The Farmer Effect

October 14th, 2011 – Luuk Zonneveld

Our ecological footprint

Rising to 100% by 2050

Source: WWF Living Planet Report 2006

If poverty knocks at the door… love flies out of the window

Wereldvoedseldag & Potverdorie

Draagvlak, Campagne, Fondsenwerving

Today…

2.1 billion people live with less than 2 dollars a day

Almost one billion people suffer from hunger

2/3 are farmers (numbers FAO)

Sustainable agriculture ▪ is economically profitable ▪ is socially adapted ▪ is environmentally friendly ▪ culturally acceptable „Family Farming‟ model

If farmers earn a decent income from sustainable agriculture

then they can work themselves out of poverty

they can feed the world

and reduce the pressure on the earth

= the Farmer Effect

Suppliers of seeds – deliverers of fertilizers - farmers

- wholesale buyers - lorry drivers – stallholders -

wholesalers – consumers - banks

supermarkets – quality inspectors - restaurants

Farmers are often the weakest link in the chain

Strategy

Experimentation and innovation

Successes and lessons as ‘evidence’

Up-scaling

Broad agenda-setting in political, economic & socio-cultural areas

Influencing policies of companies, politics and of social choices

Promotion of sustainable consumption

Focus on the sustainability in working

with farmer organizations and product chains

• Assessment of impact on sustainability after three years

• Working in the right sub-sectors (commodities)?

• Screening of the product chains: are the sustainability criteria achievable/achieved?

• Targeted measures and pilots to enhance sustainability in all its dimensions

Impact

Sub-sector (commodity) screening

• Staple food crops & (export) cash crops: good perspectives for sustainability?

• Yes for all but one ( will be phased out)

• High market potential

• Multi-stakeholder platforms (in development) for most

• High potential for up-scaling to other sub-sector farmers & through political enabling

• But farmer organizations generally (very) weak

• Enabling political environment for entrepreneurial small-scale agriculture OK in some countries, (very) weak in most others

Results chain screening: the economic dimension

Economic

(2010)

35%

60%

5%

11

77

1212

LT incomeBusiness FO

• Strong product market potential, but inability to meet market quantity & quality requirements

• Farmer organizations still weak as drivers of business

• still low incomes and income security

Results chain screening: the social dimension

31

9

10

199

4

7

1010

1

8

15

1

910

0

FairnessGenderFood securityEmpowermentAssetsIdentity

• Cultural identity, food security OK

• Equitable resource distribution: on the right track

• Low scores on: - assets (“human capital”,

resources), - empowerment, - gender

Social

(2010)

37%

35%

28%

Results chain screening: the ecological dimension

Ecological

(2010)

30%

60%

10%• Natural resource management:

low - low bio-diversity - high water use

• Climate change: low - lack of knowledge - lack of promoting institutional

& policy environment

135

7

Climate ChangeNat Resource Mgt

Results chain screening: the institutional dimension

211687

121112

Supportive environmentFO: pol -econPlatforms

• “platforms”: low – lack of networks, alliances, cooperation

• Farmer organizations‟ advocacy on economic issues weak

• Lack of supportive environment: - political framework supporting small-scale agriculture - infrastructure - services

Institutional

(2010)

35%

58%

7%

Making food chains & „modern markets“ more sustainable (especially beyond the economic dimension?

• Already many (positive) experiences: need for a „driver“

• Drivers can be farmers, companies, governments, NGOs, etc.

• 3 cases, each with a different driver

1. a company: Mars Inc. - cocoa

2. a farmer organization: FAPECAFES Ecuador – coffee & bananas

3. governmental – ECOWAS – rice West Africa