Farmers’ organisations and agricultural technology: institutions that give farmers a voice paper drafted by: Karim Hussein
Download 133.97 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Sharing Lessons from Successful Partnerships
- 7. POLICY, INSTITUTIONS AND PROCESSES AND THE SL APPROACH
- 10. RELEVANT WEB-SITES CIRAD
- Other useful sites to consult: Club du Sahel (OECD)
- World Resources Institute
- GLOSSARY ENTRIES Farmers’ organisations
- Downward accountability
- GLOSSARY entry : Agricultural service providers - which are seen here as private and public agricultural research and extension, and capacity building for community development
- FUGN: Fédération des Groupements Naam 4 FPFD: Fédération des Paysans du Fouta Djallon
- This project intervenes to support the intervening parties of the whole system, we meet this again in the three cases studied in the Cameroon
The Role of the Private SectorPrivate sector organisations can play a critical and positive role in both building the technical capacities of farmers’ organisations (extension advice and access to inputs/markets) and giving them a voice in setting prices of commodities (as with the Ghana Cotton Company in northern Ghana). However the case studies revealed that private sector companies were usually unlikely to form direct partnerships with remote farmers’ organisations. They tend to prefer establishing linkages with larger, regional or national, federated farmers’ movements (e.g. FUGN, Burkina Faso), or meet farmers’ demand through an existing intermediary – such as an international NGO (e.g. Catholic Relief Services and ActionAid The Gambia) or State department (Ghana seed production programme), or an internationally supported national NGO such as AGROCOM in Cameroon . This tendency is often due to factors such as the risky and unreliable nature of peasant agricultural production in the Sahel, poor infrastructure and communications links. Hence in the case of thee production of cowpea in Burkina Faso, Nestlé decided not to continue with a contract to purchase cowpea produced by farmers’ groups in Diébougou. Private sector involvement in developing new technologies for agricultural production, and direct linkages with research (commissioning research) has gone further in Ghana. However, this case illustrates the care required in the way private sector engagement is promoted. Here it is not farmers’ that create the agenda and constitute the “demand” for new appropriate technologies, but rather it is the companies, research or extension services that define needs and who then engage farmers in the production process. This limited degree of farmer participation, in the context of a weak national farmers’ movement, does not help to ensure that agricultural services serve the livelihood priorities of poor farmers. Sharing Lessons from Successful Partnerships Lessons from case studies of successful partnerships need to be shared and disseminated widely. This can be done through national stakeholder workshops, WECARD sub-regional workshops, and through working directly with farmers’ organisations and their members. Other initiatives at an international level, such as the World Bank and IFAP’s (International Federation of Agricultural Producers) initiative to disseminate lessons through electronic media, should also be supported (see www.worldbank.org and search under producer organisations). WECARD could itself contribute much to this process at the sub-regional level by increasing its own expertise in: the development and implementation of training modules on effective mechanisms for research-extension-farmers’ organisation collaboration; capacity to provide advice on reorienting national agricultural research to make it client led and demand driven, and training in participatory research and extension methodologies; and establishing effective sub-regional information sharing networks – including wider availability of information, reports and training materials on Internet. 7. POLICY, INSTITUTIONS AND PROCESSES AND THE SL APPROACH At least eight main issues or lessons for the policy, institutions and processes aspects of the SL approach and framework emerge from these case studies (i) Research-extension-farmers’ organisation linkages can be informal (e.g. through individuals) or formalised (e.g. through binding contracts for the provision of services). The most effective linkages tend to be those that are formalised. These also tend to be the strongest mechanisms for ensuring downward accountability of agricultural service providers to farmers. (ii) Farmers’ livelihood opportunities are shaped by the wider policy environment (legislation, history, political parties and their policies, international organisations and their policies….), but also by the strength of their own organisations. Effective farmers’ organisations have demonstrated their success in drawing down agricultural services (research and extension). FO’s and NGO’s play a critical role in improving economic and livelihood opportunities of their members – conditioning and securing access to resources and opportunities, and to technical services (such as agricultural research and extension). Civil society institutions of various types (CBO's, FO’s and NGO’s) are critically important to farmers in the construction of their livelihoods in West and Central Africa. Where such organisations are weak or non-existent the poor’s access to external resources and knowledge tends to be more limited, having a direct impact on livelihood opportunities. Support for farmers’ organisations therefore remains critical to the achievement of sustainable livelihoods. (iii) Many different types of FO exist (membership, non-membership, project inspired or traditional groups…) – strongest seem to be those of voluntary association with strong economic activities or a strong and diversified funding base (e.g. FUGN). When they have a solid membership base, and a coherent set of objectives derived from members core interests, and usually a set of successful economic activities, they can increase the voice of farmers and their influence on public and private sector organisations – and even improve their influence on agricultural policy. (iv) Farmers’ organisations are usually successful advocates for their members and effective intermediaries where there is an enabling political and institutional environment, including: legislation guaranteeing freedom of association and encouraging the formation of groups for economic and social activities and giving them legal recognition; decentralisation of political authorities and central technical ministries (agriculture, research, extension); effective local, regional and national coordination bodies - perhaps linked to regional level decentralised local government authorities - that bring together, and give equal voice to, representatives of all the actors concerned with rural development. The ways in which farmers’ organisations are represented in these structures must be clarified, however (e.g. farmers’ chosen representatives participating at all stages of decision-making processes) and sustainable funding arrangements that allow them to work properly need to be established; availability of donor funding to facilitate capacity building, the construction of national farmers’ movements, access to technical inputs and credit, and improved marketing networks; development-oriented agricultural service organisations committed to a consultative approach, and experienced in participatory methodologies, sociological analysis, systemic approaches and bottom-up approaches to priority setting; public agricultural research organisations that are stable and financially secure, with an ability and willingness to respond to farmer demands and rapidly disseminate research results through farmers’ organisations. This may depend on secure international or private sector funding for public agricultural services given the reality of reduced availability of State funds. (v) Strong local organisations are key to building sustainable livelihoods. Farmers’ organisations have, when the conditions are right, been able to ensure that farmers have a voice in agricultural service delivery. They can be effective vehicles for empowerment of their members, where empowerment refers to people taking control of the development process. FO’s have the potential to empower individuals (FO members) and strengthen a community in its relations with outsiders and the wider society (including international agencies, political authorities and central government). However, this study showed the critical importance of supportive policies and an institutional environment to strengthen farmers’ organisations and their capacity to work together for common objectives, to enable them to effectively draw down services from agricultural service providers. Also, it showed that FO’s need to be federated at a regional or national level to gain influence or “a voice”. (vi) Relationships between policy makers, development organisations and development processes. Effective mechanisms for collaboration between actors is essential. Nevertheless, power relationships between the actors are complex. Farmers’ organisations that develop their own objectives and dynamic, gaining access to secure and diverse funds, often gain the power to request or demand agricultural services that are appropriate to their needs. However, government may sense a threat to its authority from overtly political farmers’ organisations and in this case public sector bodies may not wish to work in collaboration with them. (vii) The political context defines, to a large extent the depth of participation and downward accountability that can be achieved. In analysing the effectiveness of different policies and institutions that should increase downward accountability of agricultural service providers, care must be taken to remember that participation, participatory methodologies, farmers’ organisations and decentralisation can be used to opposing ends: to enfranchise rural populations, or to administer and control rural populations. The political context and political culture are central to understanding the effectiveness of different approaches. The idea of addressing the principle and practice of accountability introduces a specifically political component into discussions on agricultural service delivery that more often than not focus on largely functional and technocratic approaches. (viii) Farmers’ organisations and local organisations are part of the social and institutional context within which rural individuals and families construct and adapt their livelihoods. They are at the same time “social capital” for rural people and can constitute a political resource, or “political capital”. They are a resource in themselves and also institutions that mediate access to resources (such as physical capital – mills, presses etc). (ix) In summary, this research shows that the analysis of policy, institutions and processes is critical for the development of the SL approach because it is these that shape the environment within which people gain access to assets and knowledge. They can also build the required capacity among rural people to find ways of transforming these into positive livelihood outcomes. 8. GAPS AND QUESTIONS The research presented here left a few key questions unanswered and these merit further investigation within the context of the policy, institutions and processes aspects of SL. What is the impact of politics and power relations on the performance of farmers’ organisations? Who benefits and who loses from farmers’ organisations? Should the ability to command political weight at a local, regional or national level be included in the SL framework as “political capital” – given that this can be key in gaining access to and building assets and income? How can the analysis of inequalities (e.g. of gender, class, race, assets/income) and power imbalances within organisations be linked to assessments of their potential for linkages with agricultural services? How can we know or predict when and where farmers’ organisations are, or are not, likely to be effective partners for agricultural research and technology development? What is the place and role of the private sector in relation to local community based organisations in partnerships for extension and research? Are organisations as important for urban development and urban communities as they are for rural development as a whole, and agricultural research and technology development in particular? Are sector-based organisations more successful in achieving positive livelihood outcomes for their members than organisations with multiple activities and interests? What are the reasons that may explain why experiences of strong FO / agricultural service provider relations seem more common in francophone than in anglophone countries in the region? 9. FURTHER READING Bosc, P.M.B., et al, , 1999. CORAF Initiative: Strengthening Research-Extension-Farmers’ Organisation Linkages in West and Central Africa. Overview Paper, CORAF/ODI/CIRAD/ITAD. June Bosc, P.M.B., et al, , 1999. CORAF Initiative: Strengthening Research-Extension-Farmers’ Organisation Linkages in West and Central Africa. Annotated Bibliography, CORAF/ODI/CIRAD/ITAD. June Bourdel, C., Hussein, K., Oyep, J.E., Zoundi, J. 1999. Renforcer la collaboration entre la recherche, la vulgarisation et les organisations paysannes en Afrique de l’ouest et du centre - Etude de terrain Burkina-Faso, CORAF/ODI/CIRAD/ITAD. Mai. Dulcire, M., Hussein, K., and Oyep, J.E., 1999. Initiative CORAF : Renforcer la collaboration entre la recherche, la vulgarisation et les organisations paysannes en Afrique de l’ouest et du centre – Etudes de terrain Cameroun. A study prepared for CORAF, UK DFID and the French Ministère de la Coopération. CORAF/ODI/CIRAD/ITAD. Mai. Dulcire, M., Hussein, K., Oyep, J.E., and Zoundi, J. 1999. CORAF Initiative: Strengthening Research-Extension-Farmers’ Organisation Linkages in West and Central Africa. Field Studies: Ghana. A study prepared for CORAF, UK DFID and the French Ministère de la Coopération. CORAF/ODI/CIRAD/ITAD. May. Hussein, K., Sibelet, N., Oyep, J.E., and Zoundi, J. 1999. CORAF Initiative: Strengthening Research-Extension-Farmers’ Organisation Linkages in West and Central Africa. Field Studies: The Gambia. A study prepared for CORAF, UK DFID and the French Ministère de la Coopération. CORAF/ODI/CIRAD/ITAD. May. Eponou, T., 1996. Partners in Technology Generation and Transfer: Linkages between Research and Farmers’ Organizations in Three Selected African Countries. ISNAR, Research Report 9. Gill, G. and Carney, D., 1999. Competitive Agricultural Technology Funds in Developing Countries. ODI. Ribot, J.C., 1999a. Decentralisation, Participation and Accountability in Sahelian Forestry: Legal mechanisms of political-administrative control in Africa 69 (1) Ribot, J.C., 1999b. Integral Local Development: Authority, Accountability and Entrustment in Natural Resource Management. RPTES Working Paper. AFT, The World Bank. 10. RELEVANT WEB-SITES CIRAD: http://www.cirad.fr/presentation/programmes/agri-fam/org.shtml Cirad-Tera (Dept Territoires, environnement et acteurs), Programme Agricultures Familiales presents its work programme and key researchers. Pierre-Marie Bosc is the contact point for work on farmers’ organisations, and partnerships between FO’s and agricultural service providers. CIRAD provided 4 team members for the CORAF Initiative study presented above. ODI: www.oneworld.org/odi/rpeg ODI coordinated and provided several team members for the CORAF Initiative study presented above. The full set of CORAF Initiative reports will soon be available on this site. WECARD/CORAF: www.coraf.org WECARD/CORAF requested the research presented here and financed part of the study (alongside UK DFID and the French Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres). A member of the research team was provided by CORAF and it organised a stakeholder workshop to discuss the study’s results in Dakar in January 1999. World Bank: http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd/essd.nsf/producer/casestudies Extensive web-site on “empowering producer organisations” highlights the results and proceedings of an international workshop held in Washington DC in June 1999. It provides numerous case studies of partnerships between agricultural service providers and producer organisations across the developing world. Six case studies are drawn from the CORAF Initiative study presented above. Other useful sites to consult: Club du Sahel (OECD):www.oecd.org/sah Fondation Rurale de L’Afrique de l’Ouest / West Africa Rural Foundation (FRAO/WARF): www.frao.org IFAP: www.ifap.org The International Federation of Agricultural Producers – which jointly hosted the Washington workshop on producer organisations with the World Bank in 1999. Inter-Réseaux: www.rio.net/Inter-Reseaux An organisations supported by the French Government to carry out networking and information sharing between rural development actors, including farmers organisations, in developing countries. ISNAR: www.isnar.org/publications International Service for National Agricultural Research which has a number of publications on the theme of linkages between farmers’ organisations, research and extension in Africa. World Resources Institute: www.igc.org/wri/sustag/npsa-hom.html Publications of research on farmer empowerment and expansion of partnerships between farmers, communities, NGO’s and other actors to achieve sustainable agriculture (Thrupp). Work on accountability and decentralisation in West Africa (Ribot). GLOSSARY ENTRIES Farmers’ organisations: groups of rural producers coming together to found organisations, based on the principle of free membership, to pursue specific common interests of their members – developing technical and economic activities that benefit their members and maintaining relations with partners operating in their economic and institutional environment. Upward accountability: The need of service providers to satisfy the demands of their funders, and in the case of public services, the State. This usually involves meeting criteria such as transparency, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, achievement of policy objectives, and being tied to market forces of supply and demand. Downward accountability: Accountability of service providers to local populations and end users of agricultural services. Here it also referes to accountability with empowerment: for example, linkages between agricultural service providers, farmers and their representatives that are successful in empowering farmers to control the process of agricultural technology development. 1 GLOSSARY entry : Agricultural service providers - which are seen here as private and public agricultural research and extension, and capacity building for community development 2 In 1999, CORAF took the name “the West and central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development (WECARD)” in English. 3 FUGN: Fédération des Groupements Naam 4 FPFD: Fédération des Paysans du Fouta Djallon 5 FNPCG: Fédération Nationale des Producteurs de Café de Guinée 6 This project intervenes to support the intervening parties of the whole system, we meet this again in the three cases studied in the Cameroon 7 PDEA: Projet de Diversification des Exportations Agricoles 8 DPGT: Projet Développement Paysannal de Gestion de Terroirs Download 133.97 Kb. Share with your friends:
|