a focus on putting in place appropriate policy and resourcing frameworks. There is also work undertaken at a local level and at districts where government and the people meet. There is a major focus on putting in place policy and responsive service provision with attention to effectiveness in the public service.
In agriculture, local farmer organisations are key for formulation of public policy and improving farmers power in the market, especially in sub-Saharan Africa with its sever market failures and monopoly powers. Also farmer organisations need to provide services that are not provided by the state. As farmer organisations grow they can become more effective in filling the current gaps so that failures are addressed strategically.
In most of our programmes the role of farmer organisations is recognised. But, yes they are difficult to deal with, because they often do not exist at the level we can engage with. We have to be careful about starting to create farmer organisations just to received services from state or donors which are therefore not sustainable in the long run. We also need to think carefully about issues of targeting and democracy. Another historical problem in sub-Saharan is the historical role of farmer organisations. Many were created in post- independence and were for implementing public policy with an agenda of making sure farmers did what government wanted. This perception of farmer organisations still exists in government and by farmers. Consequently farmers are often suspicious of such organisations. Traditional extension and research systems have not been geared up to deal with farmer organisations and have generally been poor on marketing and organisational capacity building issues.
The question is that while we do see the role of farmer organisations, what are the ways and means of providing the necessary support. The route being proposed here seems to be through national organisations. However, this is dependant on local level producer organisations. We see that there must be a very good connection of farmer organisations into sector development plans
IFDC (Mr Rob Groot) – IFDC is funded by IFAD and DGIS, our focus is on how to make things happen at a crass roots level, which has not yet been addressed here, although we do agree on the general objective of giving voice to farmers, policy changes and capacity development. But things need to change at the local level. Farmers do not have the capacity to engage with chains and national organisations are generally not able to work well at local levels.
Session Two 31
We had a program of thousands to millions in Western Africa. The initial objective was technology transfer however this failed because farmers can’t get rid of produce. We recognized the need to link to input and outputs an not focus just on productivity. We now have a successful programme where for 130 000 farmers productivity has been doubled and income has been increased by 30 to 50%. However we can’t scale this up on our own, hence the support from DGIS. Currently in discussions with Agriterra and AgriCord. It all comes back to making things work on the ground, in the long run this is the way to make impact.
SIDA (Mrs. Marija Brdarski) – There is a one page background document prepared (annex 5). In past we have supported farmer organisations extensively through the Swedish Cooperative Centre. Following the collapses after structural adjustment there were very few actors to cooperate with. In our broader bilateral programmes there have been aspects of farmer mobilisation with some emerging local initiatives which are very interesting but still very weak. The question is how to strengthen them without out undermining them and how to link them to high levels. A discussion paper on market driven development has been produced with the conclusion that farmers need to be organised. Therefore, a further study has been commissioned to SCC on how to build farmer organisations and the linkages with markets. Through the Paris Accord there is an agenda for donors to come together in a coherent way for better cooperation. Need to be cautious about not making same mistakes as in the past.
DGIS/DDE (Mr Jan Vlaar) – He invited the participants to make an inventory of failures to analyse these and to learn lessons (for example organisations being developed and driven by donor funding which makes them unsustainable).
Mr. Jean Philippe Audinet intervened and noted that farmer organisations are often weak but that much progress has been made over the last 10 year, with encouraging signs and that we should also look on the positive side.
Mr Ignace Coussement (AgriCord) emphasised the importance of the regional committee meetings of IFAP in terms of establishing priorities, project proposals and best practices. It is important to focus on the experiences and real needs of farmer organisations when formulating programme proposals. Peer exchanges and control are an essential characteristic of these meetings between farmer organisations. The Programme allows both north-south and south-south advisory missions and exchanges. It depends on the nature of the demand requested by the recipient farmer organisation.
Mr. Jack Wilkinson argued that donor aid needs to become more flexible and untied, which would allow a more flexible approach as to advisory missions by northern farmer organisations. South-south exchanges are possible, but this does not exclude north-south support (example of veterinary expert in Scandinavia giving technical assistance to southern farmer organisations).
The Donor Perspective (continuation)
LRF (Mrs. Annette Hellström) – representing the Chair of the DCC summarised a previously prepared statement in particular noting that: The Swedish representative raised the question of how to convince northern farmer organisations of the value of participating in development activities. It was noted that there are in fact many issues that go beyond just WTO agreements where there is common interest between northern and southern farmers. However there is too little awareness of why it is important for cooperation.
32 Farmers Fighting Poverty
International Cooperative Alliance (Mr. Jan-Eirik Imbsen) – The ICA representative explained the collaboration with Agriterra. ICA supports a more favourable co- operative legislation in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. Agriterra gives financial support to this programme. ICA is also collaborating with IDACA in Japan for the training of agricultural managers and the training of rural women leaders in Asia.. In Africa there is much emphasis on rural finance and access to markets. Lobbying, advocacy and policy/regulation are also important themes within ICA’s focus. In Latin America the emphasis is on lobbying and advocacy. ICAO the special organisation for agricultural cooperatives exists. ICA is collaborating with ILO on a global programme against poverty. ICA is organizing workshop and conference with governments in order to sensitise them on the need for autonomous, independent cooperatives.
Convergences exists with IFAP, Agriterra, SCC and COPAC. The regional offices do participate in the regional committee meetings of IFAP. Notable is also the redaction of a disaster reconstruction protocol (Tsunami) in order to establish a code of conduct as to aid efforts. All in all he pleads for a more structural working relationship between ICA and IFAP.
Agri-ProFocus (Mrs. Hedwig Bruggeman) – The MD of AgriProFocus explains the contents of the strategic plan 2006-2007 which has been adopted by the Board on the day before. AgriProFocus is a Dutch public-private platform that links the specialised work with producer organisations of all kinds of Dutch organisations and institutions that might have a broader range of activities and target groups. Agri-ProFocus coordinates the efforts of its members, so providing direct funding support is not its core business in which sense it does differ from AgriCord. However, the level of support being provided through the member organisation of AgriProFocus amounts to some € 12 million 2008. For Agri-ProFocus the producer organisations with whom its members are working are not confined to national level organisations. The main themes of the strategic plan are food chain development, access to credit and capacity building. Important contributors are SNV, Solidaridad, Heifer, ICCO, Agriterra and Agromisa.
FAO (Mrs. Dey-Depryck) – The FAO representative explained that FAO over the years has had a substantial programme supporting producer organisations and co- operatives. This goes back to initial papers and training by FAO in the 1945 / 1948 period. FAO has had a recent review on farmer organisations by John Rouse. In the 50s and 60s the approach was very top down, then it become much more participatory, playing role in technical assistance and in training. More recently the focus has shifted to helping to position farmers in policy advocacy. FAO is now at a cross roads which this meeting can help to clarify.
Over recent years there has been attention to tools for technical assistance in restructuring cooperatives in transition countries and where subsidisation of cooperatives has stopped as a result of structural adjustment. Also training manuals on improving management and efficiency of farmer organisations have been produced. There is clearly some duplication here of work being done by other groups in the room so there is a need to share these materials. FAO has been involved in a project for the computerisation of cooperatives and developing software for membership record keeping undertaken with Agriterra and the Finish Government.
Through the DFID (UK) livelihoods programme there has been some work done on how farmer organisations have engaged in policy. This shows mixed results because many governments are not ready to accept and farmer organisations and farmer organisations are not experienced in how to engage and advocate.
FAO’s work on producer organisations needs to be understood in relation to FAO’s budget issues and the current reform processes. Over the last 6 years there have
Session Two 33 been severe budget cuts for 2006 – 2007 this was a 5% cut and a number of posts have been lost. There has been a bigger cut for the Sustainable Development department than for others. As a consequence there will no longer be regional posts providing technical support on farmer organisations.
As part of the reform process the Director General has picked up on a demand for more capacity development. An interdepartmental group on institutions in agriculture has been created, the deliverables are: • set up a capacity building portal – put on line learning resources • providing support to 1 or 2 projects within the framework of the Special Programme for Food Security. • developing an FAO vision and corporate strategy on institutions
FAO does participate in the IFAD farmers forum and is thinking about a farmers week such as the WB rural week. In summary FAO is at a cross roads and looking for new priorities and partnerships.
Finnish Foreign Affairs (Mrs. Marjatta Selanniemi) – This is a particularly interesting meeting and important for us as we are thinking of engaging with AgriCord. The representative of Finland explains that Finland is unique in the sense that it has a very strong farmers unions (90% of the farmers are member of one organisation) and a very strong cooperative movement. It is important to share this organisational experience with developing countries. The track record of development collaboration with farmer organisations in the south has had both successes and failures with some disillusionment amongst the Finnish farmer organisations. Some of the problems are still there and we need to think about how to do things differently.
General Discussion
Mr. Sebastien Subsol of the representative of French Aid Ministry explained that nowadays most of the French speaking countries do have farmer organisations which is different from the past. However, African farmer organisations are generally weak and understaffed, hence the need for capacity building centres. Another proposal is to establish schools of technicians which should be posted within farmer organisations (experience of Guinea Conakry).
Mr. Earnán O Cléirìgh of the Irish cooperation ministry noted the large difference in the structure and capacity of civil society organisations between Latin America and Africa. Civil society is well developed in Latin America, hence the existence of strong, independent farmers organisations. In Africa farmer organisations have by and large been donor or government dependent. This has significant implications for how to engage with farmer organisations in the future, which from our perspective must include working with local level organisations.
The representative of the National Resource Institute (Mrs Felicity Proctor) explains the present involvement of NRI with farmers’ groups and organisations: • In Uganda NRI is involved in the NAADS extension programme • NRI support effort of collective marketing by farmers groups • NRI is par of a programme on regoverning markets (cofinanced by other donors); an important theme is the impact of new public and private sector food standards on commodity chains • NRI is supports warehouse credit/inventory credit projects • There is a successful south-south exchange programme piloted on the basis of the experiences of cooperatives in Chili. As a consequence a secretariat and steering network has been established by farmer organisations who attended the exchange programme.
34 Farmers Fighting Poverty
Mrs. Karanja (IFAP) supported the viewpoint of the French representative that understaffing/weak capacity poses a major problem for the effectiveness of farmer organisations. She welcomed efforts to organise farmers at the grassroots level, from whatever institution this support may be coming. She explained the enormous difficulty of organising farmers at the grassroots level. It is important to recognise the depth of poverty where the main concern of the poor is often where is the next meal coming from and not that of how to organise themselves. It is nevertheless very essential to support the creation of a critical mass of organised farmers. In this regard there is an important role for NGOs.
Mr. Wilkinson summarizes some major question on the basis of the morning discussions. How to link up activities at several levels? How to build a continuum from national level federations, regional level unions to grassroots’ organisations? How to put the pieces together?
A final discussion ensued over the target group for farmer fighting poverty, with the observation that the landless trying to acquire land or women developing small off- farm businesses are also important to consider.
Mr. Kees Blokland noted that from the Agriterra perspective the distinctive factor of their target group was not specifically related to degrees of poverty but rather the focus is on entrepreneurial activity. This makes a distinction between the employment makers and the employment takers, Agriterra’s focus is on the former. Small farmers are not targeted because they are poor, but because they are entrepreneurs working themselves out of poverty.
Finalisation of Pre Lunch Session
Kees Blokland of Agriterra responded to a number of issues raised during the morning session related to the Farmers Fighting Poverty Proposal:
Scale at which the Programme will operate: The Programme document stresses the need for microlevel action; this is a necessity. However the aid agencies should not address themselves directly to the lower levels. They should strengthen producer organisations in such a way that they can themselves provide the necessary services at a micro level and help to replicate (scale-up) interesting successful micro-initiatives.
The need for a different approach: Instead of formulating a research agenda by research institutions, the existing research should be farmer organisation driven - demand driven: with farmer organisations asking certain research questions with these being taken up on their behalf. Participatory approaches should be built in farmer organisations in such a way that it enhances the capacity of these organisations to respond to member their needs.
Observed weaknesses of farmer organisations: The very reason of this is the past negligence of farmer organisations by donors.
Question of eligibility: The criteria of farmer organisations to receive aid: in principle every farmer organisation can make a request to AgriCord/IFAP DCC, there are of course a number of basic eligibility criteria for which he referred to the first chapter of the conference brochure Farmers Fighting Poverty on producer organizations.
Session Two 35
Mr. Beaudouin of UPA-DI formulated the basic question “Why to work with farmer organisations”. He argued that farmer organisations should not be simply a receptacle of donor aid. Their essential role is to provide services to member ‘entrepreneurs’ so that they can better cope with their operating environment and continue to be viable farmers. Mr Beaudouin, himself is a farmer, noted that he would not be able to survive as an entrepreneur in Africa with an absence of service delivering organisations. It’s the challenge of IFAP and AgriCord to create this supportive organisational environment over the next decade.
End of session two
36 Farmers Fighting Poverty
6. Session Three - Planning for Action
Mr. Wilkinson, the chairman, announces the opening of the second round of discussions. He has understood that next to the Dutch Government the Finnish and Swedish government are possibly willing to contribute to the programme in the near future. He invites other donors to give their viewpoint on the possibility of financial supporting to the programme.
Mr. Plaat (Agromisa) submits a practical question. What to do if one has an interesting project idea?
The answer (AgriCord) is that a project proposal should come from a recognised legitimate farmers’ organisation. If this is the case the idea is eligible for further consideration.
Jur Schuurman (Agriterra) explained the tools available for scrutinising a farmer organisation available in AgriCord which are: • Profiling • Organisational mapping • Formal documentation requirements (bye-laws, audit report etc.)
IFAD (Mrs. Gunilla Olson) as a donor agency wanted to be assured by AgriCord that activities of agri-agencies could be coordination at a country level with those of IFAD. The spokeswoman also expressed the wish that the Dutch Government promote its support for farmers’ organisations in platforms/networks of donor governments.
The spokeswoman of DGIS (Mrs. de Roos) explained that the Dutch Government is absolutely prepared to make an advocacy effort in this sense, e.g. by making a summary conference report and distribute it at governmental levels.
Mr. Coussement (AgriCord) explained that there is no question of different agri- agencies losing their own identity and characteristics through this process; rather the aim is to join efforts in a common programme.
Mr. Wilkinson (IFAP) explained that the objective of IFAP is not to have farmer organisations take up the whole agenda for rural development. The meeting should define the reasonable limits of what farmer organisations can be expected to achieve within a wider context of development.
Mr. Earnán O Cléirìgh, spokesman from Irish Aid, stressed the Irish perspective that they must focus on poor smallholders farmers. Farmers’ organisations have a role to play, but it is important to understand the relationship between farmer organisations and poor farmers. He also noted that there are critical issues around accountability and the matching of resources of farmer organisations and donor organisation that need to be considered. Economic viability of farmer organisations should be demonstrated. He referred to a recent OECD study on pro-poor growth noting the need for empowering the poor in policy making and influencing resource allocation.
Mr. Wilkinson of IFAP states that accountability should not pose a major problem as long as you follow the agenda of legitimate farmer organisations. One should not misinterpret what he was telling earlier on the limits of farmer organisations. They have a role to play and donors can in no way justify neglecting them.
Session Three - Planning for Action 37 Mr Audinet (IFAD) gave two examples, that of the landless rural workers in Brazil and the self employed women’s organisation in India, to demonstrate that one should think in terms of a continuum of support. Assisting farmer organisations and existing entrepreneurial farmers can be one step in enabling the poor to take up business like activities and become entrepreneurs.
Kees Blokland (Agriterra) does not consider the distinction between the poor and the not poor the most relevant one. The focus of the Programme is on the rural members with potential for entrepreneurship. To foster rural development one should focus on the employment makers. This process will also benefit the employment takers.
Mrs Laure Hamdi of AFDI gave two comments: • The role of farmer organisations should not be confined to that of economic actors and service providers. Farmer organisations have an important role to play as advocacy agencies (influencing political decisions). • There is a need for advisory services at close proximity to farmers at the grass roots level. Agri-agencies with the presence of technicians in the field can play an important role in this regard.
Mr. Wilkinson repeated the question to the donors on what next steps should be taken.
Mr. Vlaar (DGIS/DDE) insisted on the need of an inventory of past experiences with regard to farmer organisations and their role in development. He refers to the experience of a donor platform of rural development which has made an inventory of rural development efforts.
Several spokespeople (IFAP, AgriCord, UPADI and Agriterra) do see the relevance of such an inventory. However they do not agree that no action can be taken before finalizing such an inventory. The importance of reflection and learning lessons is acknowledged, as long as it does not develop into a lengthy studious process.
Mrs Olson of IFAD suggested that the question of Mr. Wilkinson be reversed in the sense of IFAP AgriCord, given their Programme document, clarifying their expectations with regard to the donor community? She noted that a major bottleneck in the past was a lack of implementation capacity by farmer organisations but now with capacity building there is a major opportunity to turn this situation around that should be capitalised on. She noted changing approaches within IFAD regarding how to focus investment and attention and the need for internally defending support to farmer organisations.
Mrs. Marjatta Selanniemi, the Finnish representative, had the same comment as Mrs. Olson (IFAD). She agrees with the viewpoint of Mr. Blokland (Agriterra) on rural entrepreneurs. As a donor she insists on the monitoring and evaluation requirements as well as the procedures for choosing partners.
Mr. Blokland (Agriterra) summarises the expectations with regard to the donor community. To implement the programme there is € 115 million needed, of which € 86 million needs to come from external donors. Now there is a commitment of € 50 million Euro from the Dutch, so there is still a need for an additional financing of € 36 million. He wants to submit the programme proposal to other donors in order to ask for a general program contribution. Other necessary steps in the follow up of the present procedures with the Dutch government, will include the harmonisation and standardisation of AgriCord procedures with relation to back donor requirements. All in all this means that a number of follow up meetings have to be scheduled.
38 Farmers Fighting Poverty
He does not see the need for new forum or global meetings as the IFAP meetings form an excellent opportunity for such interaction as all relevant farmers organisations meet there. An important further step is to establish an information platform on farmers organisations, as was already concluded in another meeting in Arnhem last year on informational needs.
Mr. King of IFAP supports the ideas put forward by Mr. Blokland. He stressed the need to advocate for still broader support. As he sees it, the climate is favourable for public- private partnerships. There has been a lot of investments in the public sector. Now there is the need for a complementary investment in the private sector, of which the strengthening of farmer organisations is subject of the present programme proposal. Main themes of this proposal are advocacy, linking up to the markets and the medium term (financial) sustainability of farmer organisations. Capacity building is an important cross-cutting theme, linked to the need for training of farm leaders and technicians. Investment efforts are also needed. He heads the proposal of establishing a platform for knowledge sharing (IFAP event). Information and communication programmes are essential too.
Mr. Coussement expressed his regrets that the agenda of the meeting did not include a short (30 minutes) explanation of the essentials of the programme. The document will be used in further contacts with donor agencies. He emphasises the opportunity of broadening existing IFAP forums (IFAP DCC meeting; DDC focal points and platforms) to more participants from donor agencies
The IFAD representative, Mr. Jean-Phillippe Audinet re-emphasises the need of sharing/coordinating experiences at the country level. IFAD utilises files in which all relevant information by country is summarised. The farmers forum of IFAD also offers an excellent opportunity of communication and information sharing. He sees that IFAP and its farmers conference are not inclusive of all farmer organisations and member organisations. Hence the need and value of other forums. Farmer organisations, like any other sector, have internal politics that leads some be excluded this is a problem the farmer organisations should resolve amongst themselves, but it is important for donors to be aware of this.
Mr. Wilkinson proposes that the donors are approached bilaterally, keeping in mind the promise of the Dutch Ministry to back a broadened base of government support for farmer organisations.
Mr. Audinet (IFAD) restates that the document in itself is good. It suffices that the opening sentence will be changed in the sense that Agriterra is replaced by AgriCord and the Dutch Ministry by the donor community.
Session Three - Planning for Action 39
7. Session Four
Conclusions
Dr Woodhill finalised the conference by summarising the main themes and conclusions as being: • Willingness and opportunities for collaboration: The day has illustrated that many different development agencies and groups are working towards greater support for farmer organisations. There are many different initiatives underway and the overviews given earlier in the day were very informative in this regard. All speakers have emphasised the importance of improving coordination and cooperation to ensure the best results from invested resources. • Farmers having a political voice and influencing policy: The day has strongly reinforced the message from the previous day regarding the importance of farmers gaining a stronger voice in the policy arena. It has been well noted that this requires much stronger capacities for policy analysis and advocacy. • The dual role of farmer organisations: The above point implies that farmer organisations are increasingly being seen as filling both a service role and an advocacy role for their members. This has significant capacity implications. • What scale?: It has been emphasised during the day that in the end their must be practical change at a grass roots level. However it has also been clear noted that change at this level often requires institutional and policy changes at higher levels. Consequently being able to work across scales from local to global becomes a critical challenge for farmer organisations and those supporting them. • The changing global and aid context: The attention being given during this conference to the role of farmers organisations in fighting poverty needs to be understood within the context of major global economic changes and new approaches to aid. These include the consequence of structural adjustment of agricultural research and extension, rapidly restructuring markets, increased demands for quality and safety standards and a shift in aid thinking towards market driven development, pro-poor growth and the importance of public private partnerships. • The paradox of supporting farmer organisations: During the day and yesterday there has been much discussion about how aid funding can undermine the sustainability of organisations or lead to organisations being set up just to receive aid. This meeting has clearly recognised the importance of ensuring that aid operates in a way that creates self sufficient organisations that will be sustainable in the longer-term • Who’s agenda?: There has been a constant undercurrent in the days deliberation of the view that development aid is driven too much by the agenda of the donor and not sufficiently by the agenda of the recipient. It has been emphasised that the Farmers Fighting Poverty Programme is strongly orientated towards responding to the needs of farmer organisations rather than being driven by a pre-determined agenda. • Challenges for farmer organisations: During the day there has also been a good deal of realism about the capacities of farmer organisations. It is realised that they are often weak, not necessarily fully inclusive or democratic in the way they operate and may only represent a particular sectional interest. There are also clearly difficulties for national farmer organisations in reaching down to grass roots groups. However this is all very much seen as the justification for strengthening capacity of farmer organisations and not a reason for turning away from them. It has also been noted by the farmer organisations that working towards transparency, inclusiveness and democratic modes of operation are important principles for the farmer organisations to pursue. • Cultural and historical differences: A number of speakers have emphasised the cultural and historical implications for farmer organisations, particularly between
Session Four 41 Africa and Latin America. It is very important that there is not ‘one model fits all’ approach and that support for farmers organisations is understood within regional cultural, historical and political differences. • The reality of the poverty trap: The meeting has been clearly reminded that in many situations farmers as so poor that their primary concern is where their next meal is coming from not how to get themselves better organised as a group. This reality must be well understood. • Future opportunities: The day has very much been one of identifying opportunities for how aid, and particularly aid linked with agri-agencies, can be used more effectively to in enabling farmers to ‘fight’ poverty on their own terms. There appears to be much support for the directions being taken by AgriCord and the Farmers Fighting Poverty Programme. Those who have not been directly involved in these initiatives to date but are present here have clearly expressed support for the directions being taken and a willingness to find ways for collaborating with or supporting the Programme in the future. It has been agreed that a series of bi-lateral follow-up meetings will be initiated.
Closing remarks
The proceedings were closed by Mrs Pauline Krikke, the Mayor Arnhem, who thanked the participants for being present in Arnhem.
42 Farmers Fighting Poverty
Annexes
1 Programme
2 List of participants
3 Structure of the Farmers’ Development Cooperation & Office holders, incl: • Statement of Laurent Pellerin (CFA) president of AgriCord • Statement of Elisabeth Gauffin (LRF) president of IFAP-DCC
4 Proceedings from IFAP World Farmers Congress in Seoul, Korea
5 Contributions of donors: • SIDA • SNV • Inter-réseaux • National Resources Institute • Ministère des Affaires Etrangères • FAO (1) • FAO (2)
43
Annex 1 Programme
Farmers Fighting Poverty From IFAP recommendations to joint action
Conference Programme Wednesday, 31 May 2006
City Hall, Arnhem Chair: Gerard Doornbos, (departing) President of AgriCord and Agriterra
14.00 Welcome by Ms Pauline Krikke, Mayor of Arnhem
14.10 Address by Hon. Ms Agnes van Ardenne-Van der Hoeven, Dutch Minister for Development Cooperation, on farmers’ organisations and development
14.30 The first copy of compendium ‘Agri-ProFocus in beeld’ is offered to the Minister by Ms Hedwig Bruggeman, director of Agri-ProFocus
1st animation by cartoonist Joep Bertrams
14.40 Presentation of programme “Farmers Fighting Poverty” 2007-2010 by Mr. Kees Blokland, director of Agriterra and presidents and managing directors of cooperating agri-agencies, AgriCord & IFAP and Agri- ProFocus
2nd animation by Joep Bertrams
15.20 Address by Mr Cyril Enweze, Vice-President of IFAD, on how we can best respond to farmers’ recommendations for eliminating poverty
15.45 High tea
3rd animation by Joep Bertrams
16.30 Presentation of case studies that illustrate - the power of strong farmers’ unions - the power of cooperative development among farmers - the impact of development Cooperation in OECD countries
45
16:45 Debate on the representative capability and authenticity of membership organisations in relation to external interventions led by Jack Wilkinson (CFA Canada), Jan Vlaar (Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and Felicity Proctor (Natural Resources Institute)
4th animation by Joep Bertrams
17.45 Cocktails and visit to the top of the Eusebius Church tower
19.30 Banquet in the Eusebius Church, situated close to the City Hall of Arnhem
22.30 Bus returns to the hotel
46 Farmers Fighting Poverty
Farmers Fighting Poverty The answer of the donor community to farmer recommendations and demands
Seminar programme Thursday, 1 June 2006
City Hall of Arnhem Chair: Mr. Jack Wilkinson, President of IFAP
9.00 Welcome and summary of conclusions reached at the “Farmers Fighting Poverty” conference by Ms Mercy Karanja of IFAP
9.15 Presentation on relevance and importance transformation of aid modalities towards membership organisations Inventory of development Cooperation for farmers’ organisations, including those from previous events (Contributions on policies, projects and actions are expected from all participants)
12.30 Lunch break
13.30 Planning for coordinated, complementary and concerted action How to make policies operational in order to utilize strengths of PO’s to fight Poverty, in order to achieve MDG1
15.15 Reflection on the past two days by Mr. Jim Woodhill, Wageningen University & Research Centre
15.30 Closing remarks by Ms Pauline Krikke and Kees Blokland
We hope to build further on the results of other events in 2006, like the Farmers’ Forum of February, organized by IFAD, the CTA-ROPPA workshop on PO’s early May in Brussels and IFAP’s 60th anniversary and particularly its World Farmers Congress in Seoul in May.
47
Annex 2 List of participants
Participants list "Farmers Fighting Poverty" Name Organization Country Wed Thu Petra Vercruysse TRIAS Belgium yes yes Marie Jeanne Breacken KVLV-Agra Belgium yes yes Hilde Timmerman Ieder voor Allen Belgium yes yes Patrick Eeckloo Ieder voor Allen Belgium yes yes Noël Devisch Belgische Boerenbond Belgium yes no Ignace Coussement AgriCord Belgium yes yes Marie-Christine Talbot UPA DI Canada yes yes André Beaudoin UPA Canada yes yes Jack Wilkinson IFAP Canada yes yes Doriane Prevost ACDI Canada yes yes Sanne Chipeta Danish Agricultural Advisory Service Denmark yes yes Tapio Kytölä Pellervo / MTK Finland yes no Marjatta Selanniemi Ministry Foreign Affairs Finland yes yes Sebastien Subsol Ministry of Foreign Affairs-France France yes yes David King IFAP France yes yes Mercy Karanja IFAP France yes yes Denis Herbel FARM France yes yes Leo Braakenburg FARM France yes yes Karen Serres Afdi France yes no Laurence Briand Afdi France yes yes Earnán O Cléirìgh Irish Aid, Dep. of Foreign Affairs Ierland yes yes Theo van Banning PV Rome Italy yes no Alessandro Marini IFAD Italy yes yes Cyril Enweze IFAD Italy yes no Gunilla Olsson IFAD Italy yes yes Jean-Philippe Audinet IFAD Italy yes yes Paule Herodote IFAD Italy yes yes Jenny Dey-dePryck FAO Italy yes yes Millie Abaru ICRAF Kenia no no Cees Coppens ZLTO Netherlands yes no Ton Duffhues ZLTO Netherlands yes no Frank van Oorschot ZLTO Netherlands yes no Evelien Blom ZijActief Netherlands yes no Rudy Rabbinge WUR Netherlands yes yes Bram Huijsman Wageningen International Netherlands yes no Frank Joosten Wageningen International Netherlands yes no Jim Woodhill Wageningen International Netherlands no yes Doeke Faber Ver. Bloemenveiling Netherlands yes no Jan Hoekstra Van Hall Instituut Netherlands yes no Dirk Elsen SNV Netherlands yes no Joost Nelen SNV Netherlands yes Rob Ukkerman SNV Netherlands yes yes B.J. Krouwel Rabobank Netherlands Netherlands yes no Charles Ruys Rabobank Foundation Netherlands yes yes Ico Prins PTC+ Netherlands yes no Wim Bosch PTC+ Netherlands yes no Coby Meyboom Passage / 4VO Netherlands yes no Ineke Ludikhuize Passage Netherlands yes no Ria Abbring Passage Netherlands yes no Peter Huisman OXFAM-Netherlands Netherlands yes no Gine Zwart Oxfam Novib Netherlands yes no Kees van den Burg Oikocredit Netherlands yes no Harm-Eiso Clevering NCR Netherlands yes yes
49 Jopie Oosterhof NBvP Netherlands yes no Joris Baeke NAJK Netherlands yes no Kitty Hovenkamp NAJK Netherlands yes no Roeland Bosch Ministry LNV-Netherlands Netherlands yes no Aaltje de Roos Minbuza / DGIS Netherlands yes yes Peter van Grinsven Masterfoods Netherlands yes no Henny Roelofsen LTO Noord Netherlands yes no Marianne Eringa LTO Noord Netherlands yes no B.J. Constandse LTO Netherlands Netherlands yes no Paul Geraads LTO Netherlands yes no Maria Vogels KVO Netherlands yes no Bertus Wennink KIT Netherlands yes no Lucian Peppelenbos KIT Netherlands yes no Jack van Ham ICCO Netherlands yes no Wim van Doorn ICCO Netherlands yes no M.L.E. Jansen Hogeschool Van Hall Larenstein Netherlands yes no Erik Nijland HIVOS Netherlands no yes Joep van Mierlo Heifer Netherlands Netherlands yes no Arnoud Braun Farmer Field School Foundation Netherlands yes yes Jan Vossen Fair Trade Original Netherlands yes no Jan Vlaar DGIS Netherlands yes yes Sabine Blokhuis DGIS Netherlands yes yes Peter Schuurman DGIS Netherlands yes no Frits van de Wal DGIS Netherlands no no Jan Jansen CR Delta VRV Netherlands yes no Tiny Wismeijer CPVO Netherlands yes no José Ruijter Cordaid Netherlands yes no Sierk Plaat Agromisa Netherlands yes yes Dave Boselie AgroFair Netherlands yes no Haike Rieks Agro Eco Netherlands yes no Peter Ton Agro Eco Netherlands yes no Gerard Doornbos Agriterra / AgriCord Netherlands yes no Frans van Hoof Agriterra Netherlands yes yes Ingrid Koedijk Agriterra Netherlands yes yes José van Gelder Agriterra Netherlands yes yes Jur Schuurman Agriterra Netherlands yes yes Kees Blokland Agriterra Netherlands yes yes Frank van Dorsten Agriterra Netherlands yes yes Marjolijn Hondebrink Agriterra Netherlands no no Rik Delnoye Agriterra Netherlands yes no Wilco Arentsen Agriterra Netherlands yes no Hedwig Bruggeman Agri-ProFocus Netherlands yes yes Joost Oorthuizen Agri-ProFocus Netherlands yes no Wim Goris Agri-ProFocus Netherlands no no Theo Koekkoek Agrifirm Netherlands yes no Ria van Rossum Adviesraad Agriterra Netherlands yes no Régine Doornbos-Neyt Netherlands yes no Marija Brdarski SIDA Sweden yes no Robin Walraven SIDA Sweden yes yes Göran Johansson SCC Sweden yes yes Mats Denninger SCC Sweden yes yes Annette Hellstrom LRF Sweden Sweden yes yes Jan-Eirik Imbsen Int. Cooperative Alliance Switzerland yes yes Jin-Kook Kim Int. Cooperative Alliance Switzerland yes no Robert Groot IFDC Togo yes yes Felicity Proctor Natural Resources Institute UK yes yes Amit Roy IFDC USA yes no
Total participants 104 48
50 Farmers Fighting Poverty
Annex 3 Structure of the Farmers’ Development Cooperation & Office holders
Structure & positions
Internationale Federatie van Landbouwproducenten (IFAP) www.ifap.org President: Mr. Jack Wilkinson (CFA, Canada) General Secretary: Mr. David King Vice-secretary Development Cooperation: Mrs. Mercy Karanja (Kenya) HQ: Paris
IFAP-Development Cooperation Committee (DCC) President: Mrs. Elisabeth Gauffin (LRF, Zweden) Coordinator: Mr. Ignace Coussement (Boerenbond, België) Vice-Presidents: Mr. Leonard Nduati Kariuki (president KenFAP – Kenya) Mrs. Marie-Christine Talbot (managing director UPADI- Canada)
AgriCord, the alliantie of agri-agencies www.agricord.org President: Mr. Laurent Pellerin (President CFA Quebec, Canada) Managing Director: Mr. Ignace Coussement (Boerenbond, Belgium) HQ : Leuven
Agriterra www.agriterra.org President: Mr. Bart Jan Constandse (President LTO Nederland) Managing director: Mr. Kees Blokland HQ: Arnhem
AgriPool, the non-profit employment agency of Agriterra www.agripool.org Manager Mr. Frans van Hoof (Head Advising Agriterra)
Agri-ProFocus www.agri-profocus.nl President: Mr. Gerard Doornbos (past President IFAP & LTO) Managing director: Mrs. Hedwig Bruggeman HQ: Arnhem
51 Statement of Laurent Pellerin, President of AgriCord
Madame la Ministre, chers collègues, et je salue tous les participants à la conférence « Farmers Fighting Poverty ».
Let me introduce myself, my name is Laurent Pellerin. I am the chairman of UPA, Union des Producteurs Agricoles du Québec au Canada, and I represent the 45 thousand farmers of Quebec, Canada. I am also a farmer myself, as well as my family. We raise hogs and beef and we grow grains. I am also the newly elected AgriCord chairman.
In recent years, I had the opportunity to visit farmers in Mali, Benin, Burkina Faso and Cameroun and other countries. UPA works with over 40 farmers organisations to improve their relations with their governments, to improve their positions on trade, and to organize the marketing of various agricultural products on a collective basis. This represents an important support to build the capacity of these organisations and their leaders. That is the kind of activities that AgriCord is facilitating.
Thirteen years ago, UPA decided to bet involved in international cooperation. We realised that farmers organisations from the north were underrepresented in international cooperation. Also, farmers organisations from the South were seeking to establish partnerships with their counterparts from the North. Ever since UPA DI, like others agri-agencies, has become more and more involved in farmers to farmers cooperation.
AgriCord now brings together the efforts of agri-agencies from 8 OECD countries. We wish to increase that number, and we will ask more OECD Governments to support farmers organisations in developing countries.
We are now promoting exchanges on commercial transactions, on lobbying, on the financial autonomy of organisations, on the status of women in organisations, and so on. We will increase and broaden our field of action.
This conference comes at the right moment. Our ideas are more defined now, and they bring life to our convictions. I want to thank the Government of the Netherlands for their support, and particularly Minister Agnes van Ardenne for the trust she demonstrates in our capacity to assist farmers organizations around the world. The delegation of Canadian farmers in Seoul was enthusiastic about the keynote speech you delivered two weeks ago. Our Canadian government has also made a first significant step. Things are moving. I can assure you that Agricord is aware of its responsibility, and is committed to deliver the right answer to those farmers.
I wish I had the possibility to be with you today.
Mes salutations cordiales, je vous souhaite d'excellents travaux. Au revoir.
Laurent Pellerin President AgriCord
52 Farmers Fighting Poverty
Statement of Elisbeth Gauffin, president of IFAP_DCC
Dear delegates at the Arnhem Conference Farmers Fighting Poverty
During the IFAP Conference in Seoul two weeks ago, I was elected to chair IFAPs Development Cooperation Committee (DCC) for the coming two years. This committee brings together more than 70 national farmers' organisations from developing countries within IFAP. I was impressed by their commitment. For them, poverty is a reality and a challenge. But there is a gap between what they could do to reduce poverty, and their current capacities. Elisabeth Gauffin
For me it becomes more and more obvious that farmers all over the world have a lot of conditions and problems in common. Vital issues such as food security, trade, environment, energy, food safety, health, traceability etc are as important for farmers in developing countries as for farmers in industrialised countries. To combat hunger and reduce poverty is basic for growth and development and we need to fight together.
For that, the DCC will play the role that it is asked to play: it is the platform where farmers give guidance and indicate priorities for the work of AgriCord, based upon sharing of knowledge and experience, discussions on development strategies, and comparisons between country situations.
My task is to make sure that the DCC does its job but also to knock on new doors. The DCC made progress in Seoul, bringing together some little pebbles that could provoke a landslide and I am very pleased to hear about the Dutch initiative. I was also pleased with the confirmed and new interest from farmers' organisations in Finland, Germany and even Australia. Also Federation of Swedish Farmers will strongly support a consistent participation, from Swedish side, in the programmes that have been launched.
I wish you all the best and a successful conference.
Elisabeth Gauffin IFAP DCC Chair
Elisabeth Gauffin is a dairy farmer from Sweden and the vice-president of LRF, Federation of Swedish Farmers. She has been a member of the Board of ARLA, the well known Scandinavian agricultural cooperative.
53
Annex 4 Proceedings from IFAP World Farmers Congress in Seoul, Korea
55
56 Farmers Fighting Poverty
57
58 Farmers Fighting Poverty
59
60 Farmers Fighting Poverty
61
62 Farmers Fighting Poverty
63
64 Farmers Fighting Poverty
65
66 Farmers Fighting Poverty
Annex 5 Contributions of donors:
67
68 Farmers Fighting Poverty
69
70 Farmers Fighting Poverty
71
72 Farmers Fighting Poverty
73
74 Farmers Fighting Poverty
75
76 Farmers Fighting Poverty
77
78 Farmers Fighting Poverty
79
80 Farmers Fighting Poverty
81
82 Farmers Fighting Poverty
83
84 Farmers Fighting Poverty
85
86 Farmers Fighting Poverty
87
88 Farmers Fighting Poverty
89
90 Farmers Fighting Poverty
91
92 Farmers Fighting Poverty
93
94 Farmers Fighting Poverty
95