consolidated report 2017 - agricord · • cereals and food crops account for 82% of the target...

Strengthening Farmers’ Organisations

in Developing Countries

Consolidated report 2017

November 2017

Agri-agencies

ACODEA Calle Agustín de Betancourt 17, 6ª planta, 28003 Madrid, Spain Tel: +34 915 541 870 Fax: +34 915 542 621 email: [email protected] www.acodea.es

Afdi 11 rue de la Baume, 75008 Paris, France Tél: +33 1 45 62 25 54, Fax: +33 1 42 89 58 16 email: [email protected] www.afdi-opa.org

Agriterra Willemsplein 42, NL-6811 KD Arnhem, The Netherlands Phone: +31 26 44 55 445, Fax: +31 26 44 55 978 email: [email protected] www.agriterra.org

AHA, Andreas Hermes Akademie im Bildungswerk der Deutschen Landwirtschaft e.V. Godesberger Allee 66, D-53175 Bonn Tel. +49 (0) 228 919 29-0 Fax + 49 (0)228 919 29-30 email : [email protected] www.andreas-hermes-akademie.de

AsiaDHRRA 59 C. Salvador Street, Loyola Heights, 1108 Quezon City, Philippines Phone/Fax: +632-436-4706, email: [email protected] www.asiadhrra.org

Asprodeb Lotissement CICES, Lot n° 58 A, Dakar – Sénégal Tél: + 221 33 869 60 00 email: [email protected] www.asprodeb.org

CSA, Collectif Stratégies Alimentaires Boulevard Léopold II 184-D, B-1080 Bruxelles, Belgique Tél: +32 2 412 06 60, Fax: +32 2 412 06 66 e-mail: [email protected] www.csa-be.org

Fert 5 rue Joseph et Marie Hackin, 75116 Paris, France Tél: +33 1 44 31 16 70, Fax: +33 1 44 31 16 74 e-mail : [email protected] www.fert.fr

FFD, Finnish Agri-agency for Food and Forest Development c/o MTK, Simonkatu 6, PO.Box 510, 00100 Helsinki, Finland Phone: +358-40-159 5667 Email: [email protected] www.mtk.fi/MTK_english/development/en_GB/development

Trias Wetstraat 89, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium Phone: +32 2 513 75 34, Fax: +32 2 512 05 02 Email: [email protected] www.trias.ngo

UPA DI 555, boul. Roland-Therrien, bureau 020, Longueuil (Québec) J4H 4E7, Canada Tél.: +450 679-0530, Fax: +450 463-5202 Email: [email protected] www.upa.qc.ca

Kooperation Utan Gränser /We Effect SE-105 33 Stockholm, Sweden Phone: +46 8 120 371 00, Fax: +46 8 657 85 15 Email: [email protected] www.weeffect.org

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.acodea.es/


http://www.afdi-opa.org/

http://www.visitholland.com/cities/arnhem/arnhem.html/t_BLANK


http://www.agriterra.org/


http://www.andreas-hermes-akademie.de/


http://www.asiadhrra.org/


http://www.asprodeb.org/


http://www.csa-be.org/


http://www.fert.fr/




http://www.upa.qc.ca/


Farmers Fighting Poverty is supported

by the following technical and financial partners

European Union

Contents MAIN POINTS AT A GLANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 8

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 9

1 PROGRAMME OVERVIEW................................................................................................................................ 11

THE FARMERS FIGHTING POVERTY PROGRAMME AT A GLANCE ........................................................................................ 11

1.1 GEOGRAPHIC REACH ........................................................................................................................................ 12

1.2 PROFILES OF SUPPORTED FARMERS’ ORGANISATIONS .............................................................................................. 13

1.2.1 Type of organisation .......................................................................................................................... 13

1.2.2 Organisation level .............................................................................................................................. 14

1.2.3 Services and funding structures ......................................................................................................... 14

1.3 ACTIVITIES BY SUPPORTED FARMERS’ ORGANISATIONS ............................................................................................ 16

1.3.1 The focus of activities ......................................................................................................................... 16

1.3.2 Value chains and products supported ................................................................................................ 16

1.3.3 Value-chain links ................................................................................................................................ 18

1.3.4 Complementarity in projects with other actors ................................................................................. 19

2 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 21

RESULTS AT A GLANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 21

2.1 IMPROVED CAPACITY OF FARMERS’ ORGANISATIONS ............................................................................................... 21

2.1.1 Core competences .............................................................................................................................. 21

2.1.2 Analysing farmers’ organisation competences .................................................................................. 22

2.2 SHORT-TERM RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................... 24

2.2.1 Farmers, farmer groups and membership ......................................................................................... 24

2.2.2 Deliverables ........................................................................................................................................ 25

2.3 TRANSVERSAL ISSUES AND THEMES...................................................................................................................... 28

2.3.1 Gender ................................................................................................................................................ 28

2.3.2 Environmental sustainability .............................................................................................................. 30

2.3.3 Financial health of farmers’ organisations ........................................................................................ 31

2.3.4 Employment ....................................................................................................................................... 33

2.4 RESULTS FOR FARMERS’ ORGANISATIONS: STRUCTURAL CHANGES .............................................................................. 36

2.4.1 Increased role in agro-food chains ..................................................................................................... 37

2.4.2 Enabling environment for family farming .......................................................................................... 39

2.5 EVIDENCE OF IMPACT AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL ......................................................................................................... 41

2.5.1 Effects of improved farmers’ organisations’ capacities ..................................................................... 41

2.5.2 Evidence of impact: FFP contributes to SDGs ..................................................................................... 45

3 MODALITIES OF SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................... 52

MODALITIES OF SUPPORT AT A GLANCE ....................................................................................................................... 52

3.1 ADVISORY SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................... 52

3.2 SYNERGIES AND EFFICIENCY OF THE ALLIANCE ........................................................................................................ 54

4 LESSONS LEARNT FROM EVALUATIONS ............................................................................................................... 61

ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................................... 65

List of figures Figure 1: Organisational forms (East and West Africa, South-East Asia) ......................................................................... 13 Figure 2: Organisational level of the supported organisations ....................................................................................... 14 Figure 3: Services to members (by continent)................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 4: Services to members (East and West Africa, South-East Asia) ......................................................................... 15 Figure 5: Funding sources (by continent) ....................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 6: Funding sources (East and West Africa, South-East Asia) ................................................................................ 15 Figure 7: Types of targeted commodities ...................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 8: Commodity types targeted in East Africa, West Africa and South-East Asia .................................................... 17 Figure 9: Markets targeted by different types of commodities ...................................................................................... 18 Figure 10: Value-chain links addressed by farmers’ organisations ................................................................................. 18 Figure 11: Assessment tools used to measure organisational capacity, 2016 ................................................................. 22 Figure 12: Distribution of specific gender and youth-oriented activities ........................................................................ 28 Figure 13: Number of activities related to women’s economic potential, 2016 .............................................................. 28 Figure 14: Number of projects involving specific activities related to ‘women’s voices’, 2016 ....................................... 29 Figure 15: Distribution of specific environmental activities ........................................................................................... 30 Figure 16: Specific activities for strengthening financial systems, 2015 and 2016 .......................................................... 32 Figure 17:Distribution of specific financial sustainability activities in FFP, 2016 ............................................................. 32 Figure 18: Finance-related characteristics of FOs, 2016 ................................................................................................. 33 Figure 19: Numbers and types of structural change reported by FOs in 2016 ................................................................ 37 Figure 20: Proportion of advisory services provided per type of actor ........................................................................... 53

List of tables Table 1: FFP 4-pillar monitoring and evaluation framework .......................................................................................... 10 Table 2: FFP support to farmers’ organisations channelled via AgriCord, disaggregated per donor (EUR) ...................... 11 Table 3: FFP scope per continent, 2016 ......................................................................................................................... 12 Table 4: FFP scope in Africa, 2016 ................................................................................................................................. 12 Table 5: FFP scope in Asia, 2016 .................................................................................................................................... 13 Table 6: Project activity focus (by continent, 2016) ....................................................................................................... 16 Table 7: Most-targeted commodities ............................................................................................................................ 17 Table 8: Approaches to value-chain links: output side ................................................................................................... 18 Table 9:Basic profile: average scores (/100) for the seven core-competences ............................................................... 23 Table 10: Basic profile: scores (/100) for the seven core-competences per level of FO .................................................. 23 Table 11: Proportion of FOs per scoring-level for each core competence....................................................................... 23 Table 12: Project participants and beneficiaries ............................................................................................................ 25 Table 13: Number of set targets against FFP targets and performance, per deliverable and FO function area ............... 26 Table 14: Highlights of farmers’ organisation project results in 2016 ............................................................................. 27 Table 15: Structural changes on the input side of the value chain ................................................................................. 38 Table 16: Structural changes on the output side of the value chain ............................................................................... 38 Table 17: Structural changes in the position of the FO in terms of value-chain coordination ......................................... 39 Table 18: Structural changes in the enabling environment for family farming ............................................................... 40 Table 19: Cascade of impact: effects on members of farmers’ organisations ................................................................. 42 Table 20: Number of advisory days delivered by different actors, per type of service, 2016 .......................................... 53 Table 21: Advisory services per topic and per actor, 2016 ............................................................................................. 53

AgriCord p. 8 Consolidated report 2017

Main points at a glance Programme overview

• AgriCord mobilised €9.8 million towards Farmers Fighting Poverty support in 2016 - 59% of this funding was allocated to fragile

states.

• Total support from all agri-agencies to farmers’ organisations was €72.3 million in 67 countries.

• 124 farmers’ organisations implemented 148 projects in 34 countries - Africa remains dominant but support in Asia is increasing.

• 66% of these farmers’ organisations are local or sub-national entities; 32% are national organisations; over a third of the

initiatives are implemented locally.

• Economic and technical services were the main focus of 80% of these farmers’ organisations.

• Subsidies remain the most important source of funds for these farmers’ organisations, in Africa more so than in Asia.

• 63% of initiatives relate to specific products or value chains - rice, maize and vegetables being the most important ones.

• Cereals and food crops account for 82% of the target value-chains; export commodities account for 19%.

• Most initiatives on value chains focus on the output side and opportunities for higher profits for farmers. 82% of initiatives in

Asia focus on improved marketing of agricultural produce.

• Local markets are overwhelmingly important for both cash and food crops, but both types of crop are also sold regionally and

internationally.

• More than half of the initiatives involve other actors: other support programmes, government bodies or other farmers’

organisations – other private sector actors and research institutions are increasingly involved too.

Results

• Farmers Fighting Poverty contributes to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in three main strands: increased

entrepreneurship; resilience, natural resources’ management and food security; and sustainable rural development.

• Almost half a million people took part in project activities (43% women) and another 1.2 million benefited indirectly.

• The supported farmers’ organisations had 1,080,000 individual members and 17,800 member organisations.

• The farmers’ organisation initiatives involved 7,048 grassroots groups and primary cooperatives.

• 45% of projects included specific activities related to environmental sustainability.

• 77% of projects included specific activities related to financial sustainability.

• 68% of projects included specific gender-related activities; 13 had a specific youth budget.

• Over half of these farmers’ organisations have a quota setting the minimum number of female board members - almost 15%

have a female director or coordinator.

• 28% of the farmers’ organisations’ board members are women and 8% are young farmers.

• The 148 farmers’ organisations’ projects set 372 targets, most of them related to economic functions.

• 44% of the farmers’ organisations had diverse income streams; 40% are breaking even or running at a profit.

• 52% of the farmers’ organisations reported breakthroughs in 2016 related to their position in a value chain, to the enabling

environment for family farming, or to their negotiation position in policymaking.

• Half of the supported farmers’ organisations analysed their core competences in 2016 – strongest competences overall are

accountability, professionalism and participation.

Modalities of support

• Farmers Fighting Poverty promotes advisory services by peers (farmer-to-farmer): half of the services were provided by the

farming community.

• There were 2,845 full days of advisory services (39% by women); half of them between stakeholders in the South. The advice on

gender and environment (25%) and on financial management (19%) were the most frequent.

• AgriCord continued to enhance overall efficiency and effectiveness with active members’ participation to alliance’s OneForAll

tasks on

(i) increased aid efficiency and harmonisation via Project Committee work, improvements to monitoring and evaluation

system, and to the online database Agro-Info.net

(ii) expanded farmers’ organisations’ involvement in public policies and programmes. In 2016, Farmers Fighting Poverty

supported the involvement of farmers’ organisations in 15 public programmes in 10 countries.

(iii) knowledge management on modalities, on supporting various farmers’ organisations’ functions.

• AgriCord continued to nurture and establish strategic partnerships that benefit Farmers Fighting Poverty and farmers’

organisations in developing countries.

Introduction This report consolidates implementation data and results of the Farmers Fighting Poverty Programme in 2016.

Farmers Fighting Poverty (FFP) is a delivery mechanism established in 2007 by which support is provided to

farmers’ organisations (FOs). It is steered by an advisory committee with regional and continental farmers’

organisation platforms: AFA, EAFF, PAFO, PROPAC, ROPPA, SACAU, UMNAGRI and UNICAFES.1

Focusing on the actors (the farmers’ organisations, FOs) and driven by a development goal of reducing poverty

and increasing food security by strengthening such organisations, the programme provides both funding and

advice. The underlying assumption of the FFP theory of change is that strong farmers’ organisations provide

valuable services to their members, and that members make use of these services and gradually become more

prosperous. The programme takes a holistic approach when working to strengthen organisations: it supports

aspects of institutional / organisational development, and it also supports operations such as member services,

advocacy efforts, links to the private sector etc. Implementation combines the financing of FO projects with peer

advisory services.

The Farmers Fighting Poverty mechanism is based on six principles:

1. Eligibility is limited to membership-based farmers’ organisations.

2. Support is given only in response to demand from an organisation.

3. Financial support is combined with advisory services in a two-pronged approach.

4. FO-to-FO cooperation is fundamental, and may be between farmers’ organisations from North and

South (N-S) or between two Southern farmers’ organisations (S-S).

5. Having flexible, long-term timeframes allows FOs to adapt to constraints and seize opportunities.

6. All aspects of farmers’ organisation work can be considered because FFP is comprehensive.

Farmers Fighting Poverty is managed by the AgriCord alliance. It is set up by professional farmers’ organisations

and their cooperative businesses from countries in Europe, Canada, Africa and Asia. The 12 member ‘agri-

agencies’ (NGOs for development cooperation, mandated by farmers’ organisations) make collective efforts to

support their organised agricultural colleagues in developing countries.

The AgriCord network comprises the following farmers’ organisations and cooperative agro-businesses:

Country Farmers’ organisations and cooperatives Agri-agency Since

France FNSEA, APCA, Jeunes Agriculteurs, CNMCCA Afdi 2003

Netherlands LTO, SSVO, NCR and NAJK Agriterra 2003

France Groupe Céréaliers de France (AGPB, AGPM, ARVALIS, UNIGRAINS) Fert 2003

Belgium Boerenbond, Landelijke Gilden, KVLV and KLJ Trias 2003

Canada Union des Producteurs Agricole (Québec) (UPA) UPA DI 2003

Sweden Federation of Swedish Farmers (LRF) We Effect 2004

Belgium Fédération Wallonne d’Agriculture (FWA) CSA 2010

Asia Asian Farmers Association for Sustainable Rural Development (AFA) AsiaDHRRA 2011

Senegal Organisations agricoles du Sénégal membres d’Asprodeb Asprodeb 2011

Finland MTK, SLC, the Association of ProAgria Centres and Pellervo-Seura FFD 2013

Spain Unión de Pequeños Agricultores y Ganaderos (UPA), FADEMUR ACODEA 2014

Germany Deutscher Bauernverband (DBV) AHA 2014

1 AFA for Asia, EAFF for East Africa, PAFO for Africa, PROPAC for Central Africa, ROPPA for West Africa, SACAU for Southern Africa, UMNAGRI for Northern Africa and UNICAFES for family farmers from Brazil.


The data for this report collected by a consolidated monitoring and evaluation system developed by the AgriCord

alliance. This four-pillar framework Table 1 uses filters to aggregate data in accordance to the below framework.

Table 1: FFP 4-pillar monitoring and evaluation framework

Pillar Type of information

Filter used Frequence of delivery

of information

Pillar 1 Project results of farmers’ organisations

Deliverables and progress indicators per farmers’ organisation functions

Annual

Pillar 2 Farmers’ organisation competences and performance

Scores on 7 core competences of farmers’ organisations

Key indicators on farmers’ organisations’ functions, governance and management

For farmers’ organisations with an economic function: fields for performance information

Minimum of every three years

Pillar 3 Farmers’ organisations’ members

Fields for impact information

Impact tables (cascade of effects) Annual

Pillar 4 Alliance capacity. Agri-agencies quality and delivery

Key indicators on alliance performance

Fields for information on agri-agencies’ organizational quality and relevance of services of agri-agencies

Annual Every three years

This report has four chapters, each with a short summary:

1. Programme overview: the range of farmers’ organisations and the activities we have supported.

2. Results at different levels: FO capacities and projects; the significance of the results for the position of FOs

in agri-food chains; and the impact on members’ income.

3. Mechanisms of support and complementarities within the alliance.

4. Lessons learnt from programme evaluations.

Annexes provide further detail where necessary.

Lists of farmers’ organisations, their projects and commodities (per country) and donor support that have been

carried out can be found in a separate appendix.

1 Programme overview

The Farmers Fighting Poverty Programme at a glance

• AgriCord mobilised €9.8 million towards Farmers Fighting Poverty support in 2016 - 59% of this funding

was allocated to fragile states.

• Total support from all agri-agencies to farmers’ organisations was €72.3 million in 67 countries.

• 124 farmers’ organisations implemented 148 projects in 34 countries - Africa remains dominant but

support in Asia is increasing.

• 66% of these farmers’ organisations are local or sub-national entities; 32% are national organisations; over

a third of the initiatives are implemented locally.

• Economic and technical services were the main focus of 80% of these farmers’ organisations.

• Subsidies remain the most important source of funds for these farmers’ organisations, in Africa more so

than in Asia.

• 63% of initiatives relate to specific products or value chains - rice, maize and vegetables being the most

important ones.

• Cereals and food crops account for 82% of the target value-chains; export commodities account for 19%.

• Most initiatives on value chains focus on the output side and opportunities for higher profits for farmers.

82% of initiatives in Asia focus on improved marketing of agricultural produce.

• Local markets are overwhelmingly important for both cash and food crops, but both types of crop are also

sold regionally and internationally.

• More than half of the initiatives involve other actors: other support programmes, government bodies or

other farmers’ organisations – other private sector actors and research institutions are increasingly

involved too.

The Farmers Fighting Poverty Programme (FFP) is a delivery mechanism for support to farmers’ organisations

funded by multiple donors. Funding mobilised by AgriCord is channelled to farmers’ organisations for their

capacity development through agri-agencies belonging to the AgriCord alliance. In 2016, FFP support to farmers’

organisations totalled €72.3 million2, which was implemented in 67 countries. Of this total €9.8 million (13.5 %)

was mobilised by AgriCord (Table 2). These results are presented in this consolidated report.

Table 2: FFP support to farmers’ organisations channelled via AgriCord, disaggregated per donor (EUR) 2013 2014 2015 2016 Est. 2017

AFD 1,198,532 1,222,614 1,211,700

DGD 2,772,905 1,117,054 38,680 1,022,897 604,746

DGIS 2,766,442 2,250,003 2,193,138 1,322,672

EU/IFAD FFP Africa 3,942,500 3,718,079 3,550,135 0

EU/IFAD FFP ASEAN 661,117 1,410,756

IFAD 288,065 384,998 5,803 52,970 141,537

MFAF 1,086,617 853,520 1,406,188 891,667 804,264

SDC 125,609 246,841 95,238

Totals 8,090,087 8,840,093 5,372,815 9,841,379 5,590,913

2 Overview of countries and volumes of farmers’ organisations’ support by 12 alliance member agri-agencies available in FFP Brochure www.agricord.org

http://www.agricord.org/


1.1 Geographic reach

During 2016, 124 farmers’ organisations were supported to implement 148 projects in 34 countries. Africa

remains dominant in terms of numbers of projects and partner farmers’ organisations, and in volume of financing

(Table 3). FFP support in Asian countries is increasing thanks to the new financing programme for 2016-2019,

which focuses on ASEAN countries. In 2015, the FO-implemented projects were 77 % in Africa, 17 % in Asia and

6 % in Latin America. More than half (59 %) of the funding mobilised by AgriCord was allocated to fragile states

(OECD ranking).

Table 3: FFP scope per continent, 2016

Projects FOs Funding

Africa 109 74% 87 70% 84%

Asia 37 25% 35 28% 15%

Latin America 2 1% 2 2% 1%

Totals 148 100% 124 100% 100%

In Africa, FFP was most prominent in East Africa with 53 projects by 42 farmers’ organisations in eight countries.

In West Africa, there were 40 projects by 32 farmers’ organisations in eight countries (plus one multi-country

action). The countries with the greatest number of projects were Burkina Faso, Madagascar, Mali, Senegal,

Tanzania and Uganda. They represented 66 % of the 87 farmers’ organisations and 66 % of the projects

implemented in 23 African countries (Table 4).

Table 4: FFP scope in Africa, 2016

Projects FO

% of Africa funding

East Africa 53 42 54%

Uganda 19 19

Tanzania 15 11

Burundi 6 1

Kenya 5 5

Ethiopia 4 3

South Sudan 2 1

Rwanda 1 1

Congo DRC 1 1

West Africa 40 32 33%

Senegal 13 9

Burkina Faso 7 7

Mali 7 6

Benin 6 4

Niger 2 2

Gambia 1 1

Ghana 1 1

Togo 1 1

West Africa 1 1

Southern Africa 12 10 10%

Madagascar 7 6

Zambia 3 2

Malawi 1 1

Mozambique 1 1

Africa – other 4 4 3%

Morocco 2 2

Cameroon 1 1

Chad 1 1


In Asia, FFP was most active in South-East Asia, where there were 29 projects by 27 farmers’ organisations in six

countries. The countries with most support were the Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia, which represented 57%

of the Asian partner organisations and 59% of the FFP project portfolio in Asia (Table 5). Nepal was also

significant, with six partner organisations and projects.

Table 5: FFP scope in Asia, 2016

Projects FO % of Asia funding

South-East Asia 29 27 69%

Philippines 8 8

Vietnam 8 6

Indonesia 6 6

Cambodia 3 3

Lao PDR 2 2

Myanmar 1 1

South-East Asia 1 1

Asia – other 8 8 31%

Nepal 6 6

Georgia 1 1

Palestine 1 1

In addition, AgriCord’s FFP financing in 2016 supported one farmers’ organisation project in Nicaragua and one

in Peru.

1.2 Profiles of supported farmers’ organisations

1.2.1 Type of organisation

Of the 124 farmers’ organisations that received support, 61 % are registered as associations and 39 % are

cooperatives. By definition, cooperatives are economic actors, but several organisations established as

associations also carry out economic transactions. Disaggregated per continent, the percentage of cooperatives

is slightly lower in Africa (37 %) than in Asia (43 %).

In East Africa, cooperatives predominate, whereas associations are more common in West Africa. In South-East

Asia, two-thirds of the supported organisations are associations, many of those with economic functions (Figure

1).

Figure 1: Organisational forms (East and West Africa, South-East Asia)

57%

22%33%

43%

78%67%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

East Africa West Africa S.E. Asia

Cooperative Association


1.2.2 Organisation level

Farmers Fighting Poverty operates with farmers’ organisations at four levels. Sixty-six per cent of the

organisations are local or sub-national entities and 32% are national organisations. Support to regional

organisations is marginal. Compared to Africa, there are relatively more sub-national and fewer national

organisations in Asia (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Organisational level of the supported organisations

A project intervention can take place at a different level from that of the implementing organisation. For instance,

national organisations may implement projects at sub-national or local levels. Thus, although only 27 % of the

supported organisations are local entities, 36 % of the projects are implemented locally.

1.2.3 Services and funding structures

Farmers Fighting Poverty considers that farmers’ organisations perform the following functions:

1. Representation and lobbying

2. Economic services (e.g. collective input purchasing, collective marketing, facilitating access to credit

etc.)

3. Technical services (training & extension, agricultural education)

4. Services of public interest (literacy, social protection, access to land and water).

Their funding sources are:

1. Membership subscriptions

2. Services for which members pay a fee

3. Profits from economic activities

4. Taxes on products

5. Subsidies/grants.

Based on this framework, 80 % of the farmers’ organisations implementing FFP in 2016 have economic and

technical services as their main function (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Services to members (by continent)

27% 25% 29%

40% 36%51%

32% 38%17%

2% 1% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total Africa Asia

local sub-national national regional

42% 43% 40%

38% 38% 37%

18% 17% 21%2% 2% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total Africa Asia

Economic Technical Representation Public goods


However, within the continents there are important differences between regions. More than half of the

supported organisations in East Africa provide predominantly economic services whereas only 38 % of those in

West Africa do so. Looking at representation services (lobbying, advocacy), far more of the supported

organisations in West Africa mostly provide these than in East Africa (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Services to members (East and West Africa, South-East Asia)

Figure 5 shows how the farmers’ organisations fund their operations. Subsidies remain the most important

source of funding (67% overall), but other sources are relevant and there are geographic differences too.

Figure 5: Funding sources (by continent)

Within Africa, there are significant regional differences (Figure 6). Although subsidy remains important

throughout Africa, organisations in East Africa raise 30 % of their income from profits and contributions from

members whereas those in West Africa raise only 20 % from these sources. This was to be expected in view of

the different type of service delivery discussed above: given that the organisations in East Africa focus on

economic services, profits from these activities are important. Also, members may be more willing to pay a

contribution (subscription fee) to this type of organisation.

In South-East Asia, the subsidies are significantly less important than in the African regions: members contribute

more and the South East Asian organisations generate more income from paid technical services.

Figure 6: Funding sources (East and West Africa, South-East Asia)

56%38% 38%

35%

36% 36%

7%23% 23%

2% 3% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Economic Technical Representation Public goods

67% 72%52%

14% 11%

22%

12% 12%12%

6% 4% 13%1% 1% 0%

0%

50%

100%

Total Africa Asia

Subsidy Members' contributions

Profits from economic activities Paid technical services

Taxes on products

68%78%

47%

15%8%

24%

15% 12%

13%

2% 2%17%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Subsidy Members' contributions

Profit from economic activities Paid technical services


Although subsidy is an important source of income, almost all organisations report other funding sources. In 72

cases (58 %) members contribute to the organisation’s income. In 39 cases (31 %) the organisation raises revenue

from economic activities and in 27 cases (21 %) the organisation generates revenue by selling services.

1.3 Activities by supported farmers’ organisations

1.3.1 The focus of activities

In line with its basic principles, Farmers Fighting Poverty provides comprehensive support. This covers a range of

activities related to how a farmers’ organisation functions. In most projects, service-delivery to members goes

hand-in-hand with strengthening the organisation.

For monitoring purposes, each project is linked to one major topic, referred to as a “deliverable” (Table 6). Most

projects (82 %) in Asia focus on marketing and, to a lesser extent, on access to inputs and the development of

farmer-led rural enterprises.

Projects in Africa cover a wider range of topics, including improved structural access to resources and credit, and

the development of human-resources capacity. In East Africa marketing is the main focus, whereas in West Africa

access to inputs has more prominence.

Table 6: Project activity focus (by continent, 2016)

Focus of activity All projects Africa East Africa West Africa Asia S.E. Asia

Marketing 37% 31% 44% 26% 54% 69% Access to inputs 22% 25% 15% 36% 14% 14% Rural enterprises 8% 7% 13% 3% 11% 10% Access to resources 6% 7% 13% 0% 3% 3% Human resources 4% 6% 2% 10% 0% 0% Participatory policies 4% 5% 0% 10% 0% 0% Membership base 4% 5% 6% 3% 3% 0% Member participation 4% 5% 4% 3% 3% 0% Processing and handling 4% 5% 4% 0% 0% 0% Governance 3% 2% 0% 5% 5% 3% Financial management 2% 1% 0% 3% 5% 0% Inclusiveness 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% Formal arrangements 1% 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% Policy adoption 1% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0%

1.3.2 Value chains and products supported

Ninety-four of the 148 projects (63 %) report targeting at least one product or value chain of 28 different

commodities. The most important commodities are rice (in both Africa and Asia), maize (mainly Africa) and

vegetables. Beans are an important crop in Africa (Table 7, full list in annex 1).


Table 7: Most-targeted commodities

Commodity Total Africa Asia L-America

Rice 25 14 11 Maize 22 20 2 Vegetables 14 5 8 1

Beans 12 11 0 1

Fruits 10 5 4 1

Cassava 8 6 2 Soy 8 8 0 Dairy 8 6 2 Livestock & poultry 8 7 1

82 % of the product and value-chain focus is on cereals and other food crops. Nineteen per cent is on export

commodities (coffee, tea, cotton, timber etc.). In Africa, the focus on cereals and other food crops is higher than

in Asia (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Types of targeted commodities

In East Africa, 23 % of the targeted products and value chains are cash crops, mainly honey, coffee and tea,

whereas all the targeted products and value chains in West Africa are cereals and other food crops. The targeted

type of crops in South-East Asia is similar to East Africa: about a quarter are cash crops and three quarters are

cereals and other food crops (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Commodity types targeted in East Africa, West Africa and South-East Asia

Different types of commodities target different markets. In supported projects, most of the produce is for local

markets, but one fifth of cash crops are sold in international markets. For cereals and other food crops, close-by

markets in neighbouring countries are most relevant (Figure 9).

19%15%

26%31% 33%

28%

51% 52%46%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Total Africa Asia

Cash crop Cereals Other food crops

23%

0%

24%28%

41%32%

48%

59%

44%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%


Cash crop Cereals Other food crops


Figure 9: Markets targeted by different types of commodities

1.3.3 Value-chain links

The most-targeted value-chain links are on the output side, with relatively small differences between continents

(Figure 10). These projects aim to increase opportunities for family farmers to sell their products to wider markets

at better margins.

Figure 10: Value-chain links addressed by farmers’ organisations

Various methods are used to create more favourable market conditions for family farmers: providing market

information; common storage/warehousing; adding value by transforming the primary product; and setting up

quality control systems, sometimes leading to product certification. In South-East Asia and East Africa, the focus

is clearly on marketing and trading, sometimes strengthened (in Asia) by certification systems. Common storage

is relatively more important in West Africa (Table 8).

Table 8: Approaches to value-chain links: output side

Total East Africa West Africa South-East Asia

Marketing or trading 57% 61% 48% 65%

Collection and post-harvest storage 21% 24% 31% 0%

Transformation 16% 15% 17% 15%

Quality control system 6% 0% 3% 20%

67%

81%

13%

16%

21%

3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Cash crop

Cereals and other food crops

Local markets Regional markets International markets

69% 64%

83%

17% 18% 13%9% 12%0%5% 6% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total Africa Asia

Output side Production at the farmSupply side: access to inputs Resources: access to credit


Case 1: Linkages with market outlets – Marketing pineapples – RePAB, Benin

Fupro supports many coops including Réseau des Producteurs d’Ananas du Bénin (RePAB)3, which represents 1,600

pineapple farmers. Sixty-five per cent of the members are smallholder farmers, with less than 1 ha of land, but

together these farmers produce 11 % of Benin’s pineapples.

With project support, RePAB drew up 18 trade contracts with urban buyers, thus assuring an important market

outlet for its members. The total value of the pineapples marketed through this channel was over 57 million CFA in

2016 (over €87,000).

1.3.4 Complementarity in projects with other actors

Eighty-two of the 148 projects (55 %) report that they work in well-defined complementarity with other actors.

In most cases the other actor is either another support programme (52 cases), governments (at various levels)

or farmers’ organisations (16 cases). As the type of work is similar, the main concern here is to avoid overlap and

duplication of effort. This risk is mitigated by ensuring a clear division of roles and/or different geographical

targets.

Complementarities with the private sector (nine cases) are mainly commercial, such as wen a farmers’

organisation acting as an intermediary to supply a large volume of consistent quality produce to a private-sector

partner. Complementarities between savings and credit cooperatives and financial institutions are also reported

in this category.

Complementarity with research institutions (three cases) is reported in the context of the production of

improved seeds. To facilitate FO access to action-oriented research, AgriCord and Wageningen University

launched in 2016 the ESFIM4 Research Support Fund. Its objective is to strengthen the position of farmers,

particularly smallholders, in resolving problems related to the improvement of their market position. (see section

3.2)

Case 2: Research adds value to sugar cane – CCA, El Salvador

ESFIM supported the Central Cooperativa Agropecuaria (CCA) 5 in its research into how the sugar cane value chain

works in El Salvador. The research identified competitive, sustainable strategies of production and

commercialization. Several conclusions were drawn that enabled CCA to make progress in collective

commercialization of sugar cane, obtaining certification of sustainable production and organic production. The

project reached about 1,290 families.

Case 3: Third-party operation to finance the marketing of cereals – UNCAS, Senegal

Bread is the second largest household cost item in Senegal's cities. This bread, made entirely of wheat flour, requires

that wheat imports grow in parallel with the population growth and urbanization of Senegal. Faced with this

situation, the cultivation of dry cereals in-country has real potential: incorporating local cereals into baking flour,

initially at a rate of 15% and then 30%, will have national implications.

To meet this demand, producers of local cereals (millet and maize), ASPRODEB members, the Association of Local

Cereal Transformers and the National Federation of Bakers agreed to work together in the bread value chain.6 The

growers ensure provision of cereals at a steady price throughout the contract period. UNCAS7 has supported the

establishment of cereal warehouses run by its member cooperatives close to the processing units. Through the

arrangement UNCAS can influence in the bread value chain and ensure a steady market outlet for its members.

3 AIN 5935, Afdi, contribution by AFD 4 Enabling Smallholder Farmers in Markets 5 ESFIM, UPA DI, contribution by DGIS 6 AIN 6422, Asprodeb, contribution by DGD 7 National Union of Agricultural Cooperatives of Senegal


21

2 Results

Results at a glance

• Farmers Fighting Poverty contributes to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in three main strands:

increased entrepreneurship; resilience, natural resources’ management and food security; and sustainable

rural development.

• Almost half a million people took part in project activities (43% women) and another 1.2 million benefited

indirectly.

• The supported farmers’ organisations had 1,080,000 individual members and 17,800 member

organisations.

• The farmers’ organisation initiatives involved 7,048 grassroots groups and primary cooperatives.

• 45% of projects included specific activities related to environmental sustainability.

• 77% of projects included specific activities related to financial sustainability.

• 68% of projects included specific gender-related activities; 13 had a specific youth budget.

• Over half of these farmers’ organisations have a quota setting the minimum number of female board

members - almost 15% have a female director or coordinator.

• 28% of the farmers’ organisations’ board members are women and 8% are young farmers.

• The 148 farmers’ organisations’ projects set 372 targets, most of them related to economic functions.

• 44% of the farmers’ organisations had diverse income streams; 40% are breaking even or running at a

profit.

• 52% of the farmers’ organisations reported breakthroughs in 2016 related to their position in a value

chain, to the enabling environment for family farming, or to their negotiation position in policymaking.

• Half of the supported farmers’ organisations analysed their core competences in 2016 – strongest

competences overall are accountability, professionalism and participation.

2.1 Improved capacity of farmers’ organisations

2.1.1 Core competences

Farmers Fighting Poverty strengthens the core competences of farmers’ organisations to ameliorate their service

provision to their members and to enhance their position in value chains. The Programme defines seven

competences needed by an effective farmers’ organisation:8

1. Representativeness: having a genuine mandate 2. Participation: members are involved in decision-making 3. Accountability and transparency 4. Inclusiveness: gender equality, youth and vulnerable groups 5. Professionalism: maintaining high standards; environmental sustainability 6. Financial sustainability: solid financial management and income diversification 7. Networking: building relations with relevant stakeholders

The evolution of these competences is measured by carrying out organisational capacity assessments. This

consolidated report examines the evolution of competences in relation to the main function and organisational

level of each farmers’ organisation. During 2016, AgriCord’s monitoring and evaluation (M&E) expert group

developed a system to filter the information from organisational capacity assessments into comparable scores

8 See Annex 2 for detailed definitions


22

on the seven core competences. The first task is to establish a basic competence profile of the organisation - as

comparable data becomes available, this will gradually shift to an analysis of evolution in the seven core

competences.

Capacity assessments are carried out through participatory self-analysis by farmers’ organisations, a process

which involves the members, staff and elected bodies. Agri-agencies support the process, often providing an

assessment tool and technical support. They may also contribute to the analysis of results, with a view to

establishing strategies and action plans for further development. In Farmers Fighting Poverty the competences

of farmers’ organisations are evaluated at least once every three years.

Capacity assessments were made available for just over half (62 out of 124) of the farmers’ organisations in 2016.

Figure 11 below shows the proportions of the various assessment tools used.

Figure 11: Assessment tools used to measure organisational capacity, 2016

Profiling-tool was developed initially by Agriterra. It produces a spider diagramme, which visualises the FO’s core

competence scores. Other agri-agencies use this tool (Afdi) or it has inspired the development of their adapted

tool (Trias SPIDER, FFD OCA questionnaire). Similar organisational capacity assessment tool in use is Octagon (We

Effect), which is another participatory instrument to structure the dialogue with the organisation. Other tools in

use are FO Profiling and Growth Monitoring Tools (Asiadhrra) and various organisational and management

diagnostic tools adapted to differences of the FO function and level (Asprodeb). Capacity development

monitoring can be also relying on assessments carried out by FO’s other partners. In 2016, the AgriCord’s

monitoring and evaluation expert group developed a Filter, which can be used for assessing FO capacities or for

converting assessment results into FO core competencies (see section 3.2.4).

2.1.2 Analysing farmers’ organisation competences

Capacity assessments provide insights into FO strengths and weaknesses. A basic competence profile is

constructed by averaging information from the 62 capacity assessments (Table 9) indicates these strengths and

weaknesses very broadly. No distinction is made in terms of organisational level or main areas of functioning.

Accountability, professionalism and participation emerge as the strongest competences. Areas most in need of

further improvement are representativeness and financial solidity.

Profiling, 29%

SPIDER, 26%

OCA questionnaire,

16%

Autodiacnostic, 11%

Filter, 10%

Octagon, 5%Other, 3%


23

Table 9:Basic profile: average scores (/100) for the seven core-competences

Scores

Representativeness 41

Participation 66

Accountability 74

Inclusiveness 56

Professionalism 68

Financial solidity 57

Networking 62

The low scores of representativeness are explained by the fact that the score is mainly determined by the share

of FO members compared to the total estimated farmer population of a given region or country. When an FO

operates across a large region (as is often the case for national and sub-national organisations), this percentage

can be low, as can be seen also on the Table 10, which analyses the basic profile for each organisational level.

For inclusiveness and financial solidity, there are small but significant differences between local and national FOs:

local FOs tend to have higher scores for both competences, which can be attributed to their relative sizes. Smaller

FOs, due to the proximity to their members, can more easily integrate vulnerable groups into their daily work

and structure. Concerning financial solidity, they benefit from smaller, simpler administrative structures and

easier income generation (collecting membership fees, creating farmer businesses) compared to national FOs.

Table 10: Basic profile: scores (/100) for the seven core-competences per level of FO

National Sub-national Local

Representativeness 35 44 64

Participation 60 63 65

Accountability 71 74 72

Inclusiveness 49 55 60

Professionalism 64 62 65

Financial solidity 49 58 58

Networking 61 56 66

Table 11 gives an overview of the farmers’ organisations’ competence levels. For the methodological reason

explained above almost a third (32%) of the assessed FOs appear to have ‘poor capacity’ in representativeness.

Apart from this, the organisations are already at ‘growing autonomy’ level in most competences (grey highlights

in the table show he highest proportion of farmers’ organisations per core competence). This correlates with the

fact that the main bulk of FFP support is implemented by FOs whose main function is economic activities (Figure

3: Services to members (by continent)), for which basic organisational capacities are needed.

Table 11: Proportion of FOs per scoring-level for each core competence

Poor capacity and autonomy

Starting capacities and

autonomy

Growing autonomy,

good capacities

Independent capacity

Representativeness 32% 5% 39% 24%

Participation - 20% 49% 31%

Accountability - 2% 40% 58%

Inclusiveness 4% 30% 50% 15%

Professionalism - 13% 63% 25%

Financial solidity 4% 33% 42% 20%

Networking 5% 28% 33% 35%


24

The following chapters in this report describes results obtained in 2016 related to FO capacity development,

which in turn contribute to the overall evolution of the seven core competences.

Case 4: Improving networking capacity and inclusiveness – Fifata, Madagascar

Madagascar’s rural sector has significant untapped potential for agriculture and animal breeding, but realising this

potential is difficult. Most of the rural population lives below the poverty line and food insecurity is a constant threat.

The rural sector is fragmented and subsistence agriculture is widespread – farmers have little access to technical,

commercial and managerial information.

To improve this situation, Fifata9 (an association of farmers’ organisations) advocates the development of

professional, competitive family agriculture. It parallels the national rural development programme in taking a

sectorial approach. Since 2010, a project has been working with farmers’ organisations to improve their networking

capacities and ability to specialise. Eleven services, mainly related to family agriculture, have been established using

a range of methods and approaches – these now require consolidation.

In 2016, Fifata supported 11 regional organisations (comprising some 1,036 FOs and about 16,000 producers) to

develop their services and improve community life. Most of the union are operational on poultry, potatoes and fish

sectors. More than 291,000 vaccines were administered by a network of village vaccinators supported by member

FOs. 338 training sessions benefitted some 5,000 producers. 120 legal and land counselling sessions benefitted some

1,700 farmers. Operational linkages were established for some 250 producers for inputs. Fifata also facilitated several

collective marketing efforts, and intensified lobbying on youth training, land rights and agricultural financing.

Case 5: Financial solidity - Happy to pay for quality services – TUNADO, Uganda

The Uganda National Apiculture Development Organisation (TUNADO) 10consists of 266 small to medium-sized groups

(FOs, SMEs and companies), of which 18 % are women’s organisations. To improve its financial basis and

sustainability, TUNADO has created a business department called ‘The Bee World’. This has allowed the organisation

to generate income and increase the volume and quality of collectively marketed honey. Apiary record-keeping and

membership payments improved greatly in 2016, and the high-quality services attracted many new members -

membership grew last year by about a third, from 180 to 266. Members pay to participate in ‘Honey week’ and

increasingly pay their annual subscription fees, all of which puts TUNADO on a better financial footing.

2.2 Short-term results

The results of project activities are monitored in terms of the numbers of direct participants. In addition, the

numbers of grassroots groups and primary cooperatives involved is monitored. The numbers of beneficiaries is

also monitored (for example farmers trained under a trainer-of-trainers approach, number of members

delivering products to a cooperative etc.). By looking at membership numbers, we can get an idea of the degree

of the FO capacity strengthening that projects achieve.

2.2.1 Farmers, farmer groups and membership

In 2016, almost half a million people (43 % women) participated in project activities. Another 1.2 million are

estimated to have benefited indirectly (

9 AIN 5951, Fert, contribution by AFD 10 AIN 6097, Trias, contribution by DGIS


25

Table 12).


26

Table 12: Project participants and beneficiaries

Participants11 Beneficiaries12

Africa 441,150 972,841

Asia 52,204 171,675

L-America 4,976 2,918

Total 498,330 1,147,434

Eighty-eight per cent of the direct participants in FO projects were in Africa, the majority (56 %) in East Africa.

This reflects the fact that most FFP projects were implemented in Africa (109 of the total 148), particularly in East

Africa (53).13

In 2016, FOs involved a total of 7,048 grassroots farmer groups and primary cooperatives in the projects.

The farmers’ organisations supported had 1,080,000 individual farmer members and 17,800 FO members.

Capacities of 12 national and international umbrella farmers’ organisations, with a total membership of

13,770,000 individuals, were strengthened in 2016.

2.2.2 Deliverables

Farmers Fighting Poverty measures short-term results in terms of targets linked to a result area (a ‘deliverable’).

The deliverables are grouped according to FO functions as shown in Table 13 below.

A project can have more than one deliverable, so the number of targets exceeds the number of projects. In 2016,

372 FFP targets were set by 148 projects. Most targets (163) related to economic functions. There were fewer

related to technical functions and organisational strengthening / institutional development (91 and 98,

respectively). Targets related to advocacy and lobbying were addressed 20 times (Table 13).

These targets capture short-term results of FO capacity development. The evolution of competences (see section

2.1) and changes in an FO’s position in an agro-food value chain (see section 2.4) occur over a longer timescale

than is covered by annual project monitoring.

Performance can exceed 100 % if a project exceeds a set target. The performance is calculated per deliverable

and overall performance as weighted averages, using the number of projects as the weighting factor. Appendix 4

lists all monitored annual targets, with numbers of registrations, planned and realised values, and performance.

11 ‘Participants’ is defined as the number of individual participations in a project event. Double counts are possible (when the same person participates in several activities). 12 ‘Beneficiaries’ is defined as the estimated number of individuals who have benefited indirectly from projects (i.e. without direct participation). 13 See section 1.1 Geographic reach


27

Table 13: Number of set targets against FFP targets and performance, per deliverable and FO function area

Deliverable description Number of set targets

Performance

OSID14 98 102%

Deliverable 1. Participation 26 96%

Deliverable 2. Professionalism 16 141%

Deliverable 3. Financial solidity 15 73%

Deliverable 4. Accountability 15 64%

Deliverable 5. Representativeness 12 124%

Deliverable 6. Inclusiveness 6 93%

Deliverable 7. Networking 2 160%

Deliverable 8. Integrated services 6 129%

Lobby and advocacy 20 97%

Deliverable 9. Joint advocacy and lobbying 14 109%

Deliverable 10. FO position in policy decisions and value chains 6 69%

Economic function 163 85%

Deliverable 11. Farmer-led enterprises 114 86%

Deliverable 12. Collective input supply 19 57%

Deliverable 13. Collective marketing 10 116%

Deliverable 14. Access to finance and insurance 20 88%

Technical function 91 73%

Deliverable 15. Sustainable water and land management 3 122%

Deliverable 16. Members training and advice 48 71%

Deliverable 18. Access to finance and insurance 18 71%

Deliverable 19. Market access 22 71%

Overall 372 87%

Overall, 87 % of the targets were met. Results in the field of organisational strengthening and institutional

development slightly exceeded expectations; performance on the technical function (at 73 %) was the lowest.

The main reasons for not reaching targets were delayed start-up and difficulties encountered by FOs in recruiting

and / or training the required staff.

14 Organisational strengthening and institutional development


28

Table 14 below highlights some of the results for the most-commonly monitored targets.

Table 14: Highlights of farmers’ organisation project results in 2016

Selected targets per result area Numbers realised

Economic function

Business plan to improve marketing 22 business plans

Number of linkages with market outlet 203 linkages

Members receive improved inputs 8,839 FO members

Local groups with trade contracts / deals 1,143 groups

Local groups participate in savings & credit schemes 674 groups

Technical function

Access to market information 12 cases

Institutional cooperation with financial service providers 7 linkages

Members trained in improved techniques 4,268 FO members

Members participating in extension services 7,359 FO members

Members trained in financial literacy 9,809 FO members

Local groups in Farmer Field Schools 109 groups

Organisational strengthening and institutional development

Increased membership 71,422 additional members

Staff and leaders trained on rural enterprise development 886 FO staff trained

Long-term financial plan in place 3 financial plans realised

M&E procedures documented 3 procedures documented

Board-member training 131 board members trained

Advocacy and lobbying

Policy proposals developed 11 proposals

Attendance at formal meetings 392 attendances

Case 6: Protecting the interests of family farmers - FFA, Cambodia

Promoting Family Agricultural Enterprise in Cambodia (FAEC) 15 is an Federation of Farmers’ Associations (FFA)

initiative that includes 25 primary cooperatives and 28 associations across nine provinces. It represents over 5,000

family farmers, half of them women. The goals of the Federation are to strengthen its members to support family

farmers, to promote value chains in support of family farming, defending the interests of family farmers and

strengthening the role of women and youth in farmers’ organisations.

With the support of FFP/ASEAN, FAEC worked with eight of its member cooperatives. Exchange visits and thematic

workshops covered both technical and organisational issues: cooperative management, horticulture and

developing services for members. By the end of the year, each coop had developed a business and action plan.

In direct support to coop members, FAEC organised training sessions on bulking up seed and on good agricultural

practices in rice growing. Training covered seed selection, soil preparation, irrigation and fertilizer application,

weeding and the proper use of agro-chemicals, good harvesting and post-harvest techniques.

FFP/ASEAN also contributed to improved functioning of the Federation. It facilitated the FAEC General Assembly,

which was attended by representatives of the member cooperatives and associations. In line with the five-year

strategic plan approved by the General Assembly, FAEC recruited additional staff: a secretary general, an extension

officer and an accountant. The immediate result of these actions should be increased accountability towards

members and improved service-delivery.

15 AIN 6565, Afdi, contribution by EU/IFAD


29

2.3 Transversal issues and themes

2.3.1 Gender

In 2016, 100 of our 148 projects (68 %) included specific gender-related activities. Thirteen projects had a specific

budget for youth, which was spent on providing adapted training, creating youth groups within the organisation

or bringing youth into governance structures.

Gender-related activities included:

• Activities valuing the economic potential of women via farmers’ organisations

• Activities strengthening women's voices to be heard through farmers’ organisations

• Activities influencing relations on the family farm

• Activities to integrate young professionals.

Figure 12 below presents an overview of the main gender focus of projects implemented in 2016.

Figure 12: Distribution of specific gender and youth-oriented activities

Most attention goes to improving women’s influence in decision-making and FO governance (40 %), and

improving women’s economic potential (18 %). Five percent of projects address the integration of young

professionals.

A total of 48 activities were planned and realised to strengthen the economic potential of women. Training

adapted to the needs and priorities of women (14 activities) and improvement of women’s access to finance (15

activities) were the main activities increasing the economic potential of women (Figure 13).

Figure 13: Number of activities related to women’s economic potential, 2016

55%31%

6%8%

Voices of women

Economic potential ofwomen

Awareness creation ondivision of income, ofhousehold responsabilities

Integration of youngprofessionals

15

14

41

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Access to storage and marketsfor women

Women's business managementcapacity

Adapted training

Access to finance


30

Out of 87 activities targeting ‘women’s voices’, 49 were aimed at awareness-creation and women’s leadership

(Figure 14).

Figure 14: Number of projects involving specific activities related to ‘women’s voices’, 2016

Evidence for the perceived importance of women’s voices and female leadership can be seen in the composition

of governing boards and in internal regulations that facilitate the presence of female and young board members.

On average, the boards of AgriCord supported FOs have 28 % female members and 8 % young members.

To ensure inclusive rural transformation and maintain the attractiveness of the farming sector as a place to work,

young people should have a role within farmers’ organisations. A survey on youth participation in cooperatives16

recommended increasing the percentage of young members on governing boards to at least 15 % and boosting

youth involvement by creating youth clubs within the organisations.

The presence of women is facilitated by the internal (often informal) culture of organisations where women are

encouraged to take on leading roles; some organisations have internal regulations and procedures on women’s

representation. One specific strategy is the application of a self-imposed quota on the number of female board

members: more than half (54 %) of the organisations have such a quota.

Organisations that do not have a gender quota have on average a lower proportion of female board members

(25%) than those that impose a quota (31 %). Almost 15 % of the farmers’ organisations supported in 2016 have

a female director or coordinator, which is comparable to the percentage in industrialised countries.17

From a broader perspective, 35 % of the organisations have a dedicated plan, approach or activities specific to

vulnerable groups.

Case 7: Women-led processing cooperatives improve standards – ESDC, West Bank and Gaza

The Deir Al Ghsoon cooperative, with support from the Economic and Social Development Centre of Palestine

(ESDC) 18, has set up a unit to process honey and olive oil, and now provides part-time employment for 12 women.

The women took part in training courses on working hygienically and the processing factory hall was renovated.

Specialised equipment – a centrifuge to separate honey and a press to extract oil from olives – together with

optimised storage conditions, have improved product quality. Six trademarks for coop products have been

registered.

The FO also provided training sessions on processing and leadership for 131 producers, 86 of them women. Women

improved their access to capital and financial services through the Village Saving and Loan Associations (VSLAs) pilot

project that established 45 communal microfinance groups in Hebron, Tubas and Jenin Governorates. The VSLAs

are women-led and most of the members are women (787 out of 806 members).

16 Agriterra, Survey on youth participation in farmers’ organisations, 2016 17 http://www.copa-cogeca.be/Main.aspx?page=CogecaMembers 18 AIN 6408, We Effect, contribution by DGIS

49

14

2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Lobby and advocacy on womenrights

Skills development, mechanismsfor participation, policies forgender in FO's

Inclusion of women, awarenesscreation, leadership of women inFOs

http://www.copa-cogeca.be/Main.aspx?page=CogecaMembers


31

2.3.2 Environmental sustainability

Almost half of the projects (45 %) in 2016 had activities specifically related to environmental sustainability (Figure

15). These include:

• Environmental risk management: actions driven by the need to reduce environmental risks such as

drought, flooding, resource scarcity and soil erosion.

• The green economy and environmental markets: activities driven by market demand for ‘green’ food

and wood products (labelled organic, agro-ecologic, sustainable) and services (carbon sequestration

etc.).

• Low-impact agriculture: approaches promoted by the farmers’ organisation and farmers.

• Compliance with environmental regulations: activities to help design environmental regulations or

to encourage the cost-effective adoption of such regulations.

Just over half (51 %) of these activities focused on environmental risk management, especially at farm level. This

emphasis is driven by the increasing challenges of climate change and soil degradation in many regions. Farmers

around the world are adopting preventive measures to increase their resilience towards extreme climate events

and maintain their access to natural resources.

The importance of the green economy and environmental markets (28 % of all environmental projects and

activities) accords with the growing global demand for safe, healthy food products through optimal use of natural

resources. Farmers’ organisations create value through certified or labelled products including timber, honey

and vegetables.

Figure 15: Distribution of specific environmental activities

Sixty-eight per cent of the activities were carried out on individual farms and 32 % at group level. This may be

because environmental management is a farm-level, practice-oriented concern: farmers generally prefer to

make their own management choices regarding environmental resources and risk. Environmental know-how is

often higher ‘on-farm’ than within farmers’ organisations. Specific environmental action in forest-product value-

chains (both timber and non-timber products) represents 11 % of all environmental activities.

Sustainable agricultural methods at farm level (31 projects) consisted of introduction of integrated approaches

(Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA), Integrated Diversified Organic Farming Systems (IDOFS)), or

focused on some aspects of sustainable farming such as fertilizer and pesticide use, composting, mulching, cover

crops, crops rotation and soil preservation techniques.

Seven projects’ activities focused on agroforestry techniques, establishing tree nurseries or forest protection

activities.

51%

28%

16%5%

Environmental riskmanagement

Green economy andenvironmental markets

Low-impact agriculture

Compliance withenvironmental regulation


32

Water management was a specific focus in three projects. Four projects had influenced the laws on land rights,

improving smallholder’s opportunities to become the owners of their plots, which incentives farmers to consider

sustainability in their choice of farming techniques.

In five projects environmental efforts focused on raising awareness on sustainable agricultural issues and

climate-change adaptation within the FO staff and management.

In four projects specific disaster-risk and climate-change adaptation training was carried out and within one

project a community-level resource-management framework was produced.

In addition, a carbon emission footprint calculation model was developed.

Case 8: Promoting solar-powered pumps for irrigated horticulture – TAHA

Tanzania Horticultural Association (TAHA) supports fruit and vegetable farmers in Zanzibar to improve their farming

techniques, to have better market linkages (via a trader database and a market information system) and through

training and collection centres.19 They are also promoting solar powered irrigation systems.

As a result of TAHA’s efforts to increase its members’ productivity, farmers have seen their yields and income

increase considerably - in some cases, the income per acreage has increase more than 10-fold. A total of 1,222

farmers (335 of them women) have been linked to traders and a wide range of horticultural crops (water melon,

green pepper, tomato, cucumber, eggplant, mint leaves, spring onion, lettuce, carrot, lettuce, zucchini and hot

pepper) were sold for a total of TZS 1,008,461,623 (roughly €411,000).

Eleven solar powered pumps were installed (at Mkoani, Chakechake, Weni, Micheweni, Kitumba, Kiboje, Fuoni and

two sites at Bwejuu). Three more were installed by TAHA to demonstrate their effectiveness compared to fuel

pumps, and as a result six farmers have installed their own solar pumps.

Case 9: Stall-fed cattle grow faster and the dung can be used as fertilizer - Lao Cai Farmers Union, Vietnam

Lao Cai Province is among the poorest, most mountainous highland province of Vietnam where 70% of the

population belongs to the many indigenous ethnic groups and the average poverty rate is 18%. Raising cattle and

other small animals is the main source of cash income, and farmers mostly follow traditional practices based on

extensive pasturage. Dung is not collected and treated. Farmers know little about recent improvements in small-

scale cattle husbandry, and recent bad winters have caused the death of tens thousands of head of stock.

This project is improving the capacity of farmers and Union staff to prevent and control the negative effects of cold

weather and livestock diseases.20 They are learning to produce quality forage, to preserve it in the form of silage

for winter, and to build cattle shelters so the animals can be kept under cover during the winter. They are also

carrying out routine vaccination and using rice husk to bulk up animal feedstuffs. Growing livestock indoors reduces

the length of production cycle, thus potentially reducing methane emissions. It also allows farmers to collect and

compost the animal dung to use as fertilizer. Environmental impacts of changed farming practices will be to reduce

pollution and minimise the need to buy in artificial fertilizer.

2.3.3 Financial health of farmers’ organisations

Farmers’ organisations show strong commitment to improving their financial health. In 2016, 77% of all projects

included specific activities related to financial management (75% in 2015). Relating both to the improvement of

financial systems as well as to financial sustainability.

Support for financial systems continue to focus increasingly on strengthening accounting resources and

capacities, and on training staff and leaders on financial management (Figure 16).

19 AIN 5947, FFD, contribution by EU/IFAD, MFAF 20 AIN 6394, AsiaDHRRA, contribution by DGD


33

Figure 16: Specific activities for strengthening financial systems, 2015 and 2016

Related to financial sustainability, in comparison to 2015, support to the enforcement of payments for services

and to the provision of services financed by grants have both increased. In 2016, there were no specific activities

on lobbying for favourable levies/taxes nor on improving the collection of membership fees. (Figure 17)

Figure 17:Distribution of specific financial sustainability activities in FFP, 2016

Farmers’ organisations carry out many important non-commercial activities, which explains their partial

dependence on external resources. Section 1.2.3. notes that most farmers’ organisations are still reliant on

subsidies, although membership subscriptions and profits, especially from economic services provided by local

farmers’ organisations, are increasing. Indeed, 44 % of the supported organisations report diverse income

streams and 40% are breaking even or running at a profit. Error! Reference source not found. presents the p

roportion of FOs meeting certain financial requirements and objectives.

39% 41%

39% 37%

15% 18%

7% 4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6

Setting up accounting policy andprocedures

Supporting the improvement of FOaccountability

Training of staff and leaders onfinancial management

Strengthening accountingresources and capacities

19%

41%

30%

33%24%

24%22%

2%5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 2016

Supporting the lobby for the set up oflevies/ taxes

Improvement of member feecollection

Supporting dialogue with financialpartners

Increasing of payment for services bymembers and non members

Supporting the delivery of servicesfinanced through grants


34

Figure 18: Finance-related characteristics of FOs, 2016

2.3.4 Employment

Employment is at the core of successful rural transformation. FFP promotes on- and off-farm employment by

supporting farmers’ organisations and farmer-led rural enterprises to achieve increased professionalism,

productivity, profitability and entrepreneurship. This objective goes hand in hand with reinforcing organisational

capacity to influence policy-makers (in this case to promote rural employment). Given proper means and

support, smallholders have the potential to engage in ‘productive agriculture with high economic, social and

environmental value’.21

The different aspects of FFP’s contribution to creating decent rural employment are illustrated schematically

below:

Rural employment

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES RESILIENCE

Services for on-farm

employment

Farmer-led enterprises for

off-farm employment

(Policy) influence on

business environment

Shock resistance for farmers

Agriculture as a stable and attractive

sector

Influence on public policies for

agriculture

Increased on-farm productivity, processing of products and entrepreneurship - as noted in sections 2.2 (short-

term results) and 2.4 (system changes) - creates decent work and employment opportunities for smallholder

farmers, their family members and the rural population at large.

Farmers’ organisations also support their members to diversify their income sources by starting new activities,

which may also create part-time employment for family members.

Youth employment

Supporting youth integration receives special attention within FFP. The training and integration models

developed by Fekama and SOA in Madagascar (with the support of Fert and Afdi) focus not only on skills and

knowledge transfer but provide considerable support to the preparation of agri-business plans and creditworthy

loan applications. In 2016, 82 young farmers supported by SOA’s programme and 381 former students from

Fekama’s agricultural colleges have set up as autonomous farmers.

21 H.Rouillé d’Orfeuil (2012)

44%

40%

37%

42%

42%

32% 34% 36% 38% 40% 42% 44% 46%

FOs with diversified income

FOs financially break-even or running profits

FOs managing a multi-year financial plan

FOs with annual budget approved by the Board

FOs with annual financial report presented to theirGeneral Assembly


35

These two programmes’ multifaceted training and facilitation approaches are described in the following case

narratives.

Case 10: Training professional young farmers – SOA, Madagascar

The SOA network22 operates in three main areas: local vocational training for young people aged 15-20; helping

farmers’ organisations to develop services relevant to young farmers aged 20-35 at the start of their careers; and

getting young people involved in running their farmers' organisations. The last includes integrating young people

into regional and national dialogue forums so that their concerns are considered when agricultural policies are

devised and monitored.

Over a three-year project, young farmers were given funds to set up a farming activity, after they had provided a

convincing business case and opened an appropriate savings account. The young people received training in

financial management and agricultural advice specific to their particular activity, and they had access to the services

of the regional farmers’ organisation. A farmer technician visits each young farmer roughly once a week, and this

close support has made it possible to organise group purchases and training sessions. After the first year there is

no subsidy, but the accumulated savings allow the young farmers to take out a loan, in some cases guaranteed by

the group, to finance the next steps.

In 2016, 82 young farmers started this process; since the project began in 2014, 176 young farmers have established

their own farms. Ongoing observation suggests that good economic forecasting and the ability to manage cash flow

are crucial. The savings component ensures long-term sustainability for the young farmers’ activities.

Regional farmers’ organisations have provided information and support to young farmers on climate and other

hazards. The Centre international de dévelopment et recherche (CIDR) donated insecticide that the farmers’

organisation Bemirai shared among young people living where there was a high risk of locust attack. This

intervention allowed peanut and maize crops to recover from defoliation and enforced collaboration between the

decentralized services of the state and Bemirai.

Having farmers’ organisations involved in nurturing young farmers ensures that they develop their services with

young farmers’ in mind. Further, the organisations’ elected officials are more willing to give responsibility to young

members.

Case 11: Agricultural colleges bring wide benefits – Fekama, Madagascar

The Fekama Federation23 in Madagascar has four active agricultural high schools and a fifth is being set up in the

Aloatra-Mangoro region. The annual student intake averages 35 per college and since 2003 a total of 1,440 students

have attended. Students’ families make small financial and in-kind contributions (3,000 ariary – roughly €1 - and 60

kapoaka (17 kg) of rice every month) throughout the two- or three-year study programme. Since 2009, the courses

have included support for young people setting up their own farming activities outside the family smallholding. By

2016, 381 students had set up (or were in the process of setting up) activities.

College courses include general education plus theoretical and practical training on agricultural production and

farm management. A teaching farm is attached to each college – students do practical work there every day.

Twenty-five per cent of the students are women. Towards the end of their studies, the students present a project

proposal to a grants committee. If the proposal is approved, the young person receives a lump sum grant of 800,000

ariary (about €275) to launch an agricultural activity. This grant must be spent on fixed assets.

Students adopt a range of strategies. Some graduates start their project quickly, for instance if their family can

provide land or material or financial resources, or when they have been able to save and buy livestock during their

studies. Some graduates save before starting their project by doing work outside agriculture. Some graduates wait

for more than two years before requesting the lump sum, either because they lack motivation or because they have

had to support their family.

The young farmers diversify their activities and consolidate their income by engaging in several types of agricultural

production or by combining commercial crops with food crops (to secure the family food supply). They also find

additional employment (income) in para- or extra-agricultural activities.

22 AIN 5854, Afdi, contribution by DGIS 23 AIN 5832, FERT, contribution by EU/IFAD


36

A study into this scheme concluded that beyond the wealth generated through the successful installation of the

graduates, a new training centre such as Fekama college has a wide economic impact on the local community.24

After some years of operation, local stakeholders have a positive image of the training centre. The study also noted

that the scheme reinforced the perception that smallholder farming offers opportunities for young people both

now and in future.

Case 12: Employment in beekeeping – MVIWATA Arusha and Manyara, Tanzania

With support from Trias, MVIWATA25 Arusha and Manyara26 (the regional farmers’ organisations of Tanzania’s

national farmer network MVIWATA) are promoting community-led management and protection of local

woodlands. Beekeeping is an important enterprise in these areas, although it has until now been a male preserve.

Honey is a valuable commodity and, since the bees need flowering trees (particularly acacia in this case) for food

as well as water to drink, beekeepers are keen to maintain tree cover around water sources. MVIWATA has been

stressing the close relationship between trees, soil protection and water supply, and the environmental benefits of

forest conservation. Traditional methods, where hives are placed in the canopy of (often thorny) trees, are being

modified to enable women to take part.

An incentive is the offer of half-price hives, which farmers should be able to repay within a year, assuming average

honey production. MVIWATA Manyara places a condition on this offer – farmers are given five tree seedlings free

when they pay their subscription: if the trees are flourishing six months later, the farmer is eligible to buy a

subsidised hive. The hives themselves are made by local young people, thus boosting local employment and the

tree nurseries are run as businesses and sited, like the beehives, close to water. So far 281 people are keeping bees

to generate income.

Case 13: Building assets: A programme for farmer owned institutions and enterprises – MVIWATA Arusha,

Tanzania

This project27 supports family farmers, especially women and youth, to become part of economic growth by linking

them to value chains and helping them to build productive assets. Support focuses on individuals (building financial

assets plus skills and self-confidence) and on organisations (making them stronger and more sustainable). In the dry

lowlands of Arusha, the aim is to boost sustainable use of the few areas with irrigation potential. Away from the

irrigated areas, the project is diversifying livelihoods by promoting vocational training and entrepreneurship for

youth, and strengthening the poultry value chain.

The project has been largely successful, particularly in terms of youth employment. There are now more youth

members (36%, up from 15%), and 191 young farmers have developed business plans following the ILO

entrepreneurship syllabus known as Start and Improve Your Business. Twenty of them were able to take out

business loans through links to a micro-finance provider.

Off-farm employment

Most experts foresee a fundamental role for off-farm rural employment to absorb surplus agricultural labour.28

Within FFP, increased off-farm employment is created through support to new and growing farmer-led rural

enterprises.

A small but important (because of the multiplier capacity-building impacts) part of off-farm employment is

created within farmers’ organisations - in providing extension services and, for organisations with economic

functions, jobs in marketing, sales etc. These posts might initially be funded by grants or other subsidies but as

24 B. Wampfler and L. Bergès: Understanding the installation process of youths in agriculture to better support it, IRC, Montpellier SupAgro, coordination B. Wapfler and A. Panel, Fert, Technical reports series, April 2017, N° 27 25 MVIWATA (Mtando wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzania) is the national networks of farmers’ groups in Tanzania. Between this national organization and the individual farmer is a middle-level network based in particular areas. The Arusha and Manyara networks are separate entities but they both cover semi-arid areas and their members by and large share the same challenges. In this example, we discuss both of them. 26 AIN 6383, Trias, contribution by MFAF 27 AIN 6261, Trias, contribution by MFAF 28 Agenda 2030 – New Momentum for Rural Transformation: The Future of Donor Programmes in Rural Development, GDPRD, 2017


37

the member base and members’ productivity increase, they can become sustainably self-financing. In 2016, 16

projects included funds for financing 102 full- and part-time staff positions in farmers’ organisations.

Increased capacities in the post-harvest, storage and processing services offered by farmers’ organisations have

created off-farm employment and diversified income sources for smallholder farmers and the wider rural

population:

111 young unemployed were trained in machinery maintenance; 48 of them were employed by CAPAD member cooperatives processing tomatoes, maize, rice and manioc; records are not kept on trainees employed outside member organisations.

Support for producing decorticated pineapple fibre and pineapple jam helped establish 160 household enterprises - 38 women and 33 youth gained new livelihoods.

Training in abaca-based handicraft production led to employment of 50 people in handicraft production and 15 people as strippers of abaca.

The main results achieved in relation to creating employment for women are:

Two food-processing units established at the Shofat women’s centre and the Deir Al Ghsoon coop created part-time jobs for 12 women; the project also created working days for external trainers and local manufactures who provided the processing equipment.

Diversifying into forestry increased income for cooperatives and their members: 14-50% of farmers’ annual net income comes from forestry, and tree nurseries provide jobs especially for women.

254 farmers, including six men, engaged in handloom activities (212 spinners and 42 weavers).

Examples of other staff positions created are:

2 additional advisors in herd management 20 new consultants recruited to the pool of business development support providers 1 female handicraft trainer providing livelihood diversification to several households, and 2 sales people

for dairy products 7 technical advisors 1 administrative position in FUPRO 1 business development specialist and 3VSLA field officers

2.4 Results for farmers’ organisations: structural changes

Capacity development is expected to help a farmers’ organisation improve its position in an agro-food chain. An

improved position usually stems from structural and sustainable change (in an organisation’s functioning,

processes, relations, policies and sphere of influence) that benefit both the organisation and its constituent

members.

Such changes tend to be gradual, as value chains are affected by a broad range of economic and political factors,

from physical access to inputs to international trade rules and conditions, all of which influence farmers’ income.

But sometimes a structural change appears as an unexpected breakthrough when underlying elements (such as

access to finance or removal of pre-commercial barriers) become established, allowing new mechanisms or

institutional linkages to produce concrete results for members.

This complexity makes it difficult to attribute results to individual actors. However, it is safe to assume that

without support to boost the capacities of farmers’ organisations and without the major roles played by the

organisations themselves, the structural changes described below would not have materialised.


38

We distinguish four types of change:

1. Changes on the input side of the value chain: improving farmers’ access to production factors, including

finance.

2. Changes on the output side of the value chain: improving farmers’ access to market outlets.

3. Changes in the position of the FO in the value chain coordination.

4. Changes in the position of the FO in policymaking processes

Of the 124 farmers’ organisations supported by FFP, 64 reported structural changes related to their position in a

value chain or to the enabling environment for family farming and the negotiation position in policymaking.

An improved position in the value chain signifies that the farmers’ organisation has established itself as an

economic actor, or has increased its influence to become an important spokesman for its members, or that it has

taken a coordinating role. Position changes in relation to the enabling environment refer to an organisation’s

position with regards to policymaking, decisions on public investments or the regulatory environment. Most of

the supported farmers’ organisations experienced several types of change. Figure 19 gives an overview of

numbers and types of FO structural changes in 2016.

Figure 19: Numbers and types of structural change reported by FOs in 2016

2.4.1 Increased role in agro-food chains

Input-side system changes refer to instances where farmers’ organisations improve their members’ access to

inputs, develop input-distribution mechanisms, build extension services, introduce technical innovation or gain

access to credit and finance.

Access to quality inputs is often a major bottleneck for farmers. Fifty-three farmers’ organisations have

successfully addressed this problem and reported structural changes in both financing mechanisms for input

purchase and input distribution.

As Table 15 below illustrates, structural change on the input side related to access, financing and related

extension systems in 70 % of the cases in 2016. Change was achieved either by permanently embedding

extension services within the organisation or by maximizing existing resources by clarifying the FO’s roles relative

to other extension-service providers.


39

Table 15: Structural changes on the input side of the value chain

Type of input-side system change Number of cases

Mechanisms for input distribution and access to inputs 16

Input financing through links to market actors 12

Embedded extension systems 9

Input financing through links to financial institutions 5

Technical innovations 3

Mechanisms to access and manage land and water use 1

Other 7

Total input-side changes 53

Output-side system changes take place in different links of value chains - post-harvest management and

infrastructure, quality control, collective marketing, gathering market and price information and influencing

price-setting, and providing access to finance by warranty systems. As shown in Table 16 below, the majority of

output-side structural changes attained within FFP took place in relation to collective marketing and improved

understanding of market mechanisms.

Other important areas for structural changes in FFP were storage facilities and quality-control systems. Some

farmers’ organisations were involved in managing and realising infrastructure works, not only for crop storage

but also of a more general nature (such as road improvements to facilitate transport of harvested products).

These structural changes facilitate the access of member farmers to new markets and to more profitable value

chains. Eighty-nine FO projects supported by FFP targeted local and national markets, and in 12 cases structural

changes on the output side sought access to export markets.

Table 16: Structural changes on the output side of the value chain

Type of output-side system change Number of cases

Collective marketing 13

Collection system of products 9

Knowledge of markets and their mechanisms 8

Quality control and standard setting 5

Influence on price setting 3

Storage infrastructure and management 2

Access to financing by collected harvest warranty systems 2

Post-harvest management and infrastructure 1

Market and price information 1

Other 11

Total 55

In terms of FO position in value-chain coordination, FFP reported 54 cases of structural change, as detailed in

Table 17 below. In six cases, there was a specific focus on a particular shared vision (either on the role of women

and youth within the value chain, or on climate- and nutrition-smart agriculture).

A value-chain study was conducted in 12 cases. Knowledge of the value chain is crucial for making effective

strategic and operational decisions; it also strengthens organisations’ negotiation positions relative to other

market actors. This type of change has considerable potential to produce other structural changes in the future.


40

Table 17: Structural changes in the position of the FO in terms of value-chain coordination

Type of change in FO position in value-chain coordination

Number

of cases

Stronger influence of FO on other actors in the value chain, so FO position better taken into

account 17

Improved analysis of value chain by FO 12

Improved shared vision between stakeholders on value-chain development and division of

profits along the chain 6

Improved contract-negotiation process and respect of contracts by all parties 5

Improved division of role between stakeholders and FOs regarding extension services to

farmers 5

Improved shared vision on the role of women and youth in value chains 3

Improved shared vision on climate- and nutrition-smart agriculture 3

Improved trust between FO and other stakeholders in the value chain 2

Improved networking for market access 1

Total changes in value chain coordination 54

2.4.2 Enabling environment for family farming

System changes in the position of farmers’ organisations in policymaking and in public investment programmes

do not necessarily address a specific link in a value chain. These changes refer to the capacity of farmers’

organisations to influence policy- and decision-making processes and public investments, and to facilitate

farmers’ access to land and water resources.

Farmers’ organisations with good professional capacities and a strong position within value chains become

credible and sought-after interlocutors in policymaking. Farmers’ organisations supported within FFP report that

they are increasingly asked by local decision-makers to participate in policy definition and decision-making

processes.

System changes related to policymaking and in public investment show that farmers’ organisations have been

successfully supported to develop clear lobby trajectories and policy proposals (see Table 18 below). Farmers’

organisations have contributed to improvements in sectoral policies and regulatory frameworks, creating an

enabling environment for farmer-led economic activities.

In 17 cases of 207, the reported structural changes happened through public-private partnerships in natural-

resource management, providing inputs or storage, or providing other types of infrastructure or social services.

In addition to direct support through project funding, AgriCord’s 14ALL (one for all) work complements and

supports the process of farmers’ organisations redefining themselves and their positions in rural development

policy. AgriCord has set up an inter-organisational debating facility to promote discussions between farmers’

organisations (both South-South and North-South), to jointly reflect on priorities and opportunities in the context

of transformation (see more in section 3.2).


41

Table 18: Structural changes in the enabling environment for family farming

Approach Number

Agricultural policies; also agriculture within wider development policies, in infrastructure and

institutions and cross-cutting gender laws and policies 17

Market and competition governance, support for farmers’ organisations, diversity of market

outlets, market coordination competition policy, quotas and market preference, public

policies for private standards, trade policy

16

Access to and management of water and land resources 6

Agricultural investment policies 4

Social protection and resilience funds to members, public goods 3

Total 45

These 207 reported structural changes in 2016, together with often-complex interactions of public and private

investments and activities, co-produce the impacts at household level presented and analysed in section 2.5.

Structural change: supply side

Case 14: Potato farmers have better access to inputs – NADO, Tanzania

To increase the income and food security of seed-potato growers in the Njombe Region of Tanzania, NADO29 started

a project in 2015 to boost productivity by making it easier for farmers to access quality inputs. The project also

focused on structuring the seed-potato market for smallholders.

NADO had to improve its coordination role, including building partnerships with suppliers. Institutional changes

were also needed to bring the producer groups into the value chain and improve their access to seed potatoes.

Capacity improvements included increasing the ability of farmers to supply seed-potatoes to other growers, and

improving the agricultural advisory services provided by NADO field facilitators and officers.

NADO’s extension officers, facilitators and group leaders were trained on sustainable practices and smart

agriculture, and farmers received practical manuals on potato production. When a chronic fungal disease spread

throughout the region, NADO’s potato production was unaffected because it was using a new, blight-resistant,

variety. Finally, NADO improved its financial footing by starting to provide services to the PFP-project (which

researches and develops new, more resilient, potato varieties) and to sell the seed potatoes produced by its

members. And its membership is increasing, as shown by the new, detailed database of members.

Structural change: output side

Case 15: Links to lucrative markets in Nairobi – MVIWATA Arusha, Tanzania

MVIWATA Arusha30, a regional network of the national farmers’ organisation MVIWATA, has grown fast over the

past six years and has now about 6,000 members, more than half of them women. In 2014, MVIWATA started

collaborating with Trias on a project to support family farmers, especially women and youth, by linking them to

relevant sectors and value chains, and by helping them to acquire and build productive assets. Changes were made

both at the output side of the value chain (organising collective marketing) and at the supply side (by improving

access to credit).

MVIWATA improved participation in the onion, poultry and honey value chains. Poultry farmers received training

on how to enlarge their flocks - the number of chickens increased by over 2,000 in two years. MVIWATA also trained

355 onion farmers on good agricultural practices and market linkages, and improved irrigation infrastructure. As a

result, onion production increased by around 500,000kg in 2016. Finally, the organisation facilitated a number of

marketing deals – the most successful was the linkage to Wakulima market in Nairobi, which enabled farmers to

transport onions to Nairobi where they fetched a higher price than at the farm gate (116,000 – about €43 – instead

of 80,000 Tsh per bag).

29 AIN 6377, FFD, contribution by AFD and DGD 30 AIN 6261, Trias, contribution by MFAF


42

Structural change: FO position in value chain coordination

Case 16: Supporting small producers and their processing cooperatives – CAPAD, Burundi

Rice and corn are important crops for small producers in in conflict-shaken Burundi, and the farmers’ organisation

has supported cooperatives to set up processing units to add value to raw materials. CAPAD31 has also supported

its member coops to access credit from financial institutions, and when negotiating supply and delivery contracts.

To increase efficiency, several different coops were merged into an entity called SOCOPO, which takes central

control of management and commercialisation. SOCOPO has registered its own brand, and has started the process

of product certification.

The project has promoted employment, especially for youth running the processing units. Storage and collection of

raw products have improved, and the coops provide around 60% of the rice and corn processed by the units.

Transformation and commercialisation conditions have also improved, and the quantity of rice, maize and flour sold

to private buyers and households has considerably increased.

CAPAD now has a stronger position in these value chains. Farmers are adding value to food products, jobs have

been created, and farmers have better livelihoods as a result of safe and sustainable access to local, national and

regional markets.

Structural change: FO position in policymaking process

Case 17: A louder lobbying voice – CPF, Burkina Faso

CPF (Confédération Paysanne du Faso)32 was established to communicate proposals from farmers to policymakers

in Burkina Faso. The federation has contributed to a range of policies concerning rural development, land tenure,

livestock farming, strategic planning in different sectors and the national food security strategy.

As a result of CPF actions, members’ participation has improved: members are now familiar with the land tenure

legislation and are able to influence its implementation. CPF enabled the enactment of a law that classifies

agricultural work as a valid occupation which, in turn, has improved access to finance for its members. Finally, CPF

now has a critical mass of leaders who have effective communication skills, making the organisation better able to

devise and share political propositions.

2.5 Evidence of Impact at household level

Farmers Fighting Poverty uses both quantitative indicators (such as household incomes and employment levels)

and qualitative changes (intangibles such as social standing and self-confidence) to establish evidence of impact

at household level. AgriCord has produced an annual evidence of impact report from 2009 to 2015. Those

reports, and the two consolidated reports (2016 and the current document), combine quantitative evidence with

brief case studies chosen from ‘story harvesting’ exercises carried out by farmers’ organisation or compiled from

external evaluations and studies (for the overview of cases, see appendix 5). We continue to develop new tools

to capture impact information and in 2016 our M&E expert group made an inventory of current monitoring

methods. (More details in section 3.2.2.)

2.5.1 Effects of improved farmers’ organisations’ capacities

The cascade of effects presents examples, all of which can be tracked back in time, of farmers’ organisations

having improved their position in an agro-food value chain and having contributed to the well-being of their

members. We focus on effects to which farmers’ organisations’ capacity development has contributed. Table 19

below focuses on quantitative impacts to farmers’ livelihoods related to nine farmers’ organisations. The full

cascade of impact showing effects to the capacities of these farmers’ organisations is annexed (Annex 3).

31 AIN 6128, CSA, contribution by DGIS 32 AIN 5865, Afdi, contribution by AFD


43

Table 19: Cascade of impact: effects on members of farmers’ organisations

MVIWATA

Tanzania

KDC

Tanzania

KENAFF

Kenya

KPA

Indonesia

AOPP - Koulikoro

Mali

FPFD

Guinea

FEPA/B

Burkina Faso

UDPN - Pissila,

Dablo & Pensa

Burkina Faso

CAZ

Zambia

Increase in

yields,

production

volumes and

quality

Productivity

increases:

Chicken: 17%

Onion: 16%

Honey: 14%

Milk production now

120.3 litres per day

in 2016

(up from 5L/day in

2015)

245% increase in

maize productivity

83% increase in milk

productivity

Number of rice

growers using

natural farming

increased from 50 to

220 (340% increase)

Promoting natural

farming and

providing cheaper

inputs by KPA

reduced members’

production costs

An increase in milk

productivity from 1

to 2.5 l/cow/day on

average during the

dry season

Production costs of

milk in the dry

season reduced by

17%

Number of milk

producers active in

the dry season

increased by 215%

to 784 farmers in

2016

Volume of milk

collected in the dry

season (February-

June) increased by

57%

Storage facilities

enabled an increase

in production

volumes

Cowpea yield has

increased from 626

kg/ha in 2009 to

700-800 kg/ha in

2013-2016

The 3 unions

increased their total

production from 365

tons in 2009 to 667

tons in 2016

Productivity

increased from

435kg/ha in 2015 to

581kg/ha in 2016

Increase in

household

sales volume

/ Increase of volume

of milk sold per

household of 140%

(7.1L/day to

approximately

17L/day)

100% increase in

sales of dairy

products and 79%

increase in maize

sales

Demand for natural

product is increasing

(unquantified)

Compliance with

quality standards

allowed members to

sell in bigger markets

/ / Improved control of

family food

consumption,

reduction of harvest

waste (cereals);

family food security

extended by 2-6

months every year

Sales of cowpea

increased 34%

compared to 2015

(126 tonnes supplied

by 515 producers)


44

MVIWATA

Tanzania

KDC

Tanzania

KENAFF

Kenya

KPA

Indonesia

AOPP - Koulikoro

Mali

FPFD

Guinea

FEPA/B

Burkina Faso

UDPN - Pissila,

Dablo & Pensa

Burkina Faso

CAZ

Zambia

Sales increased by

380% (from 2 tons to

9.6 tons)

Increase in sales of

various vegetables

from 30kg to 250kg

Improved

price paid by

FO to

members

200 tons of onions

sold for

116,000Tsh/bag

instead of

80,000Tsh/bag

1,000 TSH/L of milk

bought from

members

63% increase in

price paid to

members

/ Increase in selling

price of milk in the

dry season of 50

FCFA (from 300 FCFA

to 350 FCFA)

Prices unchanged

during the rainy

season

8% decrease in

production cost of

milk (from 225

CFA/L to 205 CFA/L)

Increased marketed

volumes and new

markets, especially

for export. The

committee

succeeded in selling

larger volumes in

sub-regional

markets: Senegal,

Sierra Leone &

Liberia

Improved yields,

thanks to better

control of technical

production

parameters

The gross margin of

109,000 FCFA / ha

for cowpea is down

from 2015 numbers

due to a decline in

yield (poor rainfall)

and an increase

fertilizer cost

Producer prices

increased from

ZMW 2.00 to ZMW

2.90 in 2016

Improved

income of

members

/ Assuming stable

prices, household

income increased

from 7,100 TSH/day

to 17,000/day from

2016 to 2017

/ / / / / / Average gross

household income

from cotton

increased from

ZMW 870 to ZMW

1,685 in 2016


45

2.5.2 Evidence of impact: FFP contributes to SDGs

As key players in rural economies, smallholder farmers are the drivers of sustainable development, and farmers’

organisations can be described as a key operating system of the SDG agenda. In many remote rural areas,

farmers’ organisations provide the only networks and infrastructure through which sustainable rural

development can occur. This being the case, FFP’s flexible and comprehensive provision of demand-driven

support clearly supports the whole SDG agenda. Certain programme deliverables are closely linked to specific

SDGs and are given in the following examples of evidence of impact in terms of these links.

Increased entrepreneurship, including access to markets and finance (SDGs 1 - no poverty; 5 - gender equality; and 8 - decent work and economic growth)

In rural areas, poverty and agriculture are closely related: when farmers have access to and control over

resources, they have the means to escape poverty. For instance, it has been found that agriculture-based GDP

growth is five times (and in sub-Saharan Africa up to 11 times) more effective in reducing poverty than growth

in any other sector.33

Major contributions towards poverty reduction have resulted from farmers’ organisations being able to improve

their members’ access to financial products and to land and water resources (Deliverables 18 and 20). In 2016,

eight projects supported a total of 674 farmers’ organisations’ members participation in savings and credit

schemes.

Farmers’ organisations can also be important vehicles for empowerment when they implement effective policies

on gender equality and the inclusion of youth (Deliverable 6), as illustrated in section 2.3.1 (gender equality). In

2016, 51,670 women participated in project activities. There were 33 farmers’ organisations (27 % of those

supported in 2016) which had a quota for women board members. Eleven farmers’ organisations (9 %) had a

female chairperson or director. Eighty farmers’ organisations had earmarked activities on gender equality in

2016.

Membership-based farmers’ organisations have the potential not only foster economic growth but also fairer

distribution of income within agro-food value chains. Section 2.3.4 demonstrates how farmers’ organisations are

creating decent jobs in rural communities – including jobs for young people – by promoting and strengthening

profitable farmer-led rural enterprises (Deliverable 11). Sixteen farmers’ organisations (13 % of those supported

in 2016) had youth-oriented activities.

SDG1 – End poverty

Case 18: Access to finance and links to processing facility increases productivity and income – CAZ

Cotton is an important crop in Zambia and its production has traditionally been by smallholder farmers. Having

successfully set up study circle groups to share technical information and bring women more fully into the

organisation, the Cotton Association of Zambia (CAZ) 34 has recently been involved in a project to improve

smallholders’ access to affordable finance.

The study circles continue to be important, and 249 new groups have been formed with a total of almost 4,000

members (2,510 men and 1,474 women). Almost half (47 %) of study circle leaders are now women. Thirty new

Cotton Association Savings and Loan (CASALA) groups have been set up, and these have been especially popular

with women – of the 386 members, 195 are women and 173 are men. Total number of farmers participating in

savings and loan group increased from 4,000 to 4,368 in 2016. New cooperatives have also been established – 48

of them – in which women clearly predominate (864 women and 576 men).

33 IFAD (2015), from the concept note of the 38th session of the IFAD Governing Council 34 AIN 6348, We Effect, contribution by AFD


46

Study circles have enabled members to learn about cotton production, integrated pest management and

conservation farming. Most farmers (90 %) use conservation methods and productivity has increased from

435kg/ha in 2015 to 581kg/ha in 2016. As the circles also covered financial literacy, farmers are now better at

handling funds and keeping records. Being part of a CASALA group is particularly helpful in reducing dependency on

the cotton ginning companies – farmers can now be part of an organised savings group and buy inputs collectively.

The new coops provide a mechanism to link farmers with the farmer-owned ginnery in Mumbwa and collectively

organise their cotton processing and marketing. Gross income from cotton production increased from ZMK 870 in

2015 to ZMK 1,685 (about €0.26) in 2016.

Case 19: Protecting water sources - MVIWATA Arusha and Manyara, Tanzania

This project works with the members of the networks of farmer groups in Arusha and Manyara region in Northern

Tanzania35 to protect water sources and other forest areas which are crucial for irrigation agriculture. By introducing

bee-keeping, existing forest becomes a sustainable alternative source of income to local communities. People will

have an incentive to conserve the forest, since the bees depend on it. The project has also started tree nurseries to

improve the quality of the forests and protect water catchment areas. Fifteen water management committees have

been formed to organize fair distribution of water and protect the source by conserving and planting trees. Eight

water sources are now protected. More than 280 MVIWATA members have taken up bee-keeping (see section

2.3.4) and 11 tree nurseries have been established; over 2,800 trees have been planted to date.

SDG 5 – Gender

Case 20: Cashew nuts are good alternative to cotton – URCPA-A/D, Benin

Producing cashew nuts generates an alternative source of revenue for cotton farmers, and women are taking a

more active part in group sales. Part of this success can be attributed to the grouping of cashew growers into formal

producer organizations under a regional union (Union Régionale des Coopératives de Producteurs d’Anacarde of

Atacora-Donga, URCPA-A/D) 36. And there is a national policy to encourage domestic processing of cashew nuts to

add value before export or sale in Benin.

Benin is experimenting with a system of bulk sales to prevent processors or foreign buyers making deals with

individual farmers. In 2014 URCPA-A/D negotiated contracts with two processing companies and a national buyer;

informal contracts were negotiated with four other buyers. Significantly, women were active participants in the

Bassila Djougou, Copargo Péhunco and Kouandé communities. A total of 439 women were involved, or roughly 22%

of all participants in the group sales. In 2015, over 2,900 tons of cashews were sold in bulk, for a total price of over

1,160 million FCFA (roughly €1.77 million).

URCPA-A/D provides expertise and extension services for cashew production and has a supply of shared tools such

as pruning saws. It organises marketing and group sales for members, and these capacities have been reinforced

through exchange visits with French and Ghanaian farmers’ cooperatives. Unproductive orchards have been

rehabilitated and in 2015 more than 1,700 hectares were brought back to full productivity. Combining beekeeping

with cashew orchards improves pollination and provides another income stream from honey sales. Thanks to

training in orchard management and modern apicultural techniques, the orchards’ productivity (cashews plus

honey) improved by at least 50 % in 2015.

SDG 8 – Employment

Case 21: Tree nurseries boost employment – NCTNA, Kenya

Tree nurseries, which require minimal land area, can provide valuable employment and reliable income for men,

women and young people. The Nakuru County Tree Nursery Association (NCTNA) 37 has been active for eight years

and has a mission to champion the interests of tree nursery stakeholders and encourage effective environmental

conservation. Kenya’s economy is growing fast and trees are needed for construction, fuelwood, charcoal and for

landscaping new commercial and housing developments, so tree nurseries are a good way for farmers to earn extra

income. Inputs (compost, plastic bags and seeds) are relatively inexpensive and seedlings can grow rapidly if water

35 AIN 6383, Trias, contribution by MFAF 36 AIN 5868, Afdi, contribution by EU/IFAD 37 AIN 6665, FFF, contribution by DGIS


47

is available. The Association has about 1,800 members, roughly 780 of them women: members must have a nursery

producing at least 2,000 seedlings.

NCTNA provides training in nursery techniques, offers financial advice, and shares updated information such as new

propagation methods for fruit trees and the best way to germinate certain species. Nursery outlets have been

opened along many roads to capture passing trade, which has boosted casual employment for women and young

people. The organisation has plans for the future, including setting up a seed bank and obtaining a licence to harvest

tree seeds from the wild. It also hopes to make water sources more accessible.

NCTNA has partnered with FFF to improve seedling quality: the Lake Elementaita group has held training sessions

on how to produce certified seedlings, and it is hoped that members’ nurseries will in due course be certified by the

Kenya Forest Service and the Horticultural Crops Development Authority. With such a range of potential clients in

the area – farmers (big and small), plus rural and urban householders – the association has encouraged members

to produce the widest possible range of indigenous, exotic and ornamental tree seedlings.

Many nurseries are situated along highways, where it is easy for clients to reach them: some members have bought

prime plots by pooling proceeds from seedling sales. The county government leases suitable roadside plots to

members who do not own land. NCTNA looks for tenders and buyers – the association is now recognized by

corporate clients such as government agencies and schools – and links them to producers for collective sales. Many

members work full-time on their nurseries, where they make efforts to be professional and business-oriented. Some

also work as landscapers, providing and planting trees in the rapidly growing urban areas: 80 % of the members

(many of them young people) earn a significant proportion of their income from tree nursery and related work.

Case 22: More employment on- and off-farm - LPMPC, Philippines

Labo Progressive Multi-Purpose Cooperative (LPMPC)38 became a cooperative in 1990 after three years’ existence

as a rotating savings and credit group. It expanded into agri-business in 1995 and currently focuses on pineapple

production (including juice and dried pineapple) and making economic use of the by-products (hand-woven cloth

and handmade paper).

With the support of FFP/ASEAN, LPMPC has diversified into other products (such as jam) and revived the

decorticated fibre business. The coop found an export market for the fibre and new local market outlets for the

other products, which have created opportunities for members to supply pineapple fruits and leaves. The number

of family farmers supplying these products has more than tripled (from 93 in 2014 to 431 in 2016) and the area

under pineapple cultivation has expanded more than tenfold (from 16 ha in 2014 to 211 ha in 2016). Increased sales

of processed product have created employment in non-agricultural activities: 38 women and 33 youngsters have

found a reliable source of income as sub-contractors for LPMPC, doing hand-scraping and fibre knotting.

With its history as a savings group, LPMPC is able to provide adapted financial services, such as the agri-loan for

pineapple and vegetables, to its members. The coop also provides other services such as business training sessions

and exchange visits. Having combined the creation of market outlets with financial and non-financial services,

LPMPC now needs to consolidate the consistent supply of good quality pineapple products.

Resilience to climate change, sustainable management of natural resources, and better food security and nutrition (SDGs 2 - zero hunger; 12 - responsible consumption and production; 13 - climate action; and 15 - life on land)

SDG targets call for doubling of agricultural productivity of small-scale food producers while ensuring

sustainability. The global demand for food is rising rapidly, mainly in the developing world, and is projected to

increase by 60 % by 2050. Smallholders are still key to global food security and nutrition - they provide up to 80

% of the food supply in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, yet make up the majority of the poor and hungry.39

FFP contributes towards eradicating hunger and increasing food security by supporting farmers’ organisations to

develop better production methods, including environmentally sustainable farming practices, and to promote

38 AIN 6111, Trias, contribution by EU/IFAD 39 L. Riesgo, K. Louhichi and S. Gomez y Paloma (Eds) (2016) Food and nutrition security and role of smallholder farms: challenges and opportunities European Commission


48

innovations to their members (Deliverable 16). Further contributions to food security and nutrition come from

improvements in collective trade, processing, storage and marketing by farmer-led enterprises, and from

reductions in post-harvest losses and food waste (Deliverable 13).

Climate change poses an added threat to global food production, as do deforestation, land degradation and loss

of biodiversity. Paradoxically, although smallholder farmers and forest producers provide a range of global

environmental services (protecting watersheds, preserving biodiversity and gene-pools, sequestering carbon

from the atmosphere, recycling nutrients and regulating the water cycle), these farmers and foresters are

themselves among the poor for whom climate change and related extreme-weather events have especially

serious consequences. Farmers’ organisations help their members adapt to these challenges and mitigate threats

by, for example, providing advisory services, promoting the use of climate-resilient species, facilitating access to

irrigation and land management systems, and by influencing relevant policy frameworks (Deliverables 8 and 15).

In 2016, 65 projects (44 %) addressed food value chains. There were 31 projects promoting sustainable

agricultural methods. Some 7,400 farmers’ organisations’ members were offered extension services and

innovations including sustainable agricultural practices. Twenty-five projects (20 %) contributed directly to food

security. Forty farmers’ organisations’ members were provided with access to irrigation or land management

systems through two projects. In 2016, there were six projects supporting farmers’ organisations to develop

forestry sector activities to provide income for members. About 6,800 youth or women were facilitated to having

to adequate communication system facilitated by the farmers’ organisation.

SDG 2 – Zero hunger

Case 23: Women fish farmers improve family nutrition and earn extra income – SWFC, Nepal

This long-running twinning collaboration between the Sundardeep Women Fish Farmers Cooperative (SWFC) 40 and

the Finnish Fish Farmers Association continues to support food security and poverty reduction for families living in

the Chitwan and Nawalparasi districts of Nepal. The project is scaling up the carp-SIS (small indigenous fish species)

production model piloted in earlier projects - small fish grow alongside the carp and are harvested at frequent

intervals to provide protein for the family while the carp grown to maturity before being sold to provide cash

income.41 The ponds are owned by the women and registered in their names at the District Agriculture

Development Office. The project also includes vegetable production around the fish ponds to ensure a continuous

supply of food throughout the year. A few of the farmers are starting to keep pigs and grow turmeric and, to improve

local self-sufficiency, three women farmers are learning to produce fingerlings to supply the other fish farmers. All

of these elements – fish, vegetables, livestock – work together in an environmentally sustainable manner. To cater

for the strong local demand for fish, SWFC has established a shop in the Parsa Bazaar in Khaireni. And to educate

future consumers, school programmes are teaching children from nursery to 5th grade about the nutritional value

of fish.

There were 1,020 direct participants, of which all but 20 were women. SWFC members say that their technical skills

(constructing ponds and keeping them oxygenated, treating any fish health problems, growing vegetables) have

improved significantly, and that they now know more about human nutrition. They have learned to consider

environmental issues and the importance of good waste management. Women now derive income from diverse

sources and they are able to manage their own accounts. They say that their confidence has increased, especially

through learning public speaking skills.

SDG 12 – Sustainable consumption and production patterns

Case 24: Organic rice: profitable, sustainable and influential – PAKISAMA, Philippines

PAKISAMA42 (the national peasant confederation and farmers’ movement) is composed of rural organisations

dedicated to the empowerment of small Filipino farmers, fisher people, rural women, youth and indigenous groups.

40 AIN 6376, FFD, contribution by DGIS and MFAF 41 AIN 5749 and 6077 42 AIN 6129, CSA, contribution by DGIS and EU/IFAD


49

It has developed a sustainable agro-ecological production approach called IDOFS (integrated diversified organic

farming systems) and has intensified its capacity-building services to nine rice coops. Eight farmer technicians and

10 managers were trained on management, organic production, packaging and marketing of organic rice.

So far, 1,180 members (40 % women) have been reached and two coops immediately found a stable market after

conducting market research and organising events to raise awareness of their product with high-level chefs.

PAKISAMA and its member organic rice cooperatives have influenced the National Organic Agriculture Board, the

Philippine Council for Agriculture and Fisheries, and other government agencies including the Senate and Lower

House Committees on Agriculture.

SDG 13 – Climate action

Case 25: Integrated agroforestry services and energy-saving technology – Hodfa, Uganda

Smallholder farmers in Hoima District rely on subsistence agriculture on their 1-2 acre plots, using simple tools and

technology. They have limited access to productive assets and are generally food and income-insecure. Changing

weather patterns, including prolonged dry spells and unexpected rainfall in the dry season, are a significant

challenge to farming activities in the area.

This project builds on the success of previous work in which around 25 smallholder producer groups were formed.

It uses the Enabling Rural Innovation approach to encourage these groups, especially women and youth members,

to increase production and gain access to financial services, collective marketing and networks. The rural bank

Hofokam provides financial services.43 There is also an emphasis on climate action – raising awareness of the issue

among Hodfa members and staff, and delivering integrated agroforestry services to enable farmers to combine

trees with crop production – some farmer groups have set up fruit tree nurseries to sell seedlings to other farmers

to generate an alternative source of income in future. Hodfa is being supported to provide services in energy-saving

technology and climate-smart agriculture, and to lobby local government to consider climate change in

policymaking.

Over 150 grassroots groups were influenced by the project, and Hodfa has almost 9,000 members, of which 2,874

are women and 958 are young people. Hodfa reports improved capacities (knowledge, skills and attitude) in the

following areas: good governance, oversight role, service-delivery to members, accountability and representation

by members, business thinking and market linkages.

SDG 15 – Life on land

Case 26: Certification adds value and increases the environmental value of forest – TTHCA, QTCA and QNCA,

Vietnam

A twinning project with the Savotta Forest Management Association from Finland has been working with three

forestry cooperatives in Vietnam44 to improve forest management and introduce the PEFC certification procedure

to allow wood producers to sell their timber at higher prices. Nursery production has increased and training on

PEFC-certification has started. Both farmers and coops are already benefiting from the forestry services: a

remarkable part of turnover and surplus of participating cooperatives comes from forestry services. The same is

true of farmers: depending on the cooperative, 14-50 % of farmers’ annual net income derives from forestry.

Certainly this economic outcome suggests that project achievements can be sustainable. And the tree nurseries

have provided jobs especially for women. A further benefit is that farmers are learning that their trees have more

than monetary value – forests protect the soil from erosion, help prevent landslides and store carbon. And research

suggests that hybrid acacia trees are better at fixing nitrogen than the parent species, which improves soil fertility

for subsequent crops.

Looking at the wider picture, Vietnam’s Land Law and forest allocation process has allocated 4.46 million ha of

forests and a set of responsibilities to 1.2 million Vietnamese farmers who do not yet have the resources to manage

these forests. Based on the achievements of this project, cooperative alliances should be able to take the role of

43 AIN 6263, Trias, contribution by DGIS 44 Thua Thien Hue Cooperative Alliance (TTHCA), Quang Tri Cooperative Alliance (QTCA) and Quang Ngai Cooperative Alliance (QNCA); AIN 6123, FFD, contribution by DGIS and EU/IFAD


50

forestry service-providers for smallholders, and promote sustainable and efficient forest management and forest

certification in Vietnam.

An enabling environment for sustainable rural development: inclusive governance and policy processes (SDGs 16 – peace, justice and strong institutions; and 17 – partnerships for the Goals)

Representative and inclusive farmers’ organisations foster democracy in the first instance simply by being

organisations where members have a say. Farmers’ organisation also play an important role in wider democratic

processes by representing their members in consultations related to investments in agriculture and

infrastructure, and by participating in local and national policymaking. Farmers’ organisations can also bring

much-needed institutional stability in times of political and environmental crisis (Deliverables 1 and 4).

The SDGs have been formulated in such a way that they can only be achieved through global partnerships, and

FFP is working at this level too. National and global agricultural, trade and investment policies and sustainable

development agendas must be informed by the knowledge and priorities of smallholders, including women. FFP

therefore enhances South-South and North-South cooperation between farmers’ organisations and their apex

organisations (Deliverables 7, 9 and 10).

In 2016, Farmers Fighting Poverty supported organisational and capacity development of 124 farmers’

organisations and, through their projects, 7,048 grassroots farmer groups or primary cooperatives. Sixteen

projects implemented measures to improve accountability.

SDG 16 – Peace, justice and strong institutions

Case 27: Triggering economic potential at payam level in South Sudan – SSAPU, South Sudan

The South Sudan Agriculture Producer’s Union (SSAPU) 45 was founded in Juba in 2010 with members engaged in

food production including vegetables, fruits, cereals, forestry and honey production. Given the (in)security situation

and rampant inflation, farmers are in a difficult position, and SSAPU enables its members to speak out on matters

that concern them. SSAPU lobbies for a more conducive environment for agricultural entrepreneurship and, at

grassroots level, is developing membership and delivering services to farmers.

A programme manager has been recruited and about 4,000 farmers and groups have been registered. SSAPU

broadcasts radio programmes that proved very popular. Farmers now understand that although SSAPU cannot give

inputs or credits, it can link them to service providers, and this has encouraged farmers to register. The project has

recruited field facilitators to forge linkages between farmers and service providers, including a cadre of field

facilitators. Despite insecurity, the facilitators were resilient and worked well and their presence in the field

encouraged both farmers and their branch leadership.

Through lobby and advocacy, new partnerships (including collaboration with SNV) have been developed.

Relationships between the governing board, the secretariat, partners and consultants are becoming stronger.

SSAPU organised a workshop on taxation (sponsored by EAFF) – subsequently, the government of South Sudan has

exempted agricultural inputs and other services to farmers from tax. This interaction with government, which

clearly sees SSAPU as representing South Sudanese farmers, has brought increased credibility to SSAPU.

SDG 17 – Partnerships for the goals

Case 28: Setting up a market centre – UWAMIMA, Tanzania

UWAMIMA (Matembwe Tree Growers Association) has been working for several years to promote sustainable

forest management and to increase their members’ income through forest-related activities and by diversifying into

non-timber forest products (honey and avocados).46 UWAMIMA has run training courses for members, focusing on

nursery management and avocado production. The shared nurseries are working well and individual members have

also established their own nurseries, producing seedlings of pine, eucalyptus and avocado.

45 AIN 6447, Agriterra, contribution by DGD 46 AIN 6020, FFD, contribution by MFAF


51

After considerable efforts, UWAMIMA is close to achieving a long-term ambition of having a market centre. This

has required negotiation and the involvement of several partners, and the FO members themselves have made

financial contributions and helped to clear the site. The public authorities have agreed to build a 500m feeder road

to link the site with the local road network, and they may also facilitate electrification of the site. This is a case

where there has been public contribution to support the commercial interests of forest producers. And the shared

vision of all the stakeholders has helped to develop the value chain. The business model for operating the yard will

be completed in 2017, and questions concerning issues of taxation, product circulation etc. have yet to be solved.

This will require further partnership between UWAMIMA and the local authorities.

Case 29: Influencing national institutions on food policy – PAKISAMA, Philippines

PAKISAMA47 and its member organic rice cooperatives have been able to enter dialogue with and propose policies

and programmes to national institutions in the Philippines. These include the National Organic Agriculture Board,

the Philippine Council for Agriculture and Fisheries, various government departments the Cooperative Development

Authority, the National Food Authority, and the Senate and Lower House Committees on Agriculture. Other

discussion partners have included European Union managers in Asia-Pacific, and the International Fund for

Agriculture Development (IFAD).

This increased authority stems from the fact that the organisation has grown in influence and stature. PAKISAMA

has intensified its capacity-building services to nine organic rice cooperatives. They profiled 1,180 members (40%

women), drew up five-year strategic plans and formalized a national forum of organic rice cooperatives. Eight

farmer technicians/agriculturists and 10 managers were further trained on managing an organic rice cooperative,

improving product quality, and packaging and marketing. Two cooperatives engaged in consolidating their rice

products for the market, conducted organic rice market research and explored market link to various agencies and

conducted an event linking farmers and chefs campaigning for healthy organic rice products. PAKISAMA’s website

was redesigned to target young farmers and students and be more interactive.

47 AIN 6129, CSA, contribution by DGIS and EU/IFAD


52

3 Modalities of support

Modalities of support at a glance

• Farmers Fighting Poverty promotes advisory services by peers (farmer-to-farmer): half of the services were

provided by the farming community.

• There were 2,845 full days of advisory services (39% by women); half of them between stakeholders in the

South. The advice on gender and environment (25%) and on financial management (19%) were the most

frequent.

• AgriCord continued to enhance overall efficiency and effectiveness with active members’ participation to

alliance’s OneForAll tasks on

(i) increased aid efficiency and harmonisation via Project Committee work, improvements to

monitoring and evaluation system, and to the online database Agro-Info.net

(ii) expanded farmers’ organisations’ involvement in public policies and programmes. In 2016,

Farmers Fighting Poverty supported the involvement of farmers’ organisations in 15 public programmes in

10 countries.

(iii) knowledge management on modalities, on supporting various farmers’ organisations’ functions.

• AgriCord continued to nurture and establish strategic partnerships that benefit Farmers Fighting Poverty

and farmers’ organisations in developing countries.

3.1 Advisory services

One of the cornerstones of Farmers Fighting Poverty support to farmers’ organisations is the unique combination

of financial resources and peer-to-peer advisory services. FFP is built on the exchange of know-how and

experience between farmers, farmer leaders and FO staff around the world. Aware of the richness of its network,

AgriCord actively promotes and monitors all such exchanges.

Peer-to-peer services differ radically from traditional consulting missions: farmers deliver efficient, relevant

advisory services to other farmers, because they profoundly understand the complex reality of practical

agriculture. And recipient farmers take this advice seriously.

Advisory services within FFP involve diverse actors: practising farmers from the North (N) and the South (S); staff

and leaders from farmers’ organisations; agri-sector or forestry experts; and agri-agency experts from

headquarters or in-country. A total of 460 agro-professionals (of which 39 % were women) delivered advisory

services in 2016. On average, 20% of the budget to farmers’ organisations was used for advisory services,

including S-N, N-S and S-S advice. Services vary from field training for smallholder farmers to strategic advice for

FO leaders.

Mobilising farmers, leaders and FO staff is most effective when knowledge-sharing is done through workshops,

field days or on-site training: farmers learn best in a hands-on, practical setting where they can both observe and

participate. Experience also shows that the best time for FO-to-FO exchanges is when farmers’ organisations

enter markets for the first time – this will typically require joined-up advice on governance issues,

production/quality concerns and marketing decisions.

Figure 20 gives an overview of the advisory services provided in 2016. Just over half of the services were provided

by the farming community (i.e. farmers and their organisations) and just under half by other professionals.


53

Figure 20: Proportion of advisory services provided per type of actor

Advisory services in 2016 covered a total of 2,845 full-time days (Table 20). FO staff and professionals in agri-

agencies are the main providers. Both groups provide advisory services on a permanent and professional basis.

Table 20: Number of advisory days delivered by different actors, per type of service, 2016

Active farmers

FO leaders FO staff Agri-sector experts

AA staff Total

Number of advisory days 107 385 701 229 1,424 2,845

Number of persons 62 82 75 22 219 460

Percentage of women 16% 44% 47% 41% 42% 38%

N-S advisory days 0 7 37 34 676 754

S-N advisory days 0 3 48 14 63 127

S-S advisory days 107 196 472 181 472 1,427

Both directions advisory days

0 179 144 0 214 537

Half of all advisory services days in 2016 were between stakeholders in the South (S-S), and almost all the active

farmers who were compensated for transferring their knowledge came from developing countries. Similarly, agri-

sector experts were mainly recruited in the South. Training may take various forms: field days, visits, exchange

days, webinars, mentoring, practical workshops and training of trainers. More details on FO-to-FO exchanges are

available in annex 4.

Advisory services may have a technical, financial or commercial content. Table 21 details the types of advisors

on different topics.

Table 21: Advisory services per topic and per actor, 2016

Active

farmers FO

leaders FO staff

Agri-experts

AA staff

Total %

women Number of days

% days

Gender/environment 6 2 6 7 40 61 52% 720 25%

Financial management

2 40 45 1 35 123 37% 532 19%

Establish new linkages to FO

40 0 1 4 24 69 25% 276 10%

Marketing 2 12 2 3 20 39 49% 270 10%

Farming methods 5 3 3 3 12 26 35% 238 8%

Digitalisation 0 0 0 0 11 11 9% 181 6%

14% 12%

26%

8%

40%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Delivered by activefarmers

Delivered by FOleaders

Delivered by FO staff Delivered by agri-sector experts

Delivered by AA staff


54

Manual, training module

6 5 0 1 34 46 33% 131 5%

Policy and advocacy 0 0 2 0 5 7 43% 129 5%

Business plan 0 0 3 0 15 18 61% 123 4%

Organisational advice, governance

0 20 11 3 9 43 58% 98 3%

Cooperative business 0 0 0 0 5 5 0% 96 3%

Strategic planning 1 0 2 0 4 7 14% 40 1%

Quality standards 0 0 0 0 5 5 40% 12 >1%

Grand Total 62 82 75 22 219 460 39% 2,845 100%

Advice on gender and environment, financial management, establishment of linkages to farmers’ organisations

and marketing accounted for the majority of advisory services (63 % in total).

Advice on gender and environment (25 % of person-days, 61 people involved) covers a variety of activities (see

chapter 2.3) such as women’s leadership training, gender-specific business management training and

quantification of carbon sequestration.

Typical examples of financial management advice (19% of person-days, 123 people involved) are providing

training on new accounting software, supervising the implementation of a financial monitoring system and

supporting the development of microcredit products.

Advice on creating linkages between FOs (10 % of person-days, 69 people involved) is typically delivered by AA

staff and often involves holding events (local, national and international) and forums that enable exchange

between farmers or their representatives. Such exchanges are important for farmers’ organisations to build their

network and acquire the competences they need to become more fully involved in value chains and policy-

making processes.

Advice on marketing (10 % of person-days, 39 people involved) covered training on value-chain analysis, brand

development and collective marketing schemes.

The overall average (39 %) of women delivering advisory services hides significant differences by topic. Women

were notably more involved in the topics of business planning, governance, gender, financial management and

marketing. In subjects related to cooperative business, digitalization and strategic planning, there were far fewer

women advisors.

3.2 Synergies and efficiency of the alliance

The AgriCord alliance has made significant efforts to deepen the cooperation and complementarity of its

members’ work. These efforts stem from the shared ambitions of the alliance, established in 2016, and is

manifest in a joint business plan, an updated governance structure and an alliance-wide quality process aiming

at certification by all agri-agencies and the secretariat. Joint knowledge-management has led to increasing

involvement of all agri-agencies, more sharing of tools, approaches and lessons within the alliance and with FO

partners, and a more result-oriented spirit. AgriCord is doing groundbreaking work in developing joint M&E tools,

and our consolidated report on the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme (first produced in 2015) is a key

milestone for donor harmonisation.

Agri-agencies also cooperate in the field, searching within the alliance to find the best services for the specific

demands of each farmers’ organisation. A service catalogue of specific approaches and tools for FO support has

been established; this underpins further complementarity of the alliance and more effective support to FOs.

These elements are bringing AgriCord further towards being a truly multilateral support organisation.


55

OneForAll (14ALL): specialization of agri-agency services and sharing knowledge and experiences

Since 2014 the 14ALL initiative has been relying on human resources provided by individual agri-agencies to carry

out specific tasks. The aim is to enhance overall efficiency and effectiveness: each task output responds to a

broad demand by the alliance towards added value and innovation.

Tasks are organised into three categories:

1. Coordination tasks are concerned with developing joint procedures for FFP planning, monitoring and

evaluation. They contribute to more efficiency, better donor harmonisation and better monitoring of FFP

results and include:

Coordinating the Project Committee

Coordinating the monitoring & evaluation process

Developing a new online database (Agro-Info.net)

2. Policy-focused tasks seek influence and mobilise funding relevant to FOs within selected donor policies and

programmes. FFP can thus have a greater impact through a more prominent role of FOs in development

policies and programmes, and through increased resources mobilized for FOs. These tasks include:

Linking value chain and private sector programmes (mainly from the EU) to FOs

Boosting FO roles: the institutional purchase programmes of multilateral organisations

Strengthening the position and benefits to FOs in the National Agricultural Investment Programmes

(PNIA) in West Africa

Engaging regionally to mobilize resources for FOs in Asia

Facilitating FO access to programmes and funds linked to mitigation and adaptation to climate

change (e.g. REDD+).

3. Knowledge management tasks and capitalising agri-agencies tools and services are further divided according

to different FO functions:

Agri-agency methods to strengthen FO competences:

Installing and integrating young farmers: what are the best systems of supporting them and

what roles can Fos play?

Knowledge management on FO-to-FO and farmer-to-farmer approaches

Leadership: comparison of (complementary) methods at institutional level and in different

regions

Knowledge management on approaches to support FO financial sustainability.

Lobby and representation function of FOs:

Sharing agri-agency tools and methods to strengthen FOs’ lobby and advocacy function:

experimentsexperiment in a country and around the construction of a common tool.

Economic functions of FOs:

Creating better access to knowledge related to collective marketing by FOs: tools, data, studies,

tables and methodologies

Ways to facilitate access to finance for farmers and FOs

Knowledge management on agri-agencies’ support to cooperatives.

Technical services and public interest function of FOs:

Sharing tools and methods on agricultural advisory services (in particular on agro-ecology) and

management advice from FOs to family farms.

Energy /agriculture nexus in agri-agency support to FOs.


56

The task work continues to feed the dynamics between agri-agencies in several aspects. Tasks are particularly

visible between agri-agencies intervening in the same country, sometimes supporting the same FOs but each

with their own focus.

In addition to the tasks, a specific initiative to promote debate between FOs was launched. AgriCord is in the

unique position of being able to stimulate exchange between its FO members and partners, and the outcomes

of such exchanges are necessary to orient AgriCord’s work. The debates complement the support provided to FO

projects in that they offer peer-to-peer spaces for FOs to reflect on the policy issues and context where they

operate. The key theme addressed in FO debates over the past two years has been the position of FOs in the

global climate change debate and action plan.

Case 30: Joint policy follow-up: Opportunities for FOs to deal with public purchase programmes

AgriCord has been working for years to increase opportunities for small farmers to collaborate with public

purchasing programmes in various countries. Diverse interventions of the World Food Programme (WFP) and

government-led school feeding programmes are central to these efforts. Although attention has in recent years

focused on the capacity of FOs to provide the required amounts and quality to such programmes, agri-agencies

have pointed out that the bureaucratic procedures of multilateral organisations are a significant obstacle to FO

participation. The agri-agencies are well positioned to discuss these issues with multilateral institutions and national

governments and, at the same time, to support FOs to participate in these programmes. In 201648, the facilitation

of farmers’ organisations’ contacts with the WFP resulted in a contract between FOs in eastern Democratic Republic

of Congo and the P4P programme of the WFP. In the Philippines, important exchanges have been facilitated

between Brazilian and Philippino FOs and the national government setting up a public purchases programme, to

take stock of lessons learnt in the Brazilian Fame Zero programme. The approaches have huge potential for scaling

up over several countries and continents.

Case 31: Leverage on cooperative policies of the ASEAN

The 6th ASEAN Cooperative Business Forum (ACBF) was held in November 2016 in Manila. Agri-agencies strongly

supported the participation of national and regional FOs both in the preparation of the event and during it. AFA

members and partners participating in the ACBF gained knowledge about opportunities presented by the ASEAN

integration process. FOs were able to contribute to the cooperatives roadmap that the ASEAN Working Group on

Agricultural Cooperatives (ASWGAC) and ASEAN Center for the Development of Agricultural Cooperatives (ACEDAC)

will implement.

Case 32: Developing complementary approaches to support FO advocacy work

Six agri-agencies exchange since 2014 their approaches on how to support FOs’ political leverage. A key outcome

in 2016 was an analysis of the approaches and tools used to strengthen FO capacity in lobbying and advocacy. The

primary objective of this study was to analyze agri-agency practices to highlight their specificities and

complementarities, and to improve the pooling of approaches and tools. Pooling is crucial and central to the 14ALL

programme, intensifying cooperation between agri-agencies on farmer-to-farmer instruments and procedures, and

to specific expertise within agri-agencies. The study helped elaborate a roadmap for continuing collaboration in the

knowledge domain. The innovative part of this joint work will culminate in defining and implementing a shared

approach in one or two countries in 2017, combining several agri-agencies’ support services to selected FOs’

advocacy processes.

FO facility to strengthen farmers organisations’ involvement in public programmes

AgriCord has a specific modality, the FO facility to strengthen the involvement FOs in public programmes , to

ensure that FOs are involved in strategically important public investment programmes at national level. The

objective is to enable them to influence the content and targeting of these programmes, and to leverage benefits

48 CSA, Asprodeb, Agriterra


57

for FOs and their members. It is implemented by agri-agencies who build on their experience of supporting FO

involvement with governments and other partners in specific regions and countries.

Agri-agency support in this area intensified in 2016, reaching FOs in 10 countries. FOs were thus recognized as

active stakeholders in the design and implementation of 15 public programmes related to agriculture.

Most programmes focused on a given value chain or aspect of the agricultural sector, implemented by line

ministries and backed by bilateral or multilateral donors (World Food Programme (WFP), the International Fund

for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the UN Development Programme (UNDP), G7 countries, the EU etc.).

Typically, FOs participate by being included in the design and steering bodies, and /or by being an implementing

partner, or by ensuring the funding is accessible to FO members. In two cases the programmes focused on

institutional purchase with the objective of ensuring that direct purchases were sourced from smallholders.

Highlights of 2016 results:

- 15 programmes or initiatives were targeted in 10 countries

- In 73 % of targeted programmes, the FO achieved a design or steering role

- In 53 % of targeted programmes, the FO achieved an implementation role in a public programme

- FOs strengthened their institutional capacities and service provision

- FOs put in place tools and mechanisms that will support their participation in and monitoring of public

programmes.

Strategic partnerships increase AgriCord’s leverage

AgriCord has consolidated its position as a strategic partner with international organisations and research

community, to leverage more support and a more central role for FOs in the partners’ agendas. These partners

include the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations (FAO), the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), the International

Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), African continental organisations, the EU, the Consortium of

International Agricultural Research Centers (CGIAR) and the OECD. A key result is that FOs have gained space as

key stakeholders in their own right (i.e. meriting specific approaches and programmes) in the agendas of several

international organisations and in the UN-led global governance of food security and agriculture. The

partnerships reflect the recognition of AgriCord as a multilateral system of support to FOs and as a hub of farmer-

to-farmer expertise.

The Forest and Farm Facility (FFF) is a partnership between FAO, IIED, IUCN and AgriCord. By providing resources

directly to forest producer organisations, it fills an important gap within rural development cooperation that has

traditionally focused on agriculture. The partnership is the first time that the FAO hosts an important support

facility to FOs. It has also strengthened the position of FOs in the agendas of the other partners; for example,

IIED has started developing specific tools for producer organisations as a result of its involvement in FFF.

AgriCord facilitated the participation of FAO/FFF in the 2016 General Assembly of the World Farmers’

Organisation (WFO). An AgriCord-FAO-IFFA49 joint publication Strength in Numbers50 (an independent second

volume of the publication with the same title 2012) gave global visibility to the role and importance of

professional forest producers’ organisations and their contributions toward achieving the SDGs. The launch of

this publication involved representatives from forest producers’ organisations from both South and North. A

49 International Family Forestry Alliance 50 https://www.agricord.org/news/58959/new-joint-publication-and-debate-in-the-european-development-days-2016-by-agricord-fao-forest-and-farm-facility-fff-and-international-family-forestry-alliance-iffa

https://www.agricord.org/news/58959/new-joint-publication-and

https://www.agricord.org/news/58959/new-joint-publication-and


58

panel discussion51 was held during the European Development Days organised by the European Commission in

Brussels.

The FFF partnership has generated important synergies for knowledge exchange and possibilities for leveraged

funding for farmer producer organisations. Operational synergies and complementarities between FFF, agri-

agencies and the partner farm and forest producers’ organisations are being developed. A second phase of FFF

is being planned involving AgriCord as a Steering Committee member, and the continuation of an overall FAO

Partnership is under preparation. Starting in 2017 AgriCord will also support FOs to participate in FAO’s World

Agricultural Watch, putting FO-managed systems at the centre of national family-farm monitoring systems.

ESFIM Research Support Fund. AgriCord is a member of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural

Research (CGIAR), a global research partnership for a food-secure future. CGIAR science is dedicated to reducing

poverty, enhancing food and nutrition security, and improving natural resources and ecosystem services. In this

framework AgriCord can add value to agricultural research programmes by supporting farmers and their

organisations to help define research agendas.

Empowering Smallholder Farmers in Markets (ESFIM) is a programme coordinated by Wageningen University

and Research Center (WUR). The programme aims to strengthen the position of farmers, particularly

smallholders, in resolving market-related problems. The ESFIM Research Support Fund reinforces FO capacities

to use external researchers or consultants to help them resolve problems in market access for smallholders - this

bridges the cultural distance between farmer organisation and the research community. By the end of 2016, 17

research proposals were selected for implementation.

AgriCord, the Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) with its headquarters in

Wageningen, The Netherlands, and the Pan African Farmers Organisation (PAFO) started a three-year strategic

partnership in 2016 to support capacity development of African Farmer’s Organisations through improved

policies, technologies and capabilities. The partnership will expand the use of information and technology by

farmers’ organizations, building on existing successes and increasing the participation of youth to encourage

entrepreneurship and innovation. The partnerships enhances FOs’ data collection and use (with regard to

precision agriculture) and improves their position in supply and marketing sides of value chains (with special

attention on youth).

The collaboration grants AgriCord and supported FOs visibility and access to European and African development

forums. European and global actors such as the alliance of European Agricultural Machinery (CEMA) and the

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) are following the initiative closely and their contributions to

its implementation in a later stage are foreseen.

The partnership culminated in a side event of the OECD high-level meeting on aid effectiveness52 in Nairobi in

November 2016. AgriCord, CTA and PAFO organised a panel discussion on youth and agri-business. AgriCord also

contributed to the plenary session on youth and gender of the high-level meeting.

Another strategic partnership that intensified in 2016 was collaboration with Access to Seeds Index, a semi-

public initiative that aims to improve transparency in the seed industry and enhance structured dialogue

between the industry and farmers. This initiative represents a novelty for AgriCord, which is always seeking

constructive ways to orient private-sector activities to benefit smallholder businesses. The Index provides

material for FO advocacy and benchmarking vis-à-vis the private sector. AgriCord managed in 2016 to ensure

51 http://www.fao.org/partnerships/forest-farm-facility-91934/en/ 52 AgriCord is a formal Global Partnership Initiative partner for increased aid effectiveness.

http://www.fao.org/partnerships/forest-farm-facility-91934/en/


59

that producer organisations are included in the development and orientation of Access to Seeds Indexes in

Southern and West Africa and in Asia53.

Joint planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation

Developments in the Farmers Fighting Poverty M&E system In 2016 AgriCord’s Monitoring and Evaluation Expert Group made important progress in developing tools to allow

each agri-agency’s M&E system to contribute directly to FFP M&E. This supports the development of FFP in line

with the principles of aid effectiveness as a single programme involving 12 implementing agencies that, at the

same time, capitalises on the diversity of the agri-agencies.

The M&E Expert Group, composed of agri-agency experts, has developed filters and principles for a programme-

level monitoring system. The guiding principle is to use the data collected by the agri-agencies themselves: the

filters capture and harmonise data into a format that allows fair comparison and data consolidation.

The consolidated M&E system builds on FFP’s existing 4-pillar framework. Pillar 1 collects information on projects

and the results attributable to the financial (donor) support to the farmers’ organization. Pillar 2 comprises data

on FOs and the evolution of their membership, results and capacity. Pillar 3 focuses on impact of FO activities

and services on members’ income and livelihood. Pillar 4 examines AgriCord’s performance as an organisation.

The main outcomes of the M&E Expert Group’s work were:

Pillar 1 (project data): revisiting the project deliverables and targets framework. The deliverables have

been updated and structured around the main functions of FOs and the definition of ‘outreach’ was

improved.

Pillar 2 (FO data): establishing a filter to translate the results of capacity assessment into the FO core

competencies; agreeing a more systematic and harmonized method of collecting FO data, and reflecting

the differences in core competences in relation to different FO functions.

Pillar 3 (impact on farmers’ livelihood): making an inventory of the various impact measurement

practices and tools used by agri-agencies.

Pillar 4 (alliance capacity): starting processes to measure the quality of AgriCord services and mapping points for improvement.

A consolidated report on Farmers Fighting Poverty

In 2016, and in line with its M&E framework, AgriCord produced its second consolidated report, combining the

FFP results funded by all donor support mobilised by the AgriCord alliance. The consolidated report is a key tool

towards concrete donor harmonisation with one programme and one report. Presenting all FFP results in one

report also allows for more in-depth analysis of the aggregated impact of AgriCord’s work.

Management and operations of the Project Committee

The Project Committee (PC) is an advisory committee to AgriCord’s governing board. It checks the eligibility of

projects and farmers’ organisations, and oversees the coherence and quality of individual project proposals,

based on information channelled via the supporting agri-agency. The Project Committee is also the principal body

for knowledge-sharing on thematic issues and the different work areas of FFP, as it brings together all agri-

agencies.

The main PC results in 2016 were developing shared design documents for FO proposals to FFP and updating the

Farmers Fighting Poverty strategy document. The PC also reflected on issues of complementarity and

53 https://www.accesstoseeds.org/app/uploads/2017/02/170123-ATSI-Report-farmer-consultations-2016.pdf

https://www.accesstoseeds.org/app/uploads/2017/02/170123-ATSI-Report-farmer-consultations-2016.pdf


60

subsidiarity, and on the budget structure of FO projects. It gave a recommendation to the board on Farmers

Fighting Poverty’s support to farmers’ access to credit.

The PC is active throughout the year with weekly online consultations on FO proposals in the online database

Agro-Info.Net. In 2016, the PC received 61 requests for review; 59 projects were considered eligible, some after

clarification and changes to the project plan.

New joint database for FFP projects - NewAIN

Following two years of planning and development, in October 2016 two agri-agencies (Agriterra and Acodea)

started working with an improved version of the joint online project database, new.agro-info.net. Other agri-

agencies contributed to the testing and further developing the database throughout the year. Success will require

the cooperation of all agri-agencies (testing and giving feedback) and the adaption of agro-info.net into their

daily business (including registering projects that apply for central funding via AgriCord).

Organisational innovation

Quality in the AgriCord alliance

2016 was a landmark year as the alliance, through its agri-agencies, committed itself to quality certification.

The Board of AgriCord agreed in November 2016 on the following points:

- a definition of ‘quality’

- that all agri-agencies continue to engage in their quality approach, with the aim of obtaining

international certification

- that the alliance and its individual members work on the quality of their services FO, and on the possible

establishment of a quality label, on the basis of a feasibility study

- that a peer review procedure be put in place which will contribute to a climate of trust between the

members.

The Board also decided that AgriCord’s secretariat should engage in a quality approach, with the aim of obtaining

certification.

From strategic projects to AgriCord’s ambitions

The process also resulted in a proposal for new ambitions regarding openness and governance, quality and

services and regarding its business plan. These ambitions were voted in AgriCord’s General Assembly in

November 2016 in Valencia.

1. In 2022, AgriCord operates via the Farmers’ Fighting Poverty framework as a global delivery mechanism of services, funds and linkages, supporting the initiatives of farmers’ organisations and cooperatives that increase the incomes of farmers and strengthen their organisations. Africa maintained and improved. Latin America and Asia further developed. The political steering by farmers’ organisations of this delivery mechanism is crucial.

2. AgriCord maximises access to technical advice, training, exchanges & linkages and financial resources for farmers’ organisations and cooperatives. Sources of grant funding are fully and properly addressed (ODA, private). Access to private financial institutions for equity/loans mainstreamed by looking for blended solutions.

3. AgriCord mobilises the full potential of professional peer-to-peer advisory services, available in the professional and organised farmers’ and cooperative world, to match and improve the initiatives of farmers worldwide.


61

4 Lessons learnt from evaluations

This chapter captures lessons learnt in terms of four criteria: relevance, effectiveness (results), strategies applied

by members of the AgriCord Alliance and cross-cutting issues.

To learn from the evaluation and capitalisation exercises 24 documents were analysed (overview in annex 5).

Fourteen were internal documents of various types (annual progress reports, final reports, information bulletins

etc.). There were three external evaluation reports (including five country cases). One study report analysed the

support given by a group of French NGOs to FOs in Madagascar. One evidence report show-cased the importance

of farmers’ organisations for the fulfilment of the SDGs.

There are considerable differences in scope between the various documents, from one describing the progress

made by a local farmers’ organisation with just 20 members to others that cover multiple projects directed to

tens of thousands of smallholders spread over a wide geographic area.

Lessons learnt: relevance The relevance of FFP is related to its Theory of Change: that farmers’ organisations contribute to democracy,

economic growth and more equal income distribution. Strengthened farmers’ organisation can provide better

services to members, resulting in improved productivity and product quality, better access to markets, higher

income, stronger resilience and – eventually – improved well-being.

The issue of relevance was referred to in four internal reports and in all three external reports.54

From the reports in which relevance was mentioned, it appeared that:

• Project design and/or implementation responded well to the priorities of smallholders, which mainly

relate to a lack of human, social and productive capital. One report mentions a credit model tailored to

the needs of the farmers, and another indicates that actions and training on climate change mitigation

were considered relevant, since the effects of climate change are significant to farmers.

• Two reports and two external evaluation reports note that projects were in line with national policies.

• One report mentions that the project was aligned with the strategic priorities and objectives of

international actors.

• Three reports mention that the project was in line with Farmers Fighting Poverty’s strategic priorities

providing capacity reinforcement for FO functions.

• The inclusion of activities relevant to young farmers is important.

More generally, it was suggested that:

• It would be useful if ‘relevance’ could be included as a standard section in all reports, including internal

progress reports. This would make it possible to continue monitoring the extent to which a project or

programme is in line with the strategic and operational priorities and needs of farmers’ organisations,

the alliance, national policies and (eventually) of other actors, in addition to ex-ante verification by the

Project Committee.

• Prior experience of working with farmers’ organisations appears to be helpful in demonstrating the

relevance of the approach and methods applied.

• Flexibility, entrepreneurship and innovation are necessary for farmers’ organisations to adjust strategies

in response to the interests of potential members. For example, low youth participation in fruit

54 CAPAD 1, CAZ, FFF, KDC, SOA, TEFCU, TTHCA


62

production, coupled with the effects of prolonged drought, have prompted one union and its primary

cooperatives to consider a second enterprise to attract young people.

Lessons learnt: effectiveness Farmers Fighting Poverty aims to increase its effectiveness through (a) providing grants to FO projects; (b) long-

term commitment; (c) transparent and predictable aid flows; (d) knowledge management; and (e) streamlining

the flow of funding and increasing FO capacities to deal with these funds.

Practically all interventions focus on the economic empowerment of smallholders, followed by strengthening the

related organisational capacities and the lobbying and advocacy functions of farmers’ organisations. The report

on support given by French NGOs to farmers’ organisations in West Africa and Madagascar55 states that support

to farmers’ organisations is more effective and leads to more autonomy if it is holistic i.e. if it takes into account

the organisational and institutional aspects of an organisation as well as focusing on technical and economic

functions.

The majority of projects combine support to at least two aspects of FO functioning. The resulting stronger

capacity leads in turn to improvements in services to members. Services are delivered in various ways, often

through training (e.g. on technical issues, organisational topics, governance and effective lobbying). Training

support may also be given to organise or coordinate exchange visits and to capitalize experiences and stimulate

learning.

Results of this service-provision are diverse e.g. transforming a pilot cooperative to provide forestry (in addition

to agricultural) services.56 Several reports indicate that farmers’ organisations’ help their members to better

engage in business and markets. Some reports also mention longer-term outcomes such as higher sales volume

as a result of reduced storage losses, or participation in policy dialogue resulting in stronger grassroots ownership

of the FFP model.

Policy elaboration, advocacy and institutional strengthening also appear in the results, but less prominently than

supporting FO functions. Constraints mentioned include the fact that local organisations do not always have a

national unit through which to establish meaningful relations at national or international levels, and that

members are sometimes reluctant to engage.

The Strength in Numbers publication57 states and provides illustrative cases that producer groups and

organisations are vital and necessary actors in ensuring that the SDGs are implemented equitably and at scale.

They are key operational systems for achieving the Goals.

From the reports mentioning effectiveness, the following general or specific points emerge:

• Annual progress reports should include information on how progress is monitored e.g. providing

additional (ideally quantitative) information to statements such as ‘increased income’.

• Reporting (both internal and external) could state explicitly how progress made by FOs contributes to

the SDGs.

• An understanding of local market mechanisms and how to collect local market information should be

acquired before turning to wider (foreign) markets.

• Investing in strategic leadership makes it possible for FOs to take the right decisions about markets and

production.

• It is worthwhile continuing to invest in exchange visits to share experiences between cooperatives.

55 AFD. This study report is based on 10 external evaluation reports, a survey to five NGOs (including Afdi and Fert) and an analysis of 34 projects (2008-2016) supported by the French Development Cooperation (AFD). 56 TTHCA 57 http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5765e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5765e.pdf


63

• It is important to support FOs’ networking processes.

• Cooperatives should be allowed to act as traders or facilitators for trade.

• It is necessary to think ahead about how to consolidate and embed results, or consider a project

extension if this is needed to achieve sustainable results.

Lessons learnt: strategies used Most of the progress reports (both internal and external) contain information about the modalities (the modus

operandi) applied by the alliance to enable farmers to achieve their goals.

As mentioned above, the external study report58 concludes that integrated support to farmers’ organisations is

more effective than having a single focus: other reports indicate that most projects combine several aspects of

capacity strengthening.

The following strategies have been applied by the alliance: capacity strengthening on marketing and training

(including advocacy, entrepreneurship, drafting a business plan, governance, sustainable farming and

leadership). Capacity has also been built by providing a temporary technical advisor to work directly with the FO.

Other strategies include value-chain development approaches and enabling FOs to improve the terms of

engagement with national, regional and international markets; stimulating peer-to-peer learning for technology

transfer; improving progress toward downstream nodes of value chains; and enhancing performance and impact.

Although some reports reveal that direct support is an effective way of capacity building, it was noted that care

should be taken not to create dependency on agri-agency support.

Other strategies by alliance members include follow-up missions to discuss progress with the farmers’

organisations; giving feedback and advice to improve performance and results; and providing direct financial

support.

Lessons learnt regarding strategies are:

• It is worth building capacities in an integrated way, based on organisational, institutional, advocacy and

economic/technical support. This enables farmers’ organisations to take the right strategic and

operational decisions with regard to their own functioning and their service provision for members.

• Support should be provided at the appropriate scale. For instance, one external evaluation59 noted that

support to forest certification should be addressed to a sufficiently large group of cooperatives.

• We should continue exchange and learning initiatives among FOs and other organisations, and capitalize

the experiences to optimize and consolidate results.

Lessons learnt: cross-cutting issues Gender was mentioned a few times, particularly to note the number of men/women receiving training or

services. In two of the three external evaluations, gender was not part of the evaluation or project design.

The other internal and external reports60 illustrate gender or women’s participation to differing degrees. For

instance, some reports show that gender is part of the project design or that women are strongly involved in the

project, whereas others limit the treatment of ‘gender’ to simply distinguishing the number of male and female

participants.

58 AFD 59 TTHCA 60 CAZ, FFF, FUPRO, TEFCU


64

One external evaluation61 noted the positive effects of working on gender issues. In countries visited, female

members of FFPO governance committees mentioned the benefits of their training. The following quote is taken

from this mid-term evaluation:

‘A woman who is accountant of an FFPO in Bak Kan Province, Viet Nam, told the MTE Mission that her

increased knowledge from training in leadership organized by FFF has empowered her to more openly

discuss in the Committee and make joint decisions with men. Such change in empowering women for

leadership is arguably one of the most important contributions from FFF model. In most FFPOs visited in

Gambia, the MTE mission found women are more enthusiastic in their organizations’ activities than are

men. In many countries visited, they are considered as more effective in treasury positions in the FFPOs

governance Committees.’

Lessons learnt relate to a better integration of a gender approach in the design and implementation of projects

and programmes. Sensitization is also critical to ensure inclusiveness. The FFF report states that while continuing

to address gender-specific barriers (including lack of skills and poor access to resources), support to the

development of women’s entrepreneurship should be enhanced in forest and farm-based value chains in order

to ensure equal participation in value chains and linkages to markets.

Three reports mention youth.62 The FFF report notes that, ‘Youth is an important crosscutting issue which

deserves special attention, … In view of the demographic weight of the youth and their responsibility in

sustainable landscape management in the future, the design and implementation of interventions should

deliberately address their needs as far as access to/use of natural resources are concerned’.63 This is a

recommendation that could count for all projects supported by the AgriCord Alliance.

Environment was mentioned in six of the reports. Some make clear that climate change has become a real

concern, and mention actions to raise awareness and to train farmers to mitigate or cope better with climatic

changes.64 The FFF report mentions several initiatives linked to environmental issues e.g. FFP supports the

implementation of joint mechanisms for adaptation and mitigation in three regions of Bolivia. In Vietnam,

roundtable discussions on how to support FFPOs in production and sustainable forest business by creating a

more enabling policy environment were facilitated by VNFU.

Overall, the reports indicate that there have been efforts to include environment in interventions, but that

environment and climate change ought to have a more prominent place in project design and implementation.

61 FFF. FFF participates in implementing FFP with small grants financing to strengthen smallholder, women, community and indigenous peoples’ producer organisations for business/livelihoods and policy engagement. 62 FFF, KDC, SOA 63 FFF 64 TEFCU


65

Annexes

Annex 1: Overview of commodities targeted in farmers’ organisations’ projects

Annex 2: Definition of 7 core competences of farmers’ organisations

Annex 3: Impact cascade - nine cases tabulated to show capacity development, changes in

FO position and effects on members

Annex 4: Table of examples of FO-to-FO exchanges and outputs

Annex 5: Overview of evaluations and capitalisations


66

Annex 1: Overview of commodities targeted in farmers’ organisations’ projects

Commodity Total Africa Asia L-America

Rice 25 14 11 Maize 22 20 2 Vegetables 14 5 8 1

Bean 12 11 0 1

Fruits 10 5 4 1

Cassava 8 6 2 Soy 8 8 0 Dairy 8 6 2 Livestock & poultry 8 7 1 Coffee 7 4 2 1

Timber 7 4 3 Honey 7 5 1 1

Peanuts 6 6 0 Fish 5 3 2 Potatoes 5 5 0 Other cereals 5 5 0 Cotton 3 3 0 Cocoa 3 1 2 Tea 2 1 1 Sugar 2 0 2 Bananas 2 0 2 Onion 2 2 0 Forest non-timber 1 0 1 Sunflower 1 1 0 Cashew nuts 1 1 0 Millet 1 1 0 Sorghum 1 1 0 Peas 1 1 0


67

Annex 2: Definition of 7 core competences of farmers’ organisations

(1) Representativeness: truly mandated by members

In Farmers Fighting Poverty it is crucial that the farmers' organisations are of, by and for farmers. The successful development of this competence is reflected by membership retention and recruitment, plus a solid membership database.

(2) Participation: involve members in decision making processes

In farmers’ organisations the farmers are actors of their own change. They elect their leaders, and these leaders allow the members to participate in decision-making processes. This implies genuine participation of members in the farmers’ organisations structure and operations.

(3) Accountability: to be transparent and accountable

Accountability is about communicating transparently through established channels about themes that concern all members. In practice, this means that the farmers’ organisation holds regular board elections, has a general assembly and effective internal and external communication.

(4) Inclusiveness: towards women, youth and vulnerable groups

Successful development of this competence means that the farmers’ organisation is able to detect the particular needs of women, youth and specific vulnerable groups, and can empower them to facilitate change.

(5) Professionalism: improving and maintaining a high standard of services

Markets and changing environments are continuously challenging the quality of the services delivered to farmers. The successful development of professionalism depends on training and motivating staff and leaders, solid PM&E, and on having high quality internal and external communication.

(6) Financial solidity: sound financial management and diversified income streams

Qualitative financial management and diversity of income sources are two important aspects of this competence.

(7) Networking: building relations with relevant stakeholders

For lobbying and advocacy at different levels (local, national, international), as well as for defending the interests of farmers in agro-food chains, farmers’ organisations need to link with other actors. Constructive and pro-active interaction with other players is crucial: line ministries and other government bodies, agro-businesses, NGOs, local authorities etc.


68

Annex 3: Impact cascade - nine cases tabulated to show capacity development, changes in FO position and effects on members

MVIWATA KDC KENAFF KPA AOPP - Koulikoro FPFD FEPA/B UDPN - Pissila, Dablo & Pensa

CAZ

Financial partners

DGD Afdi, Trias DGIS DGIS AFD AFD AFD, EU/IFAD AFD, Cfsi/Fondation de France

DGIS

Situation Mtandao wa

vikundi vya

wakulima wa wilaya

ya Arusha

• Tanzania Trias

• 2014-2016

• 6,000 members involved, 50% women

• 250 producer groups

Kibaya Dairy

Cooperative

• Tanzania

• Afdi

• 21 members of which 11 women

• 200 beneficiaries

Kenya National

Farmers Federation

• Agriterra

• 2010-2014

• 33,305 farmers

• 121 producer business groups

Komunitas Petani

Alami

• Indonesia

• AsiaDHRRA

• 2014-2017

• 1,500 farming households

• 75 marketing clusters

Association des Organisations Profesionnelles Paysannes

• Mali, Koulikoro region

• Afdi

• 2012-2017

• 680 cattle-owners

• 1,700 family members, 180 women

• 6 cooperatives

Fédération des

paysans du Fouta

Djallon

• Guinea, Moyenne-Guinée

• Afdi

• Since 1992

• 34,000 members, 64% women

Fédération des

professionnels

agricoles du Burkina

• Burkina Faso

• Afdi

• 2012-2017

• 125,200 women; 116,061 men; 108,567 young members

• 38 provincial unions

Unions

départementales

des Producteurs de

niébé

• Burkina Faso

• Fert

• Since 2008

• 5,000 members; 33,800 beneficiaries (household members)

Cotton Association

of Zambia

• WeEffect

• Since 2009

• 32,020 members

Commodity Onions, poultry & honey

Dairy Dairy & maize Rice & vegetables Dairy Potatoes, tomatoes, onions, maize & rice

Cereal crops, fruit & vegetables

Cow pea, cereals (sorghum) & peanut

Cotton

Improved capacity of the FO or improved enabling environment

554 youth and women trained in household asset management 355 farmers trained on good agricultural practices and market linkages Youth participation

Training on zero-grazing systems and techniques Visit to a dairy processing plant with advanced equipment Members can now realise own

Diversified service-provision to members via an extension system Skills and knowledge of the FO improved

FO staff recruited and trained on entrepreneurship

Board members collaborate with local government when implementing project activities Farmers have improved access to the government agricultural extension service

Extension service on forage crops to assure forage availability in the dry season 12,000 farmers received extension services between 2012 and 2014

FO encourages young farmers’ start-ups: training and support to acquire land from their family, loans for input and equipment, plus extension services

Technical and economic extension

Supporting Roundtables for the young in 3 provinces: creating the group; exchanging experiences; training and workshops Improved group dynamics and

Improved associative life; improved services to members and better links with technical and financial partners (including government departments & local authorities)

Member satisfaction for FO services increased Application of conservation farming Number of farmers participating in savings and loan group increased


69


CAZ

increased from 15% to 36% Improved access to finance (4 SACCOs were strengthened)

participatory market research/studies

development

Creation of extension network: - 543 lead farmers - 121 producer

business group technicians

- 19 business promoters

Extension service coverage expanded through cost-sharing between participants

mechanism for 95 groups & 1,425 members

strengthened cooperative life Economic activities e.g. warrantage, tontines Awareness of the advantages of sharing experiences between peers

from 4,000 to 4,368 in 2016

Structural changes in supply side of value chain and resilience

Improved extension system (good agricultural practices and market linkages)

Increased number of members supply to the KDC dairy processing plant 16 members trained in hygienic milk production and transport, improving the quality of the raw milk and reducing the amount of milk spoiled

Improved access to inputs

FO is now service-provider for the government by training other farming communities on Natural Farming System (NFS) Contract system sets out responsibilities of farmers in terms of collective marketing Exposure to harmful synthetic chemical pesticides significantly reduced using NFS About 50% of 442 individual small farmers trained in NFS committed to changing their farming system

Between 2014 and 2016: 627 cattle breeders (including 135 women) were trained in forage production, storage and feeding 256 ha of forage trials in place 12 relay farmers closely monitor the cattle breeders Farmers now committed to forage production and abandoning nomadic pasture practices

Construction of a refrigerated platform led to regulation of market prices, increased volumes and access to export markets Being able to preserve local seed potatoes means farmers can buy at lower price (6,000 - 10,000 FG/kg) than the seed potato imported from France (11,000 - 13,000 FG/kg)."

Input supply credit of 200 million FCFA for the 2016-2017 crop year. Technical and economic support for 1,915 families in management of granaries, crop forecasting, production, use of organic fertilizer and cereal seeds Feasibility study for setting up cooperatives for the joint use of equipment Producers can now estimate their cash requirements for the winter season.

Improved access to inputs (seeds, fertilizers) for members. Agricultural extension system (test plots, soil and water conservation techniques, advice on post-harvest management etc.)

Cotton seed was included in the government Farmers’ Input Support programme

A total of 60 MT of cotton seed was distributed to cotton farmers

A draft proposal was prepared for a smallholder cotton inputs financing scheme that will provide fair, mutually rewarding and easily enforceable cotton production and marketing contracts

Structural changes in outlet and marketing side of the value chain;

Marketing deals, notably successful linkage with the Wakulima market in Nairobi

Marketing and business plans developed and being implemented Participatory market research for new

Producer business groups operating as entrepreneurial entities / farmer-led businesses Producer business

With the cluster system, KPA members are able to set aside produce for collective marketing, as well as for their household rice/

Marketing platform in place Consultation meetings are held between dairy cooperatives and

Construction of a refrigerated warehouse for consumption potatoes with a capacity of 1,500 tons

Contract for cowpea supply with the Ministry of National Education and Literacy (MENA) for school canteens. A

Storage and collective marketing. Market research, promoting cowpeas to buyers and consumers at agri-food fairs

24 handlooms bought from India and Zambian women trained (in India) on their use and on entrepreneurship


70


CAZ

and resilience

markets Diversification of production (ghee (samli) and cheese) Market study and value chain analysis carried out FO obtained product quality certification and business licence Promotion and branding materials developed

groups have developed basic business plans for milk sales Producer business groups are able to identify market outlets and sell collectively Access to collective storage and marketing strategies of the cooperative Value-chain committees established

vegetable needs Members now produce their own seeds, reducing dependence on commercial seed suppliers

reseller cooperatives to improve the promotion and marketing of dairy products in Bamako

Reduced post-harvest losses: storage losses are limited to less than 10% compared to nearly 40% formerly Members of PO are able to establish gross margins (harvest and post-storage) in order to negotiate fair selling prices Storage facility allows marketing to be postponed until prices are favourable

total of 24,200 bags were delivered

Promoting the use of cowpea for processing into flour and incorporation into specialised bread The unions have been able to open new markets (private and state buyers) for high-quality cowpea with added value compared to conventional markets

42 cooperatives around Mumbwa ginnery add value through oil extraction from cotton seed

Increase in yields, production volumes and quality

Productivity increases: Chicken: 17% Onion: 16% Honey: 14%

Milk production now 120.3 litres per day in 2016 (up from 5L/day in 2015)

245% increase in maize productivity 83% increase in milk productivity

Number of rice growers using natural farming increased from 50 to 220 (340% increase) Promoting natural farming and providing cheaper inputs by KPA reduced members’ production costs

Between 2014 and 2016, improved forage production generated: An increase in milk productivity from 1 to 2.5 l/cow/day on average during the dry season Production costs of milk in the dry season reduced by 17% Number of milk producers active in the dry season increased by 215% to 784 farmers in 2016 Volume of milk collected in the dry

Storage facilities enabled an increase in production volumes

Cowpea yield has increased from 626 kg/ha in 2009 to 700-800 kg/ha in 2013-2016 The 3 unions increased their total production from 365 tons in 2009 to 667 tons in 2016

Productivity increased from 435kg/ha in 2015 to 581kg/ha in 2016


71


CAZ

season (February-June) increased by 57%

Increase in household sales volume

/ Increase of volume of milk sold per household of 140% (7.1L/day to approximately 17L/day)

100% increase in sales of dairy products and 79% increase in maize sales

Demand for natural product is increasing (unquantified) Compliance with quality standards allowed members to sell in bigger markets Sales increased by 380% (from 2 tons to 9.6 tons) Increase in sales of various vegetables from 30kg to 250kg

/ / Improved control of family food consumption, reduction of harvest waste (cereals); family food security extended by 2-6 months every year

Sales of cowpea increased 34% compared to 2015 (126 tonnes supplied by 515 producers)

Improved price paid by FO to members

200 tons of onions sold for 116,000Tsh/bag instead of 80,000Tsh/bag

1,000 TSH/L of milk bought from members

63% increase in price paid to members

/ Increase in selling price of milk in the dry season of 50 FCFA (from 300 FCFA to 350 FCFA) Prices unchanged during the rainy season 8% decrease in production cost of milk (from 225 CFA/L to 205 CFA/L)

Increased marketed volumes and new markets, especially for export. The committee succeeded in selling larger volumes in sub-regional markets: Senegal, Sierra Leone & Liberia

Improved yields, thanks to better control of technical production parameters

The gross margin of 109,000 FCFA / ha for cowpea is down from 2015 numbers due to a decline in yield (poor rainfall) and an increase fertilizer cost

Producer prices increased from ZMW 2.00 to ZMW 2.90 in 2016

Improved income of members

/ Assuming stable prices, household income increased from 7,100 TSH/day to 17,000/day from 2016 to 2017

/ / / / / / Average gross household income from cotton increased from ZMW 870 to ZMW 1,685 in 2016


73

Annex 4: Table of examples of FO-to-FO exchanges and outputs

Project

reference

(funding

partners)

Implementing FO Commodity/

sector

FO contributing

to exchange

Activity Tangible output Expected long-term benefit for the implementing FO

6501

(EU/IFAD,

DGIS, Bill

and

Melinda

Gates

Foundation)

FOs from

Botswana,

Lesotho, Malawi,

Mozambique,

Seychelles,

Swaziland,

Tanzania, Zambia

and Zimbabwe

Seed Southern

African

Confederation

of Agricultural

Unions (SACAU)

Two-day event on seed

supply, seed harmonisation,

role of the seed industry

and the application of the

Access to Seed Index (ATSI)

in Southern Africa

Awareness created

about the ATSI and the

general challenges of

accessing quality seed.

FO leaders contributed

to the development of

the Index in Southern

Africa

Improved influence of FOs on access and quality of seed

supply. Increased influence over government and seed

companies to improve smallholder access to good quality

local seed

6123

(MFAF,

DGIS)

Thua Thien Hue

Cooperative

Alliance

Forest

products

Finnish Forest

Management

Association

Savotta

Technical forestry

workshops, and

administrative and

management capacity

building through twinning

approach.

A business plan was

developed

Agricultural cooperatives

started providing

forestry extension

services (first step

towards PEFC

certification)

Efficiency of forest production as well as farmers’ skills and

knowledge of sustainable forest management, silvicultural

operations and forest certification have improved

FO makes increased profits from forestry operations and

marketing of certified wood products

6354 (DGIS,

DGD)

AKA Commercial Various

Joutsenten

Reitti

Support to expand and

diversify crop production;

support to develop AKA's

strategic plan; concrete

advice on installing a solar

panel for grinding mill

Improved

representation of

members in decision

making; approved

internal rules; access to

market information for

85% of the members;

stronger advocacy role

in land reform process

In 2017, a solar panel will be procured and installed to

operate the grinding mill

Sustainability of the cooperative will improve through

stronger governance structures, and through sustainable,

viable business for AKA and its members


74

Project

reference

(funding

partners)

Implementing FO Commodity/

sector

FO contributing

to exchange

Activity Tangible output Expected long-term benefit for the implementing FO

6137 (DGIS,

EU/IFAD)

FOs from Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Japan, South-Korea, India Sri Lanka and Laos

Various Asian Farmers’

Association for

Sustainable

Development

(AFA)

Two-day event in Quezon

City (Philippines) on the role

and perspectives of agri-

coops in the region as

vehicles for inclusive

development. Three specific

objectives: a) appreciate the

role of agricultural coops; b)

learn from successful

experiences; c) formulate

concrete strategies and an

operational plan for

strengthening agri-

cooperatives

Discussion paper by AFA

2016-2020; strategic

action plans per sub-

region for AFA and non-

AFA members; lessons

learned from the

experiences of successful

agricultural cooperatives

in Japan, South Korea, Sri

Lanka, India and the

Philippines

Improved capacities of Asian FOs to manage sustainable

agro-enterprises through knowledge-sharing and

innovation

5947

(EU/IFAD,

AFD, MFAF)

TAHA

Tanzania

Fruit and

vegetables

Finnish Garden

Women’s

Association

(FGA)

Training by FGA on

marketing, post-harvest

technologies (handling,

sorting, grading, packaging,

cooling). Discussion and in-

depth review of plans for

collection centres and other

technical solutions

Cooling system guide for

collection centres

drafted

Facilitation of contacts with necessary technical expertise

and suitable technical solutions for horticultural extension,

and post-harvest treatment and cooling through FO2FO

exchange. Partnerships with external service-providers for

packaging and energy solutions

6376

(MFAF,

DGIS)

Sundardeep

women fish

farmers

cooperative

Farmed fish

products

Finnish Fish

Farmers’

Association

Twinning activity between

Finnish and Nepalese FOs:

training on waste

management and water

quality in fish farming;

human resources

management

Improved HR

management and

reporting qualities. Fish

farmers now aware of

the importance of water

quality and waste

management

Book keeping and financial management has improved.

Increased productivity and income through fish farming

due to improved water quality (decreased fish mortality)


75

Annex 5: Overview of evaluations and capitalisations

Ref. Title Type Country Scale Farmers’ organisation Agri-agency

AFD Evaluation and perspectives of actions carried out by French NGOs supporting famers organisations in West Africa and in Madagascar from 2008 to 2016.

Internship report (AFD; Agence Française de Développement) by Noureini Sayouti Souleymane

Multi-country (12)

5,200 FO (34 projects) / AFDI, FERT (plus 12 French NGOs)

AFDI Information demonstrating impact on incomes and quality of life of farmers

Resume Several countries

See individual AFDI reports below

See individual AFDI reports below

AFDI

AOPP Programme Promoting Family Farming in West Africa - Improving the productiviy and competitiveness of the dairy value chain (AIN 5934)

Internal final report by Claire Guyon

Mali Regional (Koulikoro): 680 farmers including 180 women delivering 6 cooperatives members of the regional APFO, i.e. 1,700 family members of these farmers

Association des Organisations Professionnelles Paysannes AOPP – (Association of Professional Farmer Organisations)

AFDI

CAPAD 1 Midterm evaluation of the FBSA MOSO programme “Contribution to the improvement of food security in Cendajuru, Gisuru and Kinyinya carried out by CSA/CAPAD”

External midterm evaluation report by Patrice Ndimanya

Burundi Local level (communities Cendajuru, Gisuru and Kinyinya: 319 groups in the target communities (hoped to reach 400)

Confédération des Associations des Producteurs Agricoles pour le Développement – CAPAD (Confederation of farmers’ associations for development)

CSA

CAPAD 2 The FBSA in action Bulletin (6) Burundi as above Confédération des Associations des Producteurs Agricoles pour le Développement – CAPAD (Confederation of farmers’ associations for development)

CSA

CAPAD 3 The FBSA in action Bulletin (7) Burundi as above as above CSA

CAPAD 4 The FBSA in action Bulletin (8) Burundi as above as above CSA

CAZ Access to affordable rural finance by small-scale cotton farmers (AIN 6348)

Internal report (progress towards results)

Zambia Country level (exact number not clear: several 1,000s)

Cotton Association of Zambia (CAZ)

We Effect


76


FFF Project evaluation series –

Midterm evaluation of the Forest and Farm Facility programme

External midterm evaluation – synthesis report by Eoghan Molloy, FAO (Office of Evaluation)

10 countries in LAM, AS, AF

International, national, local level

See country reports (no.11-15)

Partnership co-managed by IIED, IUCN and AgriCord

FFF /

Guatemala

Project evaluation series –

Midterm Evaluation - Forest and Farm Facility programme

Country case report by Dr. James K. Gasana, / Juan José Ochaeta Castellanos

Guatemala Country level 11 second-level organisa-tions (about 77,000 members); Cross-sectoral Coordination Group: MARN, MAGA, INAB, CONAP; Technical Committee to support the design and advocacy for the

Probosque Law;

INAB / PFN;

Cross-sectoral dialogue platform on energy;

20 micro, small and medium forest community enterprises (forestales comunitarias);

2 producer’s chains

(South Petén, Las

Verapaces).


FFF / Kenya



Country case report by Dr. J. K. Gasana + FAO office of evaluation

Kenya Nakuru and Laikipia county 456 forest producer groups, of which 225 male and 231 female


FFF / Myanmar



Country case report by Dr. Ohnmar Myo Aung + FAO office of evaluation

Myanmar State level Over 132 CF user groups in more than seven townships across four states in Myanmar (+- 6,000 members)



77


FFF / The Gambia


Midterm evaluation - Forest and farm facility programme

Country case report by Dr. J. K. Gasana +

FAO office of evaluation

The Gambia Country level (46,766 members, of which 28,961 male and 17,805 female)

National Farmers Platform of The Gambia (NFPG)


FFF / Vietnam



Country case report by Dr. Dao Trong Tu + FAO office of evaluation

Vietnam Province level Two Northern Provinces, Bac Kan (Ba Be District: 2 communes) and Yen Bai (Yen Binh District: 1 commune, and Tran Yen District: 1 commune) about 400 members


FPFD The storage as a tool for improving marketing: example of Guinea (AIN 5860)

Internal (situation analysis) Guinée Regional (34,000 members, 64% women)

Fédération des Paysans du Fouta Djallon – FPFD (Farmers Federation of Fouta Djallon)

AFDI

FUPRO Projet de valorisation des produits locaux par la qualite et l'origine au Benin (AIN 5935)

Internal report (yearly progress) Benin National level

(254 farmers, including 22 women, have differentiated and promoted their products/271 people focusing on quality approaches)

Fédération des Unions des Producteurs du Bénin –FUPRO (Federation of Farmers’ Unions in Benin)

AFDI

KDC 1 Milk for Dodoma consumers in Tanzania Internal progress report by Neema Mollel

Tanzania Local (11 women, 10 men, 3 young producers ( < 35 years of age).

Kibaya Dairy Cooperative (KDC)

AFDI

KDC 2 Presentation sheet of the Kibaya dairy cooperative (KDC)

Presentation sheet Tanzania Local (11 women, 10 men, 3 young producers ( < 35 years of age).

Kibaya Dairy Cooperative (KDC)

AFDI


78


LOFEPACO FO’s involvement in public programmes lessons & experices learned from “p4p rutshuru”

Internal report (overview lessons learnt)

RDC Local level (Northern Kivu, RDC)

LOFEPACO/Coopérative Centrale du Nord-Kivu – COOCENKI (Central Cooperative of Northern-Kivu)

CSA

SOA 1 Experience Afdi Madagascar

Installation of youths (AIN 5854)

Internal report (progress) Madagascar Country level (since 2014, 176 youths including 65 young women have installed with an average allocation amounting €185 and a 98% success rate)

SOA network AFDI

SOA 2 Malagasy FOs integrate young farmers (AIN 5854) Internal progress report Madagascar as above SOA network AFDI

Strength in Numbers

Forest and farm producer organisations – operating systems for the SDGs. Strength in numbers.

Evidence report by AgriCord, FAO and IFFA (Africa, Latin America, Asia)

Several countries

/ 38 organisations of smallholder foresters and farmers contributing to achieving sustainable development goals

/

TEFCU AgriCord annual report 2016 project results, Citrus fruit growing in Teso region (AIN 6409)

Internal report (annual project results)

Uganda Regional level (district: (57) fully registered primary cooperative societies comprising (5,860) members (3,544 men and 2,316 women)

Tropical Fruit Cooperative Union (TEFCU)

We Effect

TTHCA Evaluation of the “support to forest producers’ organisations in central Vietnam” (AIN 6123)

External final evaluation report by Juhani Härkönen & Pham Thi Bich Ngoc (FCG International)

Vietnam Local (central Vietnam) Three selected cooperative alliances from Central Vietnam: Thua Thien Hue Cooperative Alliance (TTHCA), Quang Tri Cooperative Alliance (QTCA) and Quang Ngai Cooperative Alliance (QNCA)

FFD

consolidated report 2017 - agricord · • cereals and food crops account for 82% of the target...

Documents