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