SMALL-FARMS-L Archives

Moderated e-mail conference on small farms and food security

SMALL-FARMS-L@LISTSERV.FAO.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

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

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Date:
Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:25:06 +0000
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (14 kB) , text/html (22 kB)
Hi everyone,



A new influx of mails regarding topic #6 on policies and small farmers :-)

As a moderator, it is fascinating to be able to combine input on the same topic, like in this aggregated mail from India, Scotland, USA, Australia, Netherlands, Italy, meshed with examples within the emails from China, Kenya etc.. Keep this input coming, all!



Note: several of the participants are also asking for your input (I marked them in yellow, in their contributions)





Q6.1/4 - Question: "6.1.  What are the policies (international, national or local) in your region that affect the viability and development of small farms, and small farms’ decision making regarding the amount and type of food produced and their ambitions regarding market integration?"



1/ From: Dominic Duckett <[log in to unmask]> (UK)

I am a social scientist at the James Hutton Institute in Scotland, working on the SALSA project. I am interested in how farmers cope with risks posed by wildlife and production versus conservation trade-offs in agricultural systems.



When questioned about constraints to agricultural productivity, small farmers throughout Europe and Africa, (interviewed for the SALSA project), point to predatory and destructive wild animals. Wild animals are nothing new but the conservation context and the constraints imposed on farmers are. We are living in an era of rewilding and species reintroductions in which conservation and ecological values drive policies promoting farming practices that increase rather than decrease the presence of select wildlife.

Farmers are incentivised to participate in conservation schemes and are penalized over traditional control practices including hunting. From Kenya’s elephants and Norway’s wolverines to ground-nesting birds on Scotland’s western islands, conservation governance is affecting rural spaces. Colonising influences are both urban and international with citizens in distant countries effectively petitioning governments, often through international NGO’s such as WWF, to protect iconic species or otherwise produce newly hybridized landscapes. Impacts are felt on the remotest of farms.



SALSA is interested to hear about and discuss related experiences of small farmers and their advisors across Europe and Africa dealing with rapidly evolving conservation governance affecting the farming world.



(Moderator: If I may chip in here, Dominic, with an example from my limited experience. My home base is on the Belgian countryside, with quite some small farmers around. Since about 3-4 years, foxes re-appeared in larger numbers, in our area. However the hunt on foxes is only legally allowed in specific periods, which allowed the fox population to expand rapidly. As a consequence, small farmers in the area lost all poultry - Personally, I lost all my ducks, geese and chickens. Some of the farmers in the area also claimed foxes are attacking their goats and sheep, in the sheds at night. A conflict, as you mention, between nature conservation and farming, with policies trying to play catch-up.. — Peter.)





2/ From: Sigfrido Burgos <[log in to unmask]> (USA)

My name is Ziggy, former FAO consultant at AGA for Africa and SE Asia, now lecturing in the US.



From experience I can tell you that when transboundary avian diseases strike in any given country the immediate action of livestock or veterinary departments is to stamp out flocks to control disease spread and contagion. But this is a reactive measure, oftentimes not grounded on research or field evidence. Careful consideration during disease outbreak must be paid to geographical exactitude given that blanket killing of birds results in loss of productive assets that are normally used three ways: as a source of eggs and meat for internal consumption (cheap source of protein); as a source of income by selling eggs, meats, viscera, feathers; and a source of savings, by keeping investment in livestock that can be transferred or exchanged in the future (or in certain cultures as payments, as religious offer, as dowry, and as donation).



A policy measure that considers the above is one that encourages a census of livestock in rural areas, with estimated numbers of animals and productive area details, along with a background process of disease surveillance and detection, so that "bad" farmers are differentiated from "good" farmers, and also to distinguish the specific areas where disease occurs so that measures can be targeted and surgical. One has to remember that people's livelihoods are at stake, and that poverty, nutrition, and family empowerment are interconnected in a myriad of ways in rural smallholding communities.





Q6.2/5 - Question: "6.2.  Can you give specific examples of how these policies have affected small-farm decision-making?"



1/ From: Dr.Mahesh Chander <[log in to unmask]> (India)



An interesting paper, entitled "Pursuing sustainable productivity with millions of smallholder farmers<https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25785>", published in Nature volume 555, pages 363–366 (15 March 2018) reports the outcome of nationally coordinated efforts over a 10-year period that encouraged 20.9 million smallholders to adopt enhanced management technologies for greater yield and reduced environmental pollution in China.



This paper, presents the results of 13,123 field trials that tested the applicability of a comprehensive decision-support integrated soil–crop system management (ISSM) program for growing maize, rice and wheat across China’s vast agroecological zones. It also, describes the coordinated campaigns, leading to the implementation of ISSM-based management in farmland with a total of 37.7 million cumulative hectares over the years (2005–2015). Finally, it discusses scenarios for pursuing sustainable productivity in the entire country and the potential impacts on grain output and selected environmental indices. Engaging farmers to adopt those recommendations involved the collaboration of a core network of 1,152 researchers with numerous extension agents and agribusiness personnel.



From 2005 to 2015, about 20.9 million farmers in 452 counties adopted enhanced management practices in fields with a total of 37.7 million cumulative hectares over the years. Average yields (maize, rice and wheat) increased by 10.8–11.5%, generating a net grain output of 33 million tonnes (Mt). At the same time, application of nitrogen decreased by 14.7–18.1%, saving 1.2 Mt of nitrogen fertilizers. The increased grain output and decreased nitrogen fertilizer use were equivalent to US$12.2 billion. Estimated reactive nitrogen losses averaged 4.5–4.7 kg nitrogen per Megagram (Mg) with the intervention compared to 6.0–6.4 kg nitrogen per Mg without. Greenhouse gas emissions were 328 kg, 812 kg and 434 kg CO2 equivalent per Mg of maize, rice and wheat produced, respectively, compared to 422 kg, 941 kg and 549 kg CO2 equivalent per Mg without the intervention.

On the basis of this large-scale survey (8.6 million farmer participants) and scenario analyses, the potential impacts of implementing the enhanced management practices on China’s food security and sustainability outlook has been demonstrated in this large project focused on small scale farmers in China.



The purpose to discuss this paper here is to know if such efforts are being made elsewhere too with what outcomes towards improving the productivity, profitability, employment and livelihoods of small scale farmers.



In India, for instance, currently a big project, called "Farmer FIRST Programme" (.PDF link here<http://icar.org.in/files/ApproachuidelinesforFarmerFIRST-04022016.pdf>) is under implementation. The Farmer FIRST Programme (FFP) is an ICAR initiative to move beyond the production and productivity, to privilege the smallholder agriculture and complex, diverse and risk prone realities of majority of the farmers through enhancing farmers-scientists interface.

There are concepts and domains that are new in emphasis like resource management, climate resilient agriculture, production management including storage, market, supply chains, value chains, innovation systems, information systems, etc. The Farmer FIRST as a concept of ICAR is developed as farmer in a centric role for research problem identification, prioritization and conduct of experiments and its management in farmers’ conditions.



The focus is on farmer’s Farm, Innovations, Resources, Science and Technology (FIRST). Two terms ‘enriching knowledge’ and ‘integrating technology’ qualify the meaning of Farmer FIRST in Indian context. The outcomes of this nationwide project will be known on or after 2020. This has certainly brought small holders in focus as many interventions are currently being made to improve the life and livelihood of small scale farmers.



I would like to know more on (and examples of) such national level evidence based interventions of long term nature.





_________________________________





Q6.3/4 - Question: "6.3.  What are the most critical policies that are needed in your region to support small farm development and increase their role in food and nutrition security in the (regional) food system?"



1/ From: Prof Paul Iji <[log in to unmask]> and Edwin Chang’a <[log in to unmask]> (Australia)

(Moderator: I am re-using an excerpt from a response Paul and Edwin have submitted to Q4.1 - as it relates to policies too - Be it required new policies or enactment of existing policies)



To address the main problems identified in Q4.1, we believe that the most important intervention would be in the area of government policy enactment.  There is a need for the setting of feed quality standards.  The SME producers rely on feed suppliers, to feed their stock.  It would be useful for them to receive feed that meets the nutrient requirements of the poultry and is consistent in quality.  It is possible for SME producers to make their own feeds, as some of them already do, but commercial feed formulation is an art and science, which is difficult for non-nutritionists to understand.  There is a need to re-develop feed formulation in a way that can be understood by SME farmers.  Feed ingredients can be measured with traditional standards rather than metric.  This is easy to apply on major ingredients but practically, minor nutrient requirements are often met once the requirements for most of the major nutrients are met.



2/ From: Ruud Bronkhorst <[log in to unmask]> (Netherlands)



I think it is important that policies are designed in such a way that the small farmer receives a ‘fair’ price for his products. This means such a price that he can have a ‘Living Income’. With sufficient income the farmer can both look after the food security needs of the family and as well invest in necessary inputs. Fair prices have their effect on the whole economy. ISEAL Alliance is coordinating calculation methods for Living Income, and I have published a ‘Guide How to Calculate Fair Prices’  (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310133756_Guide_How_To_Calculate_Fair_Prices).



3/ From: Mayank Jain <[log in to unmask]> (India)

(Moderator- As an example of a critical policies in India to support small farm development)



The scheme for the Creation/Expansion of Food Processing and Preservation Capacities (CEFPPC) under the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Sampada Yojana (Ed: "Scheme for Agro-Marine Processing and Development of Agro-Processing Clusters<http://mofpi.nic.in/Schemes/pradhan-mantri-kisan-sampada-yojana>") launched in May, 2017 by the Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Government of India, 400 Food Processing Units would be set up in the country for which financial assistance by MOFPI in the form of Grants-in-Aid up to Rs.5 Crore (~50 million) to eligible organizations such as Central and State PSUs/Joint Ventures/Farmer Producer Organizations(FPOs)/NGOs/Cooperatives/Self-Help-Group(SHG’s)/Public and Private companies/Corporate entity/ Proprietorship firms/Partnership Firms.



Putting in perspective, India processes less than 10% of it's actual produce as compared to Malaysia, Indonesia (which do about 70-80%); With launch of this policy, Ministry's focus Food processing as the bridge between the industry and farming.



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

(Viviane said: This e-conference is a great opportunity to share ideas and way of life — Thanks, Viviane!)



Multinational (large) agricultural firms seem afraid of our quality of life, (and here in Italy e.g.) our fantastic quality of food and traditional know-how.

They try to cut the competition by producing contracts that choke the small farms in every way… and they have the political support.



Something interesting is (to counter this, is) the collaboration between industrial agriculture and farms: for instance we (as small farmers) had a problem with a crop that had diseases and was not performing well. There were centres who knew how to cure and clean the seeds, and they did the job with us.



Another example on the advantage for small farms is the “characterisation" of a wine crop: you study the micro organism fauna and flora that helps your crop to grow sturdy and healthy and it gives personality to your land, and your production.



Italy ‘s very good reputation on food is based on family farming, which represents 70% of all the agriculture population. As you all understand, cooperation between farms is very important. (Official) institutions are surprised to learn that the excellences of the food comes from small farms, in villages less with than 4000 people (and NOT from larger industrial farms). While in the old days aggregation between farms was at the basis of the Italian agriculture (small farms are still at the basis of it, today).



(Moderator: Viviane’s input, begs to ask if national or regional policies should then protect small farms, versus  perceived “unfair” competition from larger multi-national farms. While Viviane’s input is on Italy, I am sure we can apply this question for virtually every country.

With the additional questions:

- who can give examples on the status/conflict/competition of small farms versus larger industrial farms. Can small farms still compete “fairly" with large industrial/multi-national farms? If policies would be needed to protect small farms, what would those policies need to be, according to you?

- is it even feasible to protect small farms versus larger industrial farming through policies - knowing the industrial farming companies - as Viviane points out - often have the political backing)











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



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