Demand-Side Pro-Smallholder

Market Development

Lessons from the P4P Pilot

Workshop Report

Workshop report

Purchase for Progress (P4P)

8 - 9 June, 2016

Rome, Italy

Workshop report

2

Executive summary and key messages 3

Introduction and workshop objectives 6

A closer look at demand-side approaches and capacity strengthening 7

The context and state of the art of demand-side approaches 7

The P4P model: Design, genesis and rollout 8

Lessons learned from the Global Learning Agenda 10

Farmer collective action and capacity strengthening 10

Procurement, quality and market development 11

Impacts on farmer productivity and welfare 13

Lessons from practice - looking at what worked 14

Addressing key challenges and knowledge gaps 15

Looking to the future 20

Annex 1: Learning agenda questions 22

Annex 2: References 23

Annex 3: Workshop agenda 24

Annex 4: List of participants 26

Table of Contents

Workshop report

3

Executive summary and key messages

Purchase for Progress (P4P) is part of a strategic shift in WFP’s procurement strategy

which seeks to procure locally to benefit local farmers and economies. As such, it is part of

a broader shift in WFP's strategy from providing food aid to food assistance. Under P4P,

WFP used its purchasing power to improve market access for smallholder farmers. It also

sought to build smallholders’ capacity to supply high quality staples to meet this demand.

Last but not least, it looked at procurement modalities and a variety of aggregation models

to ensure that smallholder farmers reaped the benefits of increased production and sales.

The P4P pilot ran from 2008 to 2013 and generated many lessons learned that can now be

used by national governments and other partners who wish to implement demand-side

approaches to develop markets for smallholders. A workshop was convened from 8 - 9

June 2016 to provide a space for distilling these lessons learned and identifying next steps.

Academic and operational studies on the key aspects of the P4P experience were

presented. These were complemented by additional insights from participants based on

their practical experience in implementing P4P. Stakeholders provided a broad

perspective and helped clarify how P4P fits into bigger trends and processes. Participants

highlighted challenges faced by P4P and demand-side approaches to smallholder market

development more broadly, and brainstormed potential ways of addressing these

challenges. Finally, next steps were discussed. Key messages from the workshop are

summarized in the following sections.

General messages

In order to end hunger, it is crucial to take a systemic approach and focus on

entire food systems, including food production, transformation and consumption.

Demand-side approaches lead to systemic change by shifting incentives in food

systems and generating new dynamics that create opportunities for smallholder

farmers.

P4P has changed the way WFP is perceived in the field. In line with its dual

mandate to save lives in humanitarian contexts and address the root causes of

hunger, P4P has enhanced WFP’s capacity to contribute to long term

development solutions. By tying procurement to development objectives, P4P has

also helped bridge the humanitarian and development divide in WFP’s strategic

thinking.

Workshop report

4

Strengthening smallholder farmers' capacity to meet food quality and safety

standards is a key principle of the P4P approach. By raising the quality of their

goods, farmers were able to command higher premiums and access new higher

value markets.

P4P’s focus on gender led to enhanced gender equity and increased participation

of women farmers. Women’s participation tripled between 2008 and 2013, and

over 200,000 women underwent training. Community and FO members also

received training to raise their awareness of gender issues, and in particular, to

see the economic benefits of being more inclusive.

There is a need for more clarity when defining what constitutes impact and

success. Furthermore, M&E frameworks should be more directly related to the

project design and country context.

M&E processes need to capture more qualitative data. The main measure of

success for P4P (changes in farmers' incomes) did not adequately capture many

of the positive spill over effects P4P had on farmers and along the supply chain.

Qualitative analysis can provide additional insights into which processes worked,

which did not, and why.

The time frame of the pilot may have been too short to observe significant

changes in farmers' incomes and the larger scale systemic changes that were

hoped for. It was also too short for drawing conclusions about what aggregation

models work best when implementing demand-side approaches.

Implementing and scaling up P4P

In the pilot phase, WFP used its buying power as a catalyst to increase market

access for smallholder farmers. It was found to be crucial to engage from the

beginning with both local and national governments, as they must take the lead in

scaling up demand-side approaches that benefit farmers.

Demand-side approaches must be customized to local contexts; a “one-size-fits-

all” model does not exist.

Farmers are most likely to increase their supply, and benefit more substantially

from demand-side approaches, only if there is stable and continuous demand. It

is therefore important to identify and work with buyers beyond WFP when

scaling up P4P.

Procurement regulations and modalities were modified to make them more

smallholder friendly. Competitive bidding processes, large purchase quantities

and substantial warranties may need to be reconsidered to allow smallholder

participation. Forward contracting was an effective modality for including more

smallholder farmers, particularly as they could use the contracts as collateral to

access credit.

Price dynamics and quality requirements raised challenges for smallholders,

often leading to defaults on P4P contracts. Stronger price determination

mechanisms, flexible contracting and targeted capacity development helped

address these challenges. In addition, studies showed that farmers' organizations

were less likely to default in full on larger contracts and those repeated over time.

Workshop report

5

Challenges and opportunities

Additional efforts are needed to ensure the provision of stable and structured

demand and to organize procurement and pricing in a fair, transparent and timely

manner. Key issues to be addressed include: pricing mechanisms and price

information for farmers; contract structure, enforcement and resolution; timely

payment; access to finance; traceability; and aggregation capacity.

Effective risk mitigation requires that implementers address risks which stretch

from crop failure and price fluctuation to poor FO governance. Defaults on

contracts by pro-smallholder aggregators pose a particular risk to the buyer and

require substantial attention.

Scaling up demand-side approaches requires strong and substantial support from

a broad range of partners, especially national governments. Policies, standards and

regulations favourable to these interventions are crucial.

Continued capacity development is required to support FOs to sustainably engage

with formal markets. In particular, physical infrastructure and storage facilities are

lacking, and strengthened attention to “soft skills” is needed.

The main challenges in targeting evolved around which farmers, FOs and

geographical areas to target. There is a tension between the enhanced effectiveness

of working with smallholder farmers capable of producing a surplus and working

with more vulnerable farmers, who require more substantial support.

Measuring the breadth of impacts generated by a systemic intervention such as

P4P can be challenging—particularly with quantitative means.

The scope of work involved in developing smallholder markets is too large for WFP

or any one institution to manage. A variety of inclusive partnerships, based on

consultations and participatory decision making, are therefore necessary along the

supply chain, with national governments driving and enabling the process.

The P4P programme increased FOs' capacity by providing services, improving

infrastructure and access to credit, while also providing FO members with training

in specific skills.

There is a need to improve social and human capital in farmers' organizations

(FOs). Although continued emphasis on “hard capacities” such as marketing

abilities and post-harvest handling skills are important, “soft skills” such as trust, a

common vision and shared values are crucial for farmers’ organizations’ to

successfully engage in demand-side market development interventions.

Workshop report

6

Under the five-year Purchase for Progress (P4P) pilot, the World Food Programme (WFP)

leveraged its unique procurement footprint and deep field presence to link smallholder

farmers to remunerative agricultural markets in 20 countries. Specifically, P4P explored

programming and procurement modalities with the greatest potential to stimulate

agricultural and market development in ways that maximized benefits to smallholder

farmers. To assess the potential of this demand-side approach to pro-smallholder market

development, WFP collected a large volume of quantitative and qualitative information on a

range of aspects of the P4P approach across several operational contexts. This vast

information base has allowed WFP to produce a set of analytical studies on the drivers and

impacts of demand-side market development approaches.

Based on these results, as well as other findings, WFP organized an international expert

consultation titled, “Demand-Side Pro-Smallholder Market Development: Lessons from the

P4P Pilot” from 8 - 9 June in Rome. Participants from farmers' organizations, academia,

donor agencies, financial institutions, the private sector, WFP and other agencies of the

United Nations attended the workshop. Participants shared their experiences, analysed

evidence emerging from the pilot and discussed implications for future investments.

WFP’s Ramiro Lopes da Silva opened the workshop,

describing P4P’s role in WFP’s broader shift from food

aid to food assistance - including the growing

importance of cash-based transfers. Participants were

encouraged to think broadly about what WFP as a whole

can bring each country context to help achieve zero

hunger. WFP’s continued focus on smallholder farmers

in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)

was emphasized, particularly with regards to the

organization’s commitment to source 10 percent of its

food needs from smallholder farmers.

Introduction and workshop objectives

Ramiro Lopes da Silva delivers

opening remarks.

Workshop Objectives

The overall aim of the workshop was to draw major lessons from the learning pillar of the

P4P pilot, contributing toward a research and capacity strengthening agenda on demand-

side approaches to connecting smallholder farmers to markets.

Specific objectives of the meeting were:

1. To consider and debate the core conceptual and operational dimensions of

demand-side approaches to pro-smallholder market development;

2. To examine the evidence on outcomes and impacts generated under the P4P

pilot; and

3. To identify major knowledge gaps, and the building blocks of a medium- to

long-term research and capacity strengthening agenda to address these gaps.

Workshop report

7

Enock Chikava of the Bill and Melinda Gates

Foundation reminded participants that there is no effort

wasted when investing in development, given that there

are always achievements to be built upon, and lessons to

be learned. Chikava emphasized that inclusive economic

growth from agriculture is perhaps the most effective

way of fighting poverty, given that the majority of the

world’s poor live in rural areas. To scale up P4P

sustainably, he emphasized the importance of

governments driving the process, with the private sector

involved as key partners. Finally, he recommended that

more emphasis be placed on nutrition and more data

collected on women farmers.

WFP’s Steven Were Omamo reminded participants that the main challenge at hand is to

eradicate hunger. He highlighted that the presence of 800 million hungry people in the

world is indicative of broader food system dysfunction. To transform food systems, it is

essential to look at food production, transformation and consumption holistically, and to

address challenges by forming broad-ranging partnerships. P4P is a systemic approach that

substantially changes dynamics and incentives in food systems in areas where it was

implemented.

A Closer look at demand-side approaches and

capacity strengthening

The context and state of the art of demand-side approaches

Maximo Torero explained that while the Green Revolution focused on increasing supply,

the new paradigm for agricultural development is demand-driven. The basic assumption is

that farmers will increase production only if there is sustained and adequate demand at a

fair price. This new paradigm entails a shift to higher-value agriculture, which creates new

opportunities and challenges for smallholder farmers. However, many bottlenecks to

smallholder farmers' access to markets remain.

Production Supply Chain Processing Marketing

Poor extension Weak road infrastructure Low processing Poor infrastructure

Quality inputs Lack of storage Lack of quality Lack of grading

Low productivity High wastage Poor returns Poor links to formal markets

Non-demand linked

production

Multiple intermediaries Low capacity utilization No transparency in prices

Source: The context and state of the art of demand-side approaches, presentation by Maximo Torero, IFPRI

Table 1: Bottlenecks to smallholder farmers’ access to markets

Enock Chikava addresses the

workshop.

Workshop report

8

The presenter suggested that smallholder farmers' access to markets could be improved by:

working with partners to address bottlenecks such as improving access to credit

and inputs, developing FOs’ capacity, advocating for pro-smallholder policies,

improving infrastructure, etc.

strengthening value chains with market-oriented interventions;

improving targeting by focusing on areas able to produce surplus and those with

good transportation infrastructure – particularly roads;

improving trade policies and access to information to reduce price distortions; and

promoting regional trade.

Torero highlighted the importance of targeting and implications for programme design.

While demand-side approaches are a good fit for commercial and semi-commercial

smallholders, careful design is required when working with subsistence smallholders. He

suggested that it would be more efficient in the short to medium term to work with

commercial smallholders who can already meet demand. However, several participants

noted that a key objective of P4P is to increase smallholder farmers' household income, and

that it is important to target the poorest farmers in line with WFP's “leave nobody behind”

philosophy.

While demand-side approaches can help resolve market failures, they might not always be

sustainable. To be effective, demand-side approaches require:

longer time frames to have a lasting impact on targeted populations;

sustained commitment from public institutions; and

substantial and continued investments in capacity strengthening.

The P4P model: Design, genesis and rollout

Clare Mbizule complemented Torero's presentation with insights gained from practical

experiences in implementing the P4P programme. P4P has been one of the key demand-

side market development approaches implemented, with the specific aim of drawing

lessons learned.

Mbizule began her presentation by summarizing P4P's main goal: “to offer smallholder

farmers opportunities to access formal agricultural markets, to become competitive players

in those markets and thus to improve their lives.” She reiterated that smallholders are often

reluctant to increase production, despite huge investments in agriculture and market

development, unless they are certain that there will be sustained demand for their output.

Indeed, to make demand-side approaches work in the longer term, there must be

sustainable demand for smallholder farmers' quality products beyond WFP, coming either

from institutional buyers or from the private sector. Thus, P4P worked with national

partners to help build sustainable demand and improve farmers' capacities to meet it.

The P4P pilot phase ran from 2008 to 2013. It involved 20 countries, more than one million

smallholder farmers, and received over US$140 million in funding. It was based on three

pillars: building sustainable demand for quality goods through innovative procurement

modalities; fostering supply-side partnerships; and learning and sharing (Figure 1).

Workshop report

9

P4P worked mainly through farmers' organizations (FOs), as well as medium-sized traders

who were encouraged to buy from FOs. The presenter noted that in many countries, only a

small subset of FO members contributed to collective sales. For example, although most

P4P-supported farmers in the United Republic of Tanzania were smallholders with less

than 2 hectares of land, they only contributed 20 percent of the volume of collective sales.

On the other hand, farmers with more than 5 hectares contributed 50 percent. Indeed,

poorer farmers were found to be extremely risk averse and slow to change their behaviours.

Mbizule suggested that these farmers need to be accompanied more closely in their

production efforts.

During the pilot phase, the question of whether P4P was a procurement or market

development programme was frequently raised. It was not always easy to find the right

balance between WFP’s objective of timely, cost-efficient and appropriate food

procurement and its role as a “patient” buyer supporting the livelihoods of targeted

smallholder farmers.

Another objective of P4P was to improve the livelihoods of women farmers. Although P4P

set an ambitious target for 50 percent of participants to be women, it rapidly became clear

that participation did not necessarily translate into more power or benefits for women.

Therefore, substantial efforts were undertaken to ensure women’s equitable engagement,

including by training FO and community members to raise awareness of gender issues.

The presenter ended with an overview of the impact of P4P, as well as some unanswered

questions. WFP saved US$42 million by purchasing food locally, while developing markets

for local smallholders. Although smallholders' income only slightly increased during the

pilot phase, the time frame may have been too short to lead to significant impact and the

larger scale systemic changes that were hoped for. Nonetheless, many governments have

seen the potential for adopting demand-side approaches. Some have included it in their

national agricultural development strategies and several are using their own public

procurement programmes to engage smallholders in formal markets.

Source: The P4P model, presentation by Clare Mbizule

Figure 1: The three pillars of the P4P pilot

Workshop report

10

Lessons learned from the Global Learning Agenda

Farmer collective action and capacity strengthening

Sharon Amani discussed her paper: A Conceptual

and Empirical Study on FO Capacity Building. Her

results show that it is essential to look beyond FOs'

existing marketing or sales capacity when setting out

the criteria for selecting which FOs to work with.

While “hard skills” and assets are important, it is

vital to consider FOs' broader capacity including

functional processes and vision, as well as their

human and social capital. Indeed, members’ “soft

skills”, such as level of trust, common goals and

other aspects of organizational maturity are crucial

for an equitable distribution of benefits and for

ensuring sustainability after a project ends.

Amani’s research with over 30 FOs in Malawi and

Ghana showed that there were low levels of trust

among members of several FOs participating in P4P.

Participants from half of the sample FOs reported that they had no input in decision-

making and 40 percent of FOs lacked conflict resolution mechanisms. Despite

considerable investments, nearly half of FOs had not changed organizational structures or

processes, even with new activities and assets. The study concluded that P4P should place

more emphasis on organizational maturity to avoid elite capture.

According to Amani, conducting an Organizational Capacity Assessment (OCA) is a crucial

step before engaging with FOs and other partners. OCAs will help ensure more precise

targeting and anticipate when the benefits and costs of FO membership might be

unequally distributed. She cited a 2010 World Bank and FAO evaluation which found that

“standardized support packages and lack of learning needs assessments result in trainings

which do not transfer into practice.” A variety of OCA tools are available and

“SCOPEinsightBasic” was cited as a good choice for assessing FOs in particular.

A second presentation on “The Impact of P4P on the Capacity of Farmers’ Organizations”,

by Steven Were Omamo, examined case studies from El Salvador, the United Republic of

Tanzania and Ethiopia. Overall, these case studies suggest that impact on FOs' capacity is

strongest with changes tied directly to WFP and partners’ activities (e.g. providing

services, improving infrastructure and access to credit etc.). P4P had many other positive

spill over effects, and the supported FOs were quickly able to aggregate and deliver quality

commodities, while non-supported FOs did not engage in sales to quality buyers.

Capacity strengthening is costly, time consuming and requires government commitment.

A participant queried whether WFP is best placed to invest heavily in capacity

development. One strategy proposed to work with higher capacity FOs rather than to

engage in strengthening the capacity of weaker ones. However, it was noted that this

strategy might contradict P4P’s vision of improving poor smallholders’ livelihoods. Finally,

a participant noted that women’s groups performed better than average and that it was

worthwhile to seek out and invest in FOs with more women members.

Sharon Amani presents on FO capacity

building.

Workshop report

11

Procurement, quality and market development

Joanna Upton presented findings from a paper co-authored with Erin Lentz entitled

Finding Default? Understanding the drivers of default on contracts with farmers’

organizations under the World Food Programme Purchase for Progress Pilot. Their

research in Ethiopia, Kenya and the United Republic of Tanzania examined factors that may

have driven defaults including: country context; type and timing of contracts; how contracts

related to market price dynamics; FO characteristics and repeated sales and contracts.

Upton and Lentz found that the

main reason smallholder farmers

defaulted, even on favourable

contracts, is that market prices at

the time of delivery were higher

than the contracted prices

(Figure 2). Rising prices may

have led to side selling and thus

not having enough stock to meet

contracted volumes.

Other drivers of default were

inconsistent demand and small

contracted volumes. Conversely,

repeated contracts, especially for

larger volumes, led to fewer

defaults. FOs with more women

members and leaders were also

less likely to default.

Finally, Upton noted that FO

characteristics were only relevant in specific contexts. It was not possible to draw

conclusions about FO characteristics that led to fewer defaults across all contexts. FO

characteristics are thus more useful for identifying the best interventions to support FOs

rather than as predictors of default.

All these drivers have implications for procurement and contract design. Contracts should

be flexible enough to allow for price increases at the time of delivery. The timing of sales and

payments is also crucial; late payments increase the likelihood of future default and need to

be addressed. Upton also suggested that intervening at the smallholder level, while more

costly and time intensive, may be more effective than intervening at the FO level. This is

because benefits do not necessarily trickle down the supply chain.

Source: Finding Default? Understanding the drivers of default on contracts with farmers’ organizations under the World Food Programme Purchase for Progress Pilot, by Joanna Upton and Erin Lentz (2016)

Figure 2: Relationship between the likelihood of

default and market prices

United Republic of Tanzania Kenya Ethiopia

Procurement (mt) 15,417 18,023 118,413

Percent of WFP procurement 5% 7% 15%

Percent defaulted 48% 81% 12%

Table 2: Procurement and default rates in three P4P countries

Source: Finding Default? Understanding the drivers of default on contracts with farmers’ organizations under the World Food Programme Purchase for Progress Pilot, by Joanna Upton and Erin Lentz (2016)

Workshop report

12

Mack Ramachandran presented his own insights, along with results from the report

Markets for Quality beyond the World Food Programme (Zodrow, 2014) which surveyed

buyers in 17 P4P pilot countries. Buyers beyond WFP included agro-industry actors, food

processors, governments and institutions such as the military, millers and traders. The

survey found that 77 percent of buyers would pay a premium for quality goods and

confirmed that there was a market for quality commodities beyond WFP. It highlights that

“a majority of buyers would be interested in long-term contractual arrangements with

smallholder FOs if they could be assured of high quality and volumes.” Food processors

were most likely to pay premiums for quality.

The survey concludes that although there is demand beyond WFP for quality goods, certain

problems persist. In most countries, smallholder farmers' capacity to produce and market

quality must be strengthened. This can be a lengthy process as it requires investment from

the input stage to post-harvest management and marketing. Food safety and quality

standards need to be clearly defined and the capacity to meet them should be increased.

Better storage facilities are also essential for guaranteeing quality. Poor transport

infrastructure limits smallholder farmers' access to high quality markets. Importing may be

cheaper than buying locally. Finally, there are significant risks in the system stemming

from crop loss, side selling, etc.

Another important factor is the volume of trade. Smallholder farmers' profits will

significantly increase only if demand and productivity increase. Indeed, even if buyers pay

more for high quality goods, farmers will see little difference in earnings if the volume is

small.

It is important to note that only 20 percent of farmers are members of FOs. Furthermore,

there is more transparency needed on how FOs are governed, and how they actually engage

with farmers and buyers. Alternatives for reaching smallholder farmers more directly could

include private sector extension providers and agro-dealers who want to expand their

business – for example by selling inputs to the farmers they buy from.

The discussant highlighted the link between quality staple produce and better access for

smallholders to formal markets. She also highlighted the potential for processors to be the

lead players in driving markets for quality. Finally, she added that it is important to

understand buyers' constraints and that for the system to work well the whole supply chain

needs to be considered.

Workshop report

13

Impacts on farmer productivity and welfare

Joanna Upton (representing co-author Erin Lentz) and Dambala Gelo presented results on

the impacts of P4P on smallholder farmers' productivity and welfare in the United Republic

of Tanzania and in Ethiopia, respectively. Their research tested the P4P hypothesis that

WFP’s demand coupled with supply-side interventions would increase smallholder farmers'

incomes and productivity. The study from the United Republic of Tanzania found that

there were no significant increases in income for farmers participating in the P4P

programme, while the study from Ethiopia showed a small increase in income. The area

devoted to growing maize increased in Ethiopia but no increase in productivity was noted in

the United Republic of Tanzania. There was also evidence of elite capture in Ethiopia.

Nonetheless, there were many benefits which were not formally measured and only

captured anecdotally.

There were several reasons why P4P did not appear to have a strong effect on smallholder

farmers' incomes and productivity. In the United Republic of Tanzania, purchases were

limited and too irregular to have had a sizeable impact. In both countries, it was observed

that farmers who were already relatively better off before P4P benefited the most, yet the

studies did not take these farmers into consideration, focusing instead on those whose plots

were less than two hectares in size. Delays in payments were also cited as a disincentive for

farmers in the Ethiopia study.

In the United Republic of Tanzania, P4P worked with Savings and Credit Cooperatives

(SACCOs), but not directly with smallholder farmers. In Ethiopia, P4P worked with

cooperative unions because of their high participation of smallholder farmers. WFP

invested in building physical assets such as storage facilities as well as human capital by

providing training in technical, organizational and quality management skills. Not

surprisingly, most impacts occurred at the level where investment was heaviest – that is at

the FO level rather than at the household level.

Several policy recommendations arose from the studies. First of all, farmers will benefit

more if purchases are regular and predictable. Second, when working through FOs, benefits

may require time to trickle down.

Finally, it is important to better consider what is being measured; there were many positive

benefits that were not directly linked to measurable increases in income. For example, in

the United Republic of Tanzania and several P4P countries, there were increased sales to

FOs and for higher marketing prices.

Workshop report

14

Lessons from practice - looking at what worked Participants discussed the main points from the presentations and what worked well based

on their own experiences with P4P, including:

P4P was a catalyst for forging partnerships with national and local

governments, development partners and private sector actors along the supply chain.

Rigorous quality standards helped catalyse sustainable markets for high

quality goods and developed smallholder farmers' capacity for supplying them. High

quality standards also set off innovative activities such as the development of the

“Blue Box” field testing kit in Guatemala.

The strategy of focusing interventions on FOs with higher proportions of smallholders

had many benefits. FO assets and their members’ skills improved thanks to

direct investment in areas such as improving warehousing and post-harvest

management. Although this strategy did not sharply increase smallholder farmers'

income during the pilot phase, it led to a significant mind set shift in farmers who saw

themselves as running a business rather than merely growing crops. Farmers were

observed to be more empowered when dealing with traders, banks and the

government officials.

P4P introduced new pro-smallholder procurement modalities (direct

contracting, forward purchasing and soft tendering) to make procurement regulations

more smallholder-friendly.

Forward contracting had positive results and improved smallholders' access to

financial services. For example, in Kenya, HIV-positive farmers were able to access

credit from a private bank for the first time thanks to forward contracts serving as a

guarantee and collateral. Farmers used the credit to purchase inputs and improve

storage facilities; and became very quality conscious. They soon moved from being

recipients to suppliers of WFP food assistance.

FOs that engaged with WFP became more interesting to different types of

buyers. Some governments started to source more from smallholder FOs for their

public procurement programmes, in particular for home grown school feeding. For

example, in Honduras, 25 percent of school feeding needs are sourced from FOs, for a

total of 1.45 million meals a day. In Rwanda, the Government has created its own

state-run initiative called “Common P4P” (CP4P), which buys up to 40 percent of the

requirements of the National Strategic Grain Reserve from smallholder farmers.

P4P’s focus on women led to enhanced gender equity and increased the

participation of women farmers. Awareness of gender issues was raised through

training at the FO and community level. WFP and partners trained over 200,000

women in various skills, while 42,000 FOs and community members received gender

awareness training. Women’s participation tripled from 100,000 in 2008 to 300,000

in 2013.

P4P catalysed a shift in WFP's strategic thinking by bridging humanitarian

and development objectives. By working with partners along the value chain, it also

expanded WFP’s understanding of what supply-side interventions are necessary to

meet increased demand.

Workshop report

15

Addressing key challenges and knowledge gaps After looking at what worked, participants discussed the main challenges and knowledge

gaps for scaling up pro-smallholder demand-side approaches. They also considered what

might be done to address these challenges.

Organizing fair, transparent and timely procurement and pricing Under P4P, a variety of approaches to extend demand to smallholder farmers were

developed. Participants discussed continued efforts required to develop a scalable model

which is both beneficial for farmers and a profitable business model for buyers. Key issues

addressed included: pricing mechanisms and price information for farmers; contract

structure, enforcement and resolution; timely payment; access to finance; traceability and

FO aggregation capacity. It was highlighted that procurement processes along various value

chains present different opportunities and challenges.

Identifying prices favourable for both buyer and supplier in a transparent manner was

identified as a key challenge. Participants discussed the importance of identifying

international price trends and experimenting with innovative models such as online

commodity exchanges or buying clubs. Participants noted that this could potentially

address defaults due to pricing, and also highlighted the need to identify markets for lower

quality grains – such as animal feed.

Participants discussed different models to ensure speedy payment and to support FOs to

pay farmers upon delivery of crops. Advance and partial payments were highlighted as

crucial mechanisms at the buyer’s disposal. On-site quality testing to enable a portion of the

crop to be paid upon delivery was also highlighted as a possible solution. Access to finance

was highlighted as a key challenge which could be addressed through Warehouse Receipt

System (WRS) models; enhanced financial coaching; increased support for financial

institutions and the involvement of national development banks.

Improving contracting practices was seen as a necessary step for enhancing the structure of

demand. Participants asserted that further consideration was needed on how best to

enforce contracts and organize payment modalities. Several participants underlined that

contracts should manage FO expectations about how much surplus WFP is able to buy, and

that WFP should help FOs design a strategy for selling surplus to markets beyond WFP.

Providing stable and structured demand One assumption of the demand-side approach is that farmers will be motivated to increase

supply if they can rely on stable and well-structured demand. While WFP was the entry

point for FOs to access formal markets under P4P, workshop participants highlighted that

the key to sustainability lies in forging ties to other stable sources of demand. These might

include governments, public institutions and the private sector.

After some debate, participants highlighted possible strategies for organizing stable

demand over time. These included forming solid partnerships along the entire supply chain.

It was suggested that multi-year forward contracts would further stabilize demand. It was

emphasized that financing large-scale public food procurement programmes can be

challenging and it is imperative to find partners who can help fill the gaps. Government

ownership was also highlighted as a key factor for success.

Workshop report

16

Mitigating risks along the supply change and reducing drivers of default Participants discussed a wide variety of risks along the supply chain, including crop failure,

price fluctuation and FO governance. In particular, climate change was highlighted as an

ever increasing risk to agriculture. Improved inputs, extension services and crop insurance

were highlighted as potential solutions to mitigate the risk of crop failures due to climate,

pests and other factors. However, some participants warned that crop insurance can be

expensive, and farmers may lack confidence that it will cover their losses. Also discussed

was the role played by ICT platforms and early warning systems to provide information on

weather patterns and market prices to address risks related to price fluctuation and shifting

weather patterns.

Another major risk relates to poor FO governance – particularly the risk of elite capture in

FOs where members do not participate equally. Carefully assessing FOs before engaging

with them can help mitigate this risk. FOs with a higher proportion of women members,

especially women leaders, appear to be better governed.

Defaults on contracts are a key risk for buyers. Default rates during the pilot ranged from 12

percent in Ethiopia to 81 percent in Kenya. Given that price differentials between market

and contract prices were found to be the main driver of default, participants suggested

making contracts more flexible as well as providing a guarantee to match farm gate prices at

the time of delivery. Forward contracting could have similar benefits as it would give

farmers collateral for accessing credit and guarantee a market for their goods.

Although smallholder farmers were less likely to default on repeated and higher volume

contracts, contracts should reflect what FOs are able to deliver. Challenges meeting quality

standards was cited as another key reason for defaults. While rigorous quality standards

should stay in place, large buyers could work with partners to help FOs develop their

capacity to deliver high quality goods. Risks relating to post-harvest losses and quality

control can be mitigated through improvements in physical infrastructure and quality

management skills. This once more highlights the value of working with farmers over a

longer period of time to build trust and strengthen their capacity.

Finally, several participants stressed that farmers should be in the driver’s seat for risk

mitigation. They should not be seen as beneficiaries but participate actively in all phases of

risk mitigation – including the design phase.

Developing effective policies, standards and regulations for scaling up

demand-side approaches

The P4P pilot provided a series of lessons learned specific to each country, which

governments can now use to scale up pro-smallholder market development. There was

general consensus in the workshop that scaling up also implies increased engagement from

governments and local partners. Participants asserted that prior to engaging, WFP should

seek government commitment to foster an enabling environment and scale up demand-side

approaches. Ideally, governments and other important partners should be involved from

the earliest stages of the programme, as they are ultimately the key to its sustainability. One

participant noted that designing a programme and then looking for partners to “fit” it was a

recipe for failure. It is also important to develop a vision that can sustain longer term

processes even when governments change.

Workshop report

17

In the early stages, WFP and partners should work with governments to help define the best

policy choices, such as improving procurement, lifting export bans and avoiding price

fixing. WFP can also provide guidance on defining and implementing food safety and

quality standards. However, governments will need funds to implement policies and thus

links to funding partners should be sought from the beginning.

Participants' experiences in implementing P4P show that it is easier to influence policies

and standards at the local level. Home grown school feeding programmes appear to be a

natural fit for smallholder farmers who can supply high quality locally grown food. Buying

locally for grain reserves also proved effective. Policies regarding the use of weight and

measures were also easier to influence at the local level. In the P4P pilot in Ghana, farmers

influenced a shift in maize market pricing practices on a local level. This type of policy

would have been much harder to change at the centralized level.

Regional level polices and targets often coincide closely with the goals of P4P and it is

worthwhile to look for synergies. For example, the African Union has deemed agriculture

the motor of development and economic growth in Africa. National agricultural

development and poverty reduction policies already seek to support smallholder farmer

market development. Regional policies that support free trade across borders can open up

additional opportunities for smallholders.

Last but not least, farmers' awareness of agricultural policies and food safety standards

need be to be raised.

Managing and coordinating demand-side interventions and partnerships effectively

The scope of work involved in developing smallholder markets is too large for WFP or any

one institution to manage. A variety of inclusive partnerships are therefore necessary. There

was consensus that governments should be the main driver and enabler of the process. It is

also crucial for partners to jointly develop a longer term vision. WFP has helped form a

consortium of partners called the Patient Procurement Platform (PPP) to connect

smallholder farmers to stable commercial buyers.

It was highlighted that, with few exceptions, partners need to see the financial benefit of

participating in such endeavours. Participants queried as to potential sources of funding for

initiatives using the P4P approach should they not be profitable for the private sector. Last

but not least, FOs and smallholder farmers must be active partners, not beneficiaries.

Strengthening FO management and aggregation capacity

Smallholder FOs’ capacity to meet increased demand and rigorous quality standards

needed to be developed in P4P pilot countries. Physical infrastructure and storage facilities

were inadequate and FO members required training in organizational management,

marketing and quality control. Partners were essential for filling capacity gaps outside

P4P's scope of work.

Participants asserted that benefits will not trickle down to the poorest farmers if they are

not adequately represented in FO decision-making. It is therefore imperative to partner,

after an accurate assessment, with FOs that are well governed. To some degree, good

governance and soft skills can also be developed through training and awareness raising.

Workshop report

18

Identifying and developing alternate aggregation models that benefit

smallholder farmers

P4P identified FOs as the main aggregators and entry points for reaching smallholder

farmers. However, it may be worthwhile to increasingly work with other aggregators, such

as traders, agro-dealers, outgrowers, grain reserves, commodity exchanges and warehouse

receipt systems.

Several participants discussed the strong role played by traders as aggregators, given that

they know where to buy surplus, understand local markets and often have longstanding

relationships with farmers. Another participant highlighted that traders are eligible pro-

smallholder suppliers for WFP so long as the process is transparent and farmers are paid

fair prices. Traders can often provide FOs with extra services, such as advancing credit and

inputs, which are beyond WFP’s scope of work. However, working with traders requires an

enhanced investment in M&E to ensure farmers are benefitting.

It was stressed that when working with any aggregator it is essential to ensure that goods

are indeed sourced from smallholder farmers and that farmers received a fair price.

Targeting farmers and FOs who can deliver while maintaining equity and

gender balance

The main challenges in targeting evolved around what type of farmers, FOs and

geographical areas to target. While P4P has generally targeted smallholders who farm less

than 2 hectares, the poorest farmers and lowest capacity FOs often need considerable

investment and capacity strengthening. During the workshop, there was some tension

between the enhanced effectiveness of working with smallholder farmers capable of

producing a surplus and working with more vulnerable farmers, who require more

substantial support.

Workshop report

19

Another question related to whether P4P should concentrate its efforts in surplus-

producing areas with good roads. Currently P4P mainly targets farmers capable of

producing surplus in surplus areas, while WFP is mainly engaged in food deficit areas with

more vulnerable households. It was noted that sharply increasing demand in areas with

food deficits has the potential to cause local price inflation.

Women farmers continue to face challenges, such as lack of ownership of land and assets;

as well as limited decision-making power in FOs and the household. In order to help build

gender equity, it is important to target FOs with more women members and leaders. More

training programmes should be targeted at women and FO and community members'

awareness of gender should be raised. One participant emphasized that it is important to

show the economic benefits of gender equality.

Improving the way we measure impact and learning more effectively

Lessons learned from the P4P pilot were always considered as important as their outcomes.

How we measure impact often determines whether a programme is deemed successful. It

also determines if lessons learned are backed up by enough solid evidence to be useful for

future programming. Participants all agreed that the M&E framework of P4P had a heavy

quantitative bias. By focusing quite narrowly on measuring income, it failed to formally

document many of the positive spill over effects and innovative processes noted by

participants and partners. For example, the outcomes of capacity development were not

adequately measured despite being an essential part of P4P. Furthermore, the data that was

collected was not always of high quality.

There was a general consensus that the time frame of the pilot was too short for achieving

the kind of impact that was being measured. This is because changes in food systems, and

in farmers' behaviours and incomes, take years to develop. Measuring this kind of impact

disregards the many smaller beneficial changes that contribute to systemic changes.

Participants suggested that M&E could be improved by including more system-level

indicators and collecting more qualitative information through focus groups and other

structured methods. The data gathered should coincide more closely with knowledge gaps.

Working with academic institutions as partners could help improve research design and

data collection.

One participant pointed out that the M&E did not reflect the nuances of implementing P4P

in specific contexts and thus some valuable lessons could have been lost. She added that

“there is not one P4P model, but twenty models”. A better understanding of how to

document all the lessons learned, as well as how to package and disseminate them for key

audiences is also necessary.

Beneficiaries should also be more involved in the M&E process and, at the very least, their

perceptions of the programme’s successes and weaknesses accounted for. One participant

remarked that although farmers believed they had benefited from the programme, their

positive experiences were not captured in the M&E process. The entire M&E process needs

to be more participatory.

Workshop report

20

Looking to the future Providing guidance

P4P has generated a wealth of knowledge about what works, and what does not, when

developing markets for smallholder farmers. National governments and other partners

interested in adopting P4P’s demand-side approach have requested further guidance. WFP

is thus preparing a set of guidance on demand-side smallholder farmer market

development which examines:

the demand side to improve the ability of WFP and other buyers to procure from

inclusive aggregators;

the supply side to improve the ability of households to supply a surplus of

marketable crops;

inclusive aggregation to improve the collection, storage, and marketing of high

quality crops from smallholder farmers; and

the enabling environment to enable the participation of smallholder farmers

by improving market systems.

The guidance helps users define activities that will change specific behaviours. After

prioritizing the behaviours, users can then specify what assets, coordination activities and

training (ACT) are necessary. It also provides guidance on ensuring gender integration and

carrying out monitoring and evaluation.

The guidance will be tested in a series of workshops in the next few months and finalized.

WFP will then provide country level technical assistance to help participants implement

their ACT plans.

Workshop report

21

Developing a learning agenda for scaling up demand-side approaches

The workshop identified challenges and knowledge gaps which will form the basis for a

research and learning agenda (Annex 1). More topics will be identified in the future based

on country demand. The aim of the learning agenda is to inform operations in the field.

Research and M&E processes will continue to build the quantitative and qualitative

evidence base for scaling up demand-side approaches. Finally, WFP will continue to

coordinate global learning and discussion on demand-side approaches.

Next steps

The workshop provided an opportunity for P4P practitioners from WFP and partner

organizations to discuss their experiences and distil practical lessons that will inform future

implementation. Much of the qualitative information that came out of the discussions will

complement the quantitative information that emerged from the M&E process. Immediate

next steps include:

WFP will prepare a synthesis of what was discussed at the workshop and circulate

it widely;

Comments and feedback on the guidance will be carefully considered and

incorporated, where possible, with relevant learnings from this workshop

incorporated as appropriate; and

At the country level, WFP and its partners will explore options for including P4P-

like approaches in National Agricultural Investment Plans (NAIPs).

Workshop report

22

Challenge/knowledge gap Learning questions

How to target farmers and

FOs who can deliver, while

maintaining equity and

gender balance /How to

develop alternative

aggregation models that

benefits smallholder

farmers

What type of FOs and smallholders should we be targeting? Should we

target the poorest farmers or those who already produce surpluses?

What are the alternative aggregators to FOs?

How can aggregation systems be more inclusive?

What is “success” from a smallholder farmer’s point of view?

How to manage and

coordinate the demand

side interventions and

partnerships effectively /

How to mitigate risk in

supply and demand

How can we learn from and apply indigenous risk management (coping

strategies / adaptive mechanisms)?

How can we make better use of technologies to improve FOs’

management of risk?

What are the barriers to risk insurance adoption for smallholder farmers?

How do improved market information systems and forecasting impact

farmers risk management?

What have the effects of climate change been on production and supply?

How to enable FOs to

aggregate and manage

themselves effectively?

What are the criteria for improving the viability of FOs?

How can we improve FOs and smallholder farmers' access to credit?

How can we assess and improve governance in FOs and make sure

benefits are equitably distributed?

How to organize a stable

and structured demand? /

How to organize

procurement and pricing

in a fair, transparent and

speedy way?

How can WFP and other buyers make contracts and procurement

regulations more smallholder farmer friendly?

How can we reduce the risk of default on contracts?

Since agriculture is vulnerable to many types of risks, what should a

procurement agency do if farmers have nothing to sell?

Did farmers default because they could not meet quality standards?

What buyers are present in each country and how can we ensure

sustainable demand after WFP steps out?

How can we ensure farmers are paid on time – including speeding up

payment from WFP?

How can price evaluation mechanisms be made more effective?

Which crop value chains are viable? What scale of purchasing should be

considered?

What types of price discovery mechanisms exist? What is their reach into

rural areas? How reliable are they?

What are farmers’ decision making processes like? How do they choose

between different marketing options?

How to assess impact

comprehensively and

learn effectively?

How can we measure impact beyond income – including collecting

qualitative data and including system level indicators?

How can M&E feed into the learning agenda?

What is a feasible research design to assess impact?

How is learning from the impact assessment process documented, and

what flexibility is there to adapt objectives and methods to suit the

context?

How to develop effective

policies, standards and

regulations for scaling of

demand side approaches

How can we make sure that we have inclusive policies for smallholder

farmers and actors along the value chain?

Who is doing what? What are the roles and responsibilities in scaling up

policy changes?

What is the role of regional policy processes?

Annex 1: Learning agenda questions

Workshop report

23

Amani, S. 2016. Building and measuring the capacity of farmers’ organizations: The

case of the World Food Programme’s Purchase for Progress. Rome. WFP.

Gelo, D., Muchapondwa, E. & Shimeles, A. 2016. Return to Investment in Agricultural

Cooperatives: Evidence from a natural experiment in Ethiopia.

Krieger, D. 2014. The Impact of P4P on SACCOs and Smallholder Farmers in Tanzania.

Rome. WFP.

Lentz, E. & Upton, J. 2016a. Benefits to smallholders? Evaluating the World Food

Programme’s Purchase for Progress Pilot. Rome. WFP.

Lentz, E. & Upton, J. 2016b. Finding Default? Understanding the drivers of default on

contracts with farmers’ organizations under the World Food Programme Purchase

for Progress Pilot. Rome. WFP.

Zodrow, G. 2014. Markets for Quality beyond the World Food Programme. Rome. WFP.

Annex 2: References

Workshop report

24

Annex 3: Workshop agenda

Time Session

Session 1

9:00 – 10:30

Welcome and Opening Remarks

Ramiro Lopes da Silva, WFP Assistant Executive Director, Operations Services

Enock Chikava, Senior Program Officer, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Workshop Objectives

Steven Were Omamo, WFP Deputy Director, Programme and Policy Division

Setting the Scene

Jurgen Hagmann, Facilitator

10:30 – 11:00 Coffee Break

Session 2

11:00 – 13:00

The context and state of the art of demand-side approaches

Presentation by Maximo Torero (IFPRI) followed by facilitated discussion

The P4P model, its genesis, design, and rollout

Presentation by Clare Mbizule (WFP-Bangkok) followed by facilitated discussion

Analysis of P4P’s results, outcomes, and impacts

Theme 1: Impacts on Farmer Productivity and Welfare

Presentation: “Benefits to Smallholders? Evaluating the World Food Programme’s

Purchase for Progress Pilot in Tanzania” Joanna Upton, UT-Austin

Discussant: Miguel Garcia-Winder, IICA

13:00 – 14:00 Lunch

Session 3

14:00 – 15:30

Analysis of results, outcomes, and impacts (cont’d)

Theme 1: Impacts on Farmer Productivity and Welfare (continued)

Presentation: “Returns to Investment in Agricultural Cooperatives: Evidence from a

Natural Experiment in Ethiopia” Dambala Gelo, University of Cape Town

Discussant: Anne Mbaabu, AGRA

Presentation: Synthesis of results of other relevant studies under P4P – Damien

Fontaine, WFP

Analysis of results, outcomes, and impacts (cont’d)

Theme 2: Farmer Collective Action and Capacity Strengthening

Presentation: “A Conceptual and Empirical Study on FO Capacity Building” Sharon

Amani, UT-Houston

Discussant: Alesha Black, Chicago Council

Day 1: Wednesday, 8 June 2016

Workshop report

25

15:30 – 16:00 Coffee Break & Open Space Sharing Opportunity

Session 4

16:00 – 18:00

Analysis of results, outcomes, and impacts (cont’d)

Theme 2: Farmer Collective Action and Capacity Strengthening (cont’d)

Presentation: “The impact of P4P on the capacity of farmers’ organizations: Evidence from

El Salvador, Ethiopia and Tanzania” - Steven Were Omamo, WFP

Discussant: Janvier Nkurunziza, UNCTAD

Presentation: Synthesis of results of other relevant studies under P4P – Barbara Pfister,

WFP

Theme 3: Procurement, Quality, and Market Development

Presentation: “Finding Default? Understanding the drivers of default on contracts with

farmers’ organizations under the World Food Programme Purchase for Progress Pilot”

Joanna Upton, Cornell University

Discussant: Arlene Mitchell, GCNF

Presentation: “Markets for Quality Beyond the World Food Programme” Mack

Ramachandran, WFP

Discussant: Siobhan Kelly, FAO

Presentation: Synthesis of results of other relevant studies under P4P– Imed Khanfir, WFP

18:30 – 20:00 WFP-hosted cocktail reception

Time Session

Session 1

9:00 – 10:30

Lessons from Practice

Facilitated discussion

10:30 – 11:00 Coffee Break & Open Space Sharing Opportunity

Session 2

11:00 – 13:00

Addressing P4P’s gaps and weaknesses

Facilitated discussion

13:00 – 14:00 Lunch

Session 3

14:00 – 15:30

Introduction to WFP’s Pro-Smallholder Market Development Programming Guidance

Manual

Presentation: Imed Khanfir, WFP and William Sparks, ACDI-VOCA

Towards a Learning and Capacity Development Agenda

Facilitated discussion

15:30 – 16:00 Coffee Break & Open Space Sharing Opportunity

Session 4

16:00 – 18:00

Next Steps and Closing

Next steps: Bing Zhao, WFP Coordinator, Purchase for Progress

Closing Remarks: Steven Were Omamo, WFP Deputy Director, Programme and Policy

Division

Day 2: Thursday, 9 June 2016

Workshop report

26

Annex 4: List of participants

ORGANIZATION NAME TITLE

P4P Technical Review Panel Members

1

International Fund for Agricultural

Development (IFAD) Francesco Rispoli Senior Technical Specialist

2

International Food Policy Research Institute

(IFPRI) Maximo Torero

Director for Markets, Trade

and Institutions Division

3

Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on

Agriculture (IICA)

Miguel Garcia-

Winder Representative to the USA

4 OXFAM Intermón Gabriel Pons Programme Policy Advisor

Academic Institutions

5 Cornell University Joanna Upton

Postdoctoral Research

Associate

6 Egerton University

Margaret W.

Ngigi Associate Professor

7 Tegemeo Institute Mary Mathenge Director

8 UN Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) Stephen Karingi

Director, Regional

Integration and Trade

9 University of Cape Town DambalaGelo Postdoctoral Fellow

10 University of Nairobi Willis Kosura

Professor, Agricultural

Economics

11 University of Texas - Houston Sharon Amani Consultant

12 UNU-WIDER/University of Ghana Wisdom Akpalu Research Fellow

Global Stakeholders

13

Agricultural Cooperative Development

International (ACDI/VOCA) William Sparks

Vice President of

Programme Services

14 African Economic Research Consortium (AERC) Innocent Matshe Director of Training

15 African Economic Research Consortium (AERC) Paulo Dias Project Manager

16

Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa

(AGRA) Anne Mbaabu

Head, Markets and Harvest

Management

17 African Development Bank (AfDB) Damian Ihedioha

Coordinator Agro Industry

Clusters

18 AmatheonAgri Harriet Gorka

Sustainable Development

and Communications

Manager

19 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) Enock Chikava Senior Program Officer

20 Commercial Bank of Ethiopia

Mengistu

Shimeles

Director, Commercial

Credit

21 East Africa Farmers Federation (EAFF)

Robert Kubai

Mwenda Projects Manager

22 Equity Bank

Esther Muthoni

Muiruri

General Manager of

Agribusiness, Kenya

Workshop report

27

23 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Siobhan Kelly Agribusiness Economist

24 Global Child Nutrition Foundation (GCNF) Arlene Mitchell Executive Director

25 German Development Institute (GDI) Michael Brüntrup Agricultural Economist

26

International Fund for Agricultural

Development (IFAD) Johnathan Agwe

Senior Technical Specialist, Inclusive

Rural Financial Services

27

Southern African Confederation of

Agricultural Unions (SACAU)

Ishmael Daniso

Sunga Chief Executive Officer

28

Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock of El

Salvador

Luis Ernesto

Vargas Agribusiness Technician

29 Soy Africa Limited Cornelius Muthuri Managing Director

30 The Chicago Council on Global Affairs Alesha Black

Director, Global Food & Agriculture

Program

31 UNCTAD Geneva

Janvier

Nkurunziza Commodity trade Division manager

32

United States Agency for International

Development (USAID) Miriam Lutz

Humanitarian and Development

Counselor

33

United States Agency for International

Development (USAID) Brian Bacon Senior Policy Advisor

34

United States Agency for International

Development (USAID) Sarah Polaski Program Analyst

35

United States Agency for International

Development (USAID) Melanie Mason Senior Humanitarian Advisor

36

United States Agency for International

Development (USAID)

Fabrizio

Moscatelli Development Advisor

37

United States Agency for International

Development (USAID)

Jacobus Van Der

Merwe

Food Security & Markets Advisor,

Office of Food for Peace

WFP Field and Regional Bureau

38 WFP Ethiopia Country Office

Emmanuela

Mashayo P4P Country Coordinator

39 WFP Ghana Country Office Samuel Adjei Programme Policy Officer

40 WFP Regional Bureau Bangkok Clare Mbizule Regional M&E Advisor

41 WFP Regional Bureau Johannesburg

Leigh Tracy

Hildyard Programme & Policy Officer

42 WFP Regional Bureau Panama Ana Touza

Regional Advisor Latin American

Countries, Smallholder Access to

Market Support

43 WFP Tanzania Country Office

Willbroad

Karugaba Programme Officer

Steering Committee

44 WFP Ethiopia Thomas Yanga

Director, WFP Liaison Office to the

African Union

Workshop report

28

45 WFP Italy Ramiro Lopes Da Silva Assistant Executive Director, Operations Services

46 WFP Italy Frances Kennedy

Public Information Officer, Communications

Division

WFP HQ Staff

47 WFP Italy Barbara Pfister P4P Programme& Partnership Officer

48 WFP Italy Bing Zhao P4P Global Coordinator

49 WFP Italy Chelsea Graham P4P Communications Consultant

50 WFP Italy Damien Fontaine M&E Officer, P4P

51 WFP Italy David Ryckembusch Senior Programme Policy Officer

52 WFP Italy Edouard Nizeyimana P4P Senior Programme Advisor, P4P

53 WFP Italy Enrico Cristiani M&E Consultant, P4P

54 WFP Italy Francesco Slaviero PAA Programme Coordinator

55 WFP Italy Giacomo Re Home Grown School Feeding Programme Officer,

Saefty Nets and Social Protection Unit

56 WFP Italy Imed Khanfir P4P Programme and Policy Advisor

57 WFP Italy Isabelle Mballa

Head, Food Safety and Quality, Procurement

Division

58 WFP Italy Jan Van der Velde

Policy and Programme Officer, Policy and

Programme Division

59 WFP Italy Jennifer Nyberg Deputy Director, Private Sector Partnership

60 WFP Italy Kawinzi Muiu Director, Gender Unit

61 WFP Italy

Mahadevan (Mack)

Ramachandran Deputy Director, Procurement Division

62 Mauricio Burtet

Programme Officer, Policy and Programme

Division

63 WFP Italy Shanoo Saran Procurement Officer, Procurement Division

64 WFP Italy Steven Were Omamo Food Systems Coordinator and Deputy Director,

Policy and Programme Division

65 WFP Italy Veronique Saint-Luce Programme Advisor, Gender Office

Workshop report

29

Facilitators

66

Picoteam

Limited Jurgen Hagmann

Facilitator for Innovation Processes and Change

Management

67

Picoteam

Limited Malose Johannes Ramaru Team Leader, Southern Africa

Workshop report

30

World Food Programme

Via C.G. Viola, 68/70 - 00148 Rome, Italy

Purchase for Progress (P4P)

www.wfp.org/p4p - wfp.p4p@wfp.org