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
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:37:32 +0000
text/plain (9 kB) , text/html (15 kB)
Hi all,



Here is the most recent input received on Topic #1: "Cooperation among small farms"



Q1.1/6: “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: Teresa Pinto Correia <[log in to unmask]> (Portugal)

I am Teresa Pinto Correia - I am the coordinator of SALSA



I would like to raise a question related to this topic. In Southern European countries there are soft skills required for a fruitful colaboration among small farmers, which is an issue. 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?



2/ From: Yakubu Musah <[log in to unmask]> (Ghana)

I am Yakubu Musah currently consulting for the Palladium group in Ghana.



Cooperation between small farmers have not been very successful in Ghana, with the exception of a few, the popular Kuapa Kokoo farmers cooperatives and the new Masara N'arziki Maize Farmers association, who have given a new breath to farmer cooperation.



Masara N’Arziki Farmers Association (MAFA) is farmer owned and governed association formed in Northern Ghana in 2010, a joint venture between maize farmers and the inputs suppliers Wienco Ghana and Yara Ghana. Wienco and Yara are  input distribution companies and use this arrangement to reach out to farmers to sell their inputs and have built 16000MT and 8000MT capacity warehouses in Tamale and Tumu respectively to aggregate and store produce from the program. Masara N’arziki (in Hausa literally means "Maize is wealth") is incorporated as a company limited by guarantee and has its headquarters in Tamale. To qualify and be registered as a farmer for the program, one has to be



1. Willing to belong to a group of between 5 to 12 farmers

2. Willing to sign the farmer’s resolution and the MAFA contract forms (agreeing to sell all produce to MAFA).

3. Willing to co-guarantee other farmers for the cost of the inputs and

4. Willing to cultivate a minimum of two hectors individually and en-block (with each farmer cultivating two or more hectors of the 10-20 hectors).



The package to the farmers includes inputs (seeds, herbicides, fertilizers, insecticides, and optional use of a planting dibbler and sprayer), agronomic training, and extension and business development services.  The program has already reached some 15000 farmers cultivating on average 4.5ha of maize.



The main merits of the program are:

a.        The high yielding varieties of maize introduced together with the training and extension ensures optimum yields.

b.       Inputs are delivered on time because Wienco is able to plan ahead for the program.

c.        There is a guaranteed market for the produce from the farmer.



The down side of the program includes

a.        The MAFA contract bind farmers to sell all their produce to MAFA, However, farmers typically keep a subsistence percentage without permission from MAFA.

b.       The nonnegotiable nature of the package leaves farmers with no say, MAFA sets the prices of inputs and produce and even the harvest dates. (This may lead to side selling by farmers and late harvesting could also lead to pre harvest losses).

c.        Farms have to be adjacent each other and this excludes a lot of farmers who would want to join.



Wienco also intends to invest in a maize mill with MAFA as a shareholder in order to increase the farmers’ revenue.



Beside these two examples one can hardly find any other successful cooperation between farmers that have worked in Ghana and the success of these two seem to have been hinged on the scale/size of their operation. their large size seem to give them economies of scale that contributed to their success.



Q1.2/5 “Question: 1.2.:  Could you provide specific examples of the advantages and/or disadvantages of cooperation among small farms?"



1/ From: Viviane CdV <[log in to unmask]> (Italy)

Advantages:

For our leading product we looked for a national food certification for an old plant, whose recipe was more than 100 years old.  We also secured certification for some typical products such as the honey or  fruit jams … The collaboration gave us strength and bound us.



Because we had an (official) association (cooperative/collaborative), the institutions such as the Province or the Region, financed a processing plant for the transformation/processing  of our products.

At the beginning collaboration in these plants, was difficult. Some didn’t want to work together, but with certain rules, they did: We established two shifts: a day shift and a night shift one 18.00 to midnight.

Advantages became obvious: it was much easier to organise the harvest. While not having any individual cop stock or bottles sharing might be confusing, slowly groups formed and stuck together. We became experts in these flower products, together



Disadvantages/challenges:

- We have high transportation fees to get to the markets.

- While working together, on the same product, in the end, we are still compete with each other

- On a market, we have to be only one farm with these products, because otherwise the benefits are divided by two or more.

- When 7 of us pulled together into one “association” (cooperative/collaborative), this association had to pay common taxes. How to divide these amongst members?

- Forming a formal organisation, meant we had to hire a business consultant/accountant - how should we divide the cost for that?

- How do you elect your governing structure (e.g. who presides your association)?



2/ From: Sandra Šūmane <[log in to unmask]> (Latvia)



I am Sandra Šūmane, sociologist, working at Baltic Studies Centre, Latvia, a team-member of Salsa project.



In Latvia, few small farmers are involved in cooperatives or other formal collective organisations. When this is the case, farmers witness that participation in cooperatives improve their production capacity (through collaborative learning of good practices, shared equipment, access to inputs) and their market access by providing joint infrastructure (for instance, fruit storage facilities are crucial to postpone and prolong selling period), joint contracts with bigger retailers, and relevant market information (for instance, on consumers’ preferences). Apart from market-related advantages, collective organisations are also important for farmers’ social networking, meeting fellows and mutual moral support.



Definitely, in response to the question “Can formal cooperatives work?” the answer is yes in Latvia.  However, it has to be mentioned that there are no small farmers’ cooperatives in Latvia – existing cooperatives join farmers of various sizes; and this may be one of the success factors (as mentioned by other contributors, small farmers have little and irregular surplus to sell which makes organisation of constant supplies more challenging). In addition, there are no state-run/-initiated cooperatives in Latvia, but there is state support to recognized (those fulfilling certain criteria) agricultural cooperatives. Professional leadership and loyal members are another crucial elements of cooperatives’ success.



Contrary to poor engagement in formal cooperation, informal cooperation is widespread among Latvian small farmers, similarly like presented here by the evidences from other countries. Small farmers exchange agricultural products, resources, services, labour. This informal cooperation serves for reducing monetary costs for needed services, inputs, food. But it has developed and farmers perceive it as a matter-of-course, indispensable part of their neighbourhood relations based on approachability, responsiveness and reciprocity. „We all are neighbours here, we have to live together,” as one of small farmer states. This informal cooperation is embedded in and regenerates their local social relations. A particular form of informal economic cooperation among small farms is a barter. Around half of the interviewed Latvian small farmers in SALSA project were involved in non-monetary barter activities with neighbouring farmers and businesses. Examples of such barter involve leasing farmland to a neighbouring farmer who helps in turn with machinery to cultivate and harvest the farmer’s fields; receiving neighbour’s help and machinery when time comes to bale the grass, and paying back with sheep meat or vegetables.



Q1.4/4: “Question: 1.4 : In what way does gender influence cooperation among small farms? Please share experiences from your region.”



From: Odeh Sabarna <[log in to unmask]> (Palestine)

In Palestine, women's cooperatives play a large role in increasing the income of small farmers through the manufacturing of agricultural products, especially while processing the surplus. They market the produce as collective and they are now trained in the fair trade system (from product to consumer)





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



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