SMALL-FARMS-L Archives

Moderated e-mail conference on small farms and food security

SMALL-FARMS-L@LISTSERV.FAO.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:07:34 +0000
text/plain (11 kB) , text/html (16 kB)
Hi everyone,

As we received a lot of input already in the past two weeks, we get more and more replies/queries relating to previous input, and additional questions as well.
This is really good, as this provides more and more interactions between all e-conference participants. It is slightly more challenging to separate these into specific the questions, as much input cross the question-topic “borders” - but we nevertheless aggregate these for each of the topics.

As we’re going into our last week of the e-conference, I encourage all to go through these aggregation emails carefully, as some replies or inputs received recently might refer to YOUR past inputs…

Ready? Ok, here we go with an aggregation on Topic #1: “Cooperationn among small farms” - which continues to be a real hot topic :-)


Q1.1/8 - Question: "1.1 What are different experiences of small farms’ cooperation in other regions? How has this changed over the past 10 years?”

1/ From: Manuela Bucciarelli <[log in to unmask]> (Italy)
This is a reply to the input from Mahesh, and the question from Teresa.

Teresa asked: "Small farmers, as many other groups in society, do not have the soft skills which are needed for cooperation to be established with a larger group, in the long run. Is this an issue in other contries and how is the issue tackled, to enhance the cooperation skills?”

Mahesh answered (excerpt): “(..) Though not addressed much in formal documents, soft skills matter elsewhere too! Many a time groups fail due to misunderstandings, conflicts, lack of empathy or simply poor communication ability and lack of common sense & trust deficit including inability to see things from larger perspectives. (..)"

Manuela’s input:
We agree with Mahesh that soft skills are often neglected in formal documents. Regional studies<http://www.fao.org/3/a-bc466e.pdf> conducted in 2013 by FAO, highlighted that capacity development interventions are frequently not coordinated and do not address key institutional and organizational dimensions.  At this regard, the Tropical Agriculture Platform (TAP) <http://tapipedia.org/framework> developed a framework (on Capacity Development for Agricultural Innovation Systems) which addresses specifically soft skills, defined as  functional capacities, needed for an individual or groups to work effectively in an innovation system.   Functional capacities include strategic planning and implementation, ability to formulate and implement relevant policies and norms, capacity to manage knowledge, the ability to build and maintain partnerships, or the ability to navigate the political dimensions of organizations. The TAP framework  includes approaches and methodologies to address gaps in these capacities and identified 4 fundamental functional capacities:
·  Capacity to Navigate Complexity
·  Capacity to Collaborate
·  Capacity to Reflect and Learn
·  Capacity to Engage in Strategic and Political Processes
These capacities lead to an overarching Capacity to Adapt and Respond in order to Realize the Potential of Innovation.

Under the TAP initiative, the project CDAIS<http://cdais.net/home/> (Capacity development for agricultural innovation system) supports the development of functional capacities of organizations and individuals, including smallholder farmers, working through innovation partnerships and supports them to identify and strengthen their capacities needs.

For more details, we invite you to check the TAP web page<http://www.fao.org/in-action/tropical-agriculture-platform/en/>. The Common Framework is available in an interactive format on the web portal TAPipedia<http://tapipedia.org/framework> in three languages (English, French and Spanish), where you can access and exchange knowledge and resources on Capacity Development (CD) for Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS).

(For all:) Any resource you might have on soft skills development in the context of agriculture is very welcome in TAPipedia!

2/ From: Mayank Jain <[log in to unmask]> (India)
(Mayank answers to the same request for input, from Teresa:)

In response to the question on soft skills:
I think, as a prerequisite, having soft skills is required when one is engaged in any thing which demands/seeks support of other people/stakeholder. So it becomes an essential characteristic which is sector-agnostic.

Second, I would like to share couple of points (experiences) in light of the same:
a. As I engage myself with local communities, as a strategy and need; I have to seek their support and it requires a trust building also. The work eases when you get someone from the community who empathize with you and bridges the gap by facilitating communication. So one has to identify these people and hone them, and encourage them taking care of their inhibitions that makes thing much easier to proceed. For me this strategy has particularly work out well, but yes, it requires scouting and nurturing.
b. There are natural & reluctant leaders everywhere, crux lies in finding them and making them part of the ecosystem. That's the mantra I follow.

Q1.2/6-Q1.3/6-Q1.4/6 - Combined answer
Here are combined answers and replies on questions 1.2 - 1.3 -1.4. (and in a way it relates to the “Policy questions on topic #6 too): The questions at hand were:
1.2.  Could you provide specific examples of the advantages and/or disadvantages of cooperation among small farms?
1.3.  Are there any forms of collaboration between small farms that work particularly well? Why? How does the size of the farm affect cooperation?
1.4    In what way does gender influence cooperation among small farms? Please share experiences from your region.

From: Julien de Meyer <[log in to unmask]> (Mauritius)
My name is Julien de Meyer, I am an agricultural scientist based in Mauritius and have worked in the past with CIMMYT and for FAO and currently work as a consultant in agriculture. Thank you for setting up this interesting conference. During my time in FAO, the Research and Extension team participated in the EU funded SOLINSA project and we wrote a case study on agriculture innovation about the production system in South Tyrol (http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3789e.pdf ). I am presenting some of our finding here in response to some of your questions.

On 1.2.  Could you provide specific examples of the advantages and/or disadvantages of cooperation among small farms?
At the end of the second world war, the apple producing farmers in South Tyrol (a region in the north of Italy) were faced with many constraints, among them was a lack of labor, high production cost and lack of access to finance or advisory services. A majority of the orchards in this region are between 0.1 to 1.5 Ha, but some larger ones exist. The farmers decided to re-create a cooperative to support their production system. In the last 50 years, the region has become a world leader in apple production and has been very resilient to the various economic shocks experienced by the industry. The advantage of the cooperation were various and are well known: Pooling of resources to setup an extension system, creation of cooperative storage area to aggregate production of small farms for better sale, creation of a mechanical pool etc… the list is long and includes all the advantages that are known and that should work in “theory”. Some of the participants in this conference have presented experience where formal collaboration did not work in practice… so why not ?

We found that one of the key factor for success was for the innovation system to be able to evolve with the needs of the farmer, we write that:” The network’s development was influenced by formal and informal mechanisms with a strong social learning component. Formal mechanisms can be found at policy, institutional and individual levels. Social learning aspects permeate the system. Learning in South Tyrol is linked to an outside and inside dynamic, both at individual and at collective level. The social capital created in this geographical cluster allows the development of the system by absorbing existing knowledge from others and creating knowledge.”

If we consider this as a key advantage for cooperation among small farm, so one of the response to 1.3  “Are there any forms of collaboration between small farms that work particularly well? Why? How does the size of the farm affect cooperation?”.   Would be that any form of collaboration between small farms will need to include trust and social learning aspect to work well.

We can as well infer other factors of success by looking at past contributions: E.S. Nijeassa (Q1.1/1)  writes that:  Small farm cooperation experience over the years has been carried out through family relationships or friendships between two or more households. Viviane Crosa (Q1.1/5) explains how her innovation system was born and has evolved and Hadji OUsmane Ka (Q1.2/1) explains that cooperatives should not be setup by government, however they should be facilitated. In our example in South Tyrol, the system has started based on good relationships among a small group of farmers, was not set up by the government and kept evolving as all farmers participating could benefit immediately and see long-term advantages to the collaboration.

On the other hand, Solomon Elorm Allavi (Q1.1/1) notes that cooperative that sprung up in Ghana are weak, and Mayank Jayan (Q1.1/3) explains that sadly cooperative model failed in India or let's say it did not get much gestation period it was required. Sergiu Didiscu (Q1.1/3) as well explains in Eastern Europe many farmers reject cooperation, due to a lack of true cooperative tradition and negative experiences with forced cooperation during socialism. Maureen Duru (Q1.2/2) as well explains that where a person (or persons) set up an entity and then invite (or compel) others to join, without allowing them equal access to decision making process that will not work. Our findings demonstrate that in South Tyrol the collaboration between small farmers worked well. The system was not funded by outsiders, it was created by the farmers themselves who then looked for external financial and technical support. The governance of the system is important for its success as well. In South Tyrol, each farmers has one vote in the cooperative independent of the size of its farm (equal access). Finally, the innovation system we studied has decades of experience and so had a good gestation and growing period, and it was developed in a society that was used and accepted cooperatives.

So, our paper findings disagree with Ghulam Qadir Arbab, a cooperative system can be an excellent collaboration system and works very well in some parts of the world. The size of the farm did not affect cooperation, as small farmers (0.1 ha) and relatively larger farmer (over 5 ha) all had the same voice in the collaborative structure. Finally, innovation system needs to be inclusive, in South Tyrol the system started with small farmers, but could only become the success it is today, when it brought in all actors in innovation, education, research, academia, industry, transport etc…  These various actors had different importance at various time in the life of the AIS, however they always stayed engaged and always had a space to voice their opinions or concerns.


########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the SMALL-FARMS-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/scripts/wa-fao.exe?SUBED1=SMALL-FARMS-L&A=1


ATOM RSS1 RSS2